3 ms·

A big issue with those numbers is that they are actually trying to clean up even when its very much not cost effective. There's still an exclusion zone around F

A big issue with those numbers is that they are actually trying to clean up even when its very much not cost effective. There's still an exclusion zone around Fukishima even though everyone moving back to where they were would result in a cancer death toll that rounds to zero. Spending a billion dollars to avoid a radiation caused cancer death is a very poor use of resources given you could save a hundred lives with other causes of death with that amount.

Manuel_D 4y ago
The exclusion zone has actually since been lifted: https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/06/cdd1d2ce1e47-evacuation-order-lifted-in-fukushima-nuclear-plant-town-after-11-yrs.html https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/06/cdd1d2ce1e47-evac...
- Retric 4y ago
  While true, 11 years of neglect has it’s own costs. Even if people can move back there is little reason for most people to move back.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Any industrial accident causes pollution that has to be cleaned up and has an annular ring around the site you shouldn't be in. There are 1334 superfund cleanup sites in the US. Fukushima is in no way unusual in this regard except that nuclear waste is really easy to detect - with a geiger counter for instance - whereas something like PFAs aren't. We just don't call the area around superfund sites "exclusion zones." We learn and we improve for next time.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Compare Apples to Apples and it’s an extreme outlier. The quick response and extreme expenditure to contain and cleanup Fukushima mitigated it’s impact. But it’s not even close to being safe to walk away from today. By comparison almost all superfund sites would have been dealt with for a tiny fraction of the cost and effort, assuming a similarly prompt response.
    - labster 4y ago
      The main thing we learned from US Superfund sites is that it’s better to sell off old polluted assets to small shell companies that can go bankrupt instead of paying to clean up the environmental damage. Cleanups are always someone else’s problem — worst case, the retired CEO’s stock could lose its value — so there’s no real need to worry environmental safety.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yunohn 4y ago
> Spending a billion dollars to avoid a radiation caused cancer death is a very poor use of resources Not everything can be calculated so coldly! The gov absolutely has a responsibility to help people in an actual extreme situation like this versus the theoretical saving of people in future normal situations.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Because the lives of prostate cancer sufferers are worth less...
  - slt2021 4y ago
    do you have evidence that prostate cancer is not being treated in Japan? Last time I checked, medicine over there is pretty good

Manuel_D 4y ago

The exclusion zone has actually since been lifted: https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/06/cdd1d2ce1e47-evacuation-order-lifted-in-fukushima-nuclear-plant-town-after-11-yrs.html https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/06/cdd1d2ce1e47-evac...

Retric 4y ago
While true, 11 years of neglect has it’s own costs. Even if people can move back there is little reason for most people to move back.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Any industrial accident causes pollution that has to be cleaned up and has an annular ring around the site you shouldn't be in. There are 1334 superfund cleanup sites in the US. Fukushima is in no way unusual in this regard except that nuclear waste is really easy to detect - with a geiger counter for instance - whereas something like PFAs aren't. We just don't call the area around superfund sites "exclusion zones." We learn and we improve for next time.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Compare Apples to Apples and it’s an extreme outlier. The quick response and extreme expenditure to contain and cleanup Fukushima mitigated it’s impact. But it’s not even close to being safe to walk away from today. By comparison almost all superfund sites would have been dealt with for a tiny fraction of the cost and effort, assuming a similarly prompt response.
  - labster 4y ago
    The main thing we learned from US Superfund sites is that it’s better to sell off old polluted assets to small shell companies that can go bankrupt instead of paying to clean up the environmental damage. Cleanups are always someone else’s problem — worst case, the retired CEO’s stock could lose its value — so there’s no real need to worry environmental safety.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yunohn 4y ago

> Spending a billion dollars to avoid a radiation caused cancer death is a very poor use of resources Not everything can be calculated so coldly! The gov absolutely has a responsibility to help people in an actual extreme situation like this versus the theoretical saving of people in future normal situations.

concordDance 4y ago
Because the lives of prostate cancer sufferers are worth less...
- slt2021 4y ago
  do you have evidence that prostate cancer is not being treated in Japan? Last time I checked, medicine over there is pretty good