2 ms·
Thing is, they don't actually need to still be evacuated. Check out the radiation map of Japan: https://jciv.iidj.net/map/ https://jciv.iidj.net/map/ Look up
by concordDance 4y ago
Thing is, they don't actually need to still be evacuated.
Check out the radiation map of Japan: https://jciv.iidj.net/map/ https://jciv.iidj.net/map/
Look up where the evacuation zone is and the pre evacuation population numbers.
Then plug those numbers into the linear no threshold model (which is thought to overestimate risk).
I'm away from my computer for the holidays, but when I did the numbers you're looking at QALY losses an order of magnitude lower than that caused by the loss of home.
In general people (govs included) drastically overreact to radiation deaths. It makes no sense to spend a billion dollars to avoid one nuclear accident death when you can spend a billion dollars to avoid 100 prostate cancer deaths. Its literally not worth doing the remaining cleanup by any metric.
- mplanchard 4y agoAccording to farmers who live in the area and do their own scans, the government's radiation maps are not always correct: https://aeon.co/essays/life-in-fukushima-is-a-glimpse-into-our-contaminated-future?utm_source=rss-feed https://aeon.co/essays/life-in-fukushima-is-a-glimpse-into-o...