> I stopped reading when the author says evacuating the people from Fukushima was unnecessary. I disagree strongly on this. I think I can speak for a lot of p

> I stopped reading when the author says evacuating the people from Fukushima was unnecessary. I disagree strongly on this. I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say that I would be willing to trade of <some> risk of mortality in exchange for keeping and staying at my home (especially older people!). If you displace over 100000 people you need a good justification-- if you lack observable excess mortality from radiation in the non-evacuated population, you clearly, objectively overevacuated in my view. I do agree with the article that current regulation tends to focus too much on mitigating irrelevant/marginal risks (driving up costs too much), but I think this can still be true even though the resulting cumulative risk is too high: "Overregulation" is NOT a one-dimensional quantity.