4 ms·

"Since the Fukushima meltdown - as a result of which, not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation - we know that nuclear power is safe." It

"Since the Fukushima meltdown - as a result of which, not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation - we know that nuclear power is safe." It seems to me like the primary danger from radiation like that leaked from Fukushima would be an increase in cancer. I think it's a little early to be claiming that Fukushima will cause no increase harm to humans. There is already evidence that it caused harm to the surrounding environment, though butterflies are admittedly much more fragile than humans. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/13274288-study-japan-nuclear-disaster-caused-mutated-butterflies?lite http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/13274288-study...

anigbrowl 14y ago
One of the interesting things about the pale grass butterfly results is that until now scientists considered such insects to be fairly resistant to environmental radiation at a genetic level, notwithstanding their physical delicacy. There are some references to this in the Nature paper. Those findings must be very disturbing to prospective or recent parents that lived in the vicinity of the nuclear plant.
- chc 14y ago
  The article isn't very specific on the specific vectors at work here, but from what the scientists did, it sounds like those butterflies were very close indeed and literally ate radioactive materials. So it may not be relevant to local parents unless their kids eat a lot of dirt right outside power plants.
  - crpatino 14y ago
    > ... unless their kids eat a lot of dirt ... You don't have any kids yourself, I take. They are entropy machines! You never know what stupid (from adult perspective) thing they are going to do next. Besides, it may be nitpicking, but kids eating dirt right outside power plants would die horrible deaths within days. It is the lesser doses in the rear by populated areas whose effects may not be so well understood.
    - adimitrov 14y ago
      > Besides, it may be nitpicking, but kids eating dirt right outside power plants would die horrible deaths within days. It is the lesser doses in the rear by populated areas whose effects may not be so well understood. Nah, it's not nitpicking. It's just totally wrong. The radiation that upon ingestion kills you is alpha/beta radiation, i.e. particle radiation. This radiation doesn't otherwise cause harm (except in very large doses,) because it's a particle radiation that can't penetrate solid matter. Nuclear reactors handle their fuel carefully (well, that's the default assumption. I don't know if all do,) and so, only gamma-radiation actually escapes the power plant, except in emergencies, of course. Gamma-radiation permeates through solid matter without too much difficulty (well, depending on the (amount of) matter, but the human body is basically translucent to gamma radiation. This is why X-Rays actually work.) and therefore it really doesn't matter whether the kids do ingest it or not. Now, coal power plants on the other hand are an entirely different thing. Fly Ash, which coal power plants exude in large quantities contains Thorium and Uranium in rather high concentrations. Ingesting that might indeed be hazardous, though I don't know if you'd die a "horrible death" from the amounts typically in the vicinity (around 1 mile or so) of coal power plants. Fun fact: coal power plants actually cause more radiation pollution to their surroundings than nuclear power plants (during normal operation.) EDIT: I was wrong, nuclear power plants also emit alpha and beta radiation, as well as gamma, neutron, neutrino and positron radiation and other stuff. But apparently in such small quantities that I really can't imagine anyone dying from eating the soil around a nuclear power plant. Proof: this is a German AKW (Atomkraftwerk, nuclear power plant) in Phillipsburg. Notice how it is entirely surrounded with fields where crops is grown? People and animals eat all this stuff. http://goo.gl/maps/jydz1 http://goo.gl/maps/jydz1 Actually, Biblis (another AKW) is even more impressive: http://goo.gl/maps/LP1Hi http://goo.gl/maps/LP1Hi
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - anigbrowl 14y ago
        That's great, but in this case we're discussing the environment around the Fukushima nuclear plant, where we have a distinctly abnormal radiological environment. The teratological damage we have observed in butterfly populations around that area is not necessarily going to show up in the human population or food chain, but I find it easy to see why people would lose sleep over the possibility: it is widely acknowledged that management of the nuclear plant and the Japanese government handled the situation poorly, so there is no reliable standard as yet by which to judge the safety of the affected population. Now, I'm in full agreement about the filthiness of coal plants, and that many objections to nuclear power are the result of ignorance. However, nuclear advocates simply can't afford to be glib about the safety issues.
jellicle 14y ago
Hah. The Register takes the IAEA statement, which says "To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident.", and turns it into the very different statement that no one WILL be harmed. I would give that a classification of Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire. Even though probably not very many people will get cancer that is traceable to the Fukushima disaster, it comes at a price - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LdLr5QPqPgI/Tukyjp5ZdRI/AAAAAAAAOLo/oq69MDZiFi8/s640/Fukushimazone.png http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LdLr5QPqPgI/Tukyjp5ZdRI/AAAAAAAAOL... - permanently abandoning several large towns.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  I agree that the Register, and Lewis Page in particular, tend to roll some what fast and loose, but that is why I don't go to them for authoritative news, mostly for puns. That said, this is inaccurate: permanently abandoning several large towns. As part of the process this risk is being evaluated, and while there are spots where some isotopes have concentrated (and will be cleaned up) the amount of radiation in all of the towns of Fukishima Prefecture is still less than the radiation the residents of Denver receive [1] [2]. So once the towns have been surveyed people will be allowed to move back. Reading the Economist the biggest challenge is that the Government would like to coalesce some towns to save money but that is causing complaints. [1] http://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic.html http://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic.html [2] http://isis-online.org/risk/tab7 http://isis-online.org/risk/tab7
learc83 14y ago
Someone posted an article a while back that estimated that the levels people were exposed to would lead to about 194 extra cancers. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044477240457758...
- Retric 14y ago
  Oddly enough that can sound good or bad but the wave directly caused ~15,000 deaths, so on that scale it's not really an issue.

anigbrowl 14y ago

One of the interesting things about the pale grass butterfly results is that until now scientists considered such insects to be fairly resistant to environmental radiation at a genetic level, notwithstanding their physical delicacy. There are some references to this in the Nature paper. Those findings must be very disturbing to prospective or recent parents that lived in the vicinity of the nuclear plant.

chc 14y ago
The article isn't very specific on the specific vectors at work here, but from what the scientists did, it sounds like those butterflies were very close indeed and literally ate radioactive materials. So it may not be relevant to local parents unless their kids eat a lot of dirt right outside power plants.
- crpatino 14y ago
  > ... unless their kids eat a lot of dirt ... You don't have any kids yourself, I take. They are entropy machines! You never know what stupid (from adult perspective) thing they are going to do next. Besides, it may be nitpicking, but kids eating dirt right outside power plants would die horrible deaths within days. It is the lesser doses in the rear by populated areas whose effects may not be so well understood.
  - adimitrov 14y ago
    > Besides, it may be nitpicking, but kids eating dirt right outside power plants would die horrible deaths within days. It is the lesser doses in the rear by populated areas whose effects may not be so well understood. Nah, it's not nitpicking. It's just totally wrong. The radiation that upon ingestion kills you is alpha/beta radiation, i.e. particle radiation. This radiation doesn't otherwise cause harm (except in very large doses,) because it's a particle radiation that can't penetrate solid matter. Nuclear reactors handle their fuel carefully (well, that's the default assumption. I don't know if all do,) and so, only gamma-radiation actually escapes the power plant, except in emergencies, of course. Gamma-radiation permeates through solid matter without too much difficulty (well, depending on the (amount of) matter, but the human body is basically translucent to gamma radiation. This is why X-Rays actually work.) and therefore it really doesn't matter whether the kids do ingest it or not. Now, coal power plants on the other hand are an entirely different thing. Fly Ash, which coal power plants exude in large quantities contains Thorium and Uranium in rather high concentrations. Ingesting that might indeed be hazardous, though I don't know if you'd die a "horrible death" from the amounts typically in the vicinity (around 1 mile or so) of coal power plants. Fun fact: coal power plants actually cause more radiation pollution to their surroundings than nuclear power plants (during normal operation.) EDIT: I was wrong, nuclear power plants also emit alpha and beta radiation, as well as gamma, neutron, neutrino and positron radiation and other stuff. But apparently in such small quantities that I really can't imagine anyone dying from eating the soil around a nuclear power plant. Proof: this is a German AKW (Atomkraftwerk, nuclear power plant) in Phillipsburg. Notice how it is entirely surrounded with fields where crops is grown? People and animals eat all this stuff. http://goo.gl/maps/jydz1 http://goo.gl/maps/jydz1 Actually, Biblis (another AKW) is even more impressive: http://goo.gl/maps/LP1Hi http://goo.gl/maps/LP1Hi
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      That's great, but in this case we're discussing the environment around the Fukushima nuclear plant, where we have a distinctly abnormal radiological environment. The teratological damage we have observed in butterfly populations around that area is not necessarily going to show up in the human population or food chain, but I find it easy to see why people would lose sleep over the possibility: it is widely acknowledged that management of the nuclear plant and the Japanese government handled the situation poorly, so there is no reliable standard as yet by which to judge the safety of the affected population. Now, I'm in full agreement about the filthiness of coal plants, and that many objections to nuclear power are the result of ignorance. However, nuclear advocates simply can't afford to be glib about the safety issues.

jellicle 14y ago

Hah. The Register takes the IAEA statement, which says "To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident.", and turns it into the very different statement that no one WILL be harmed. I would give that a classification of Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire. Even though probably not very many people will get cancer that is traceable to the Fukushima disaster, it comes at a price - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LdLr5QPqPgI/Tukyjp5ZdRI/AAAAAAAAOLo/oq69MDZiFi8/s640/Fukushimazone.png http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LdLr5QPqPgI/Tukyjp5ZdRI/AAAAAAAAOL... - permanently abandoning several large towns.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
I agree that the Register, and Lewis Page in particular, tend to roll some what fast and loose, but that is why I don't go to them for authoritative news, mostly for puns. That said, this is inaccurate: permanently abandoning several large towns. As part of the process this risk is being evaluated, and while there are spots where some isotopes have concentrated (and will be cleaned up) the amount of radiation in all of the towns of Fukishima Prefecture is still less than the radiation the residents of Denver receive [1] [2]. So once the towns have been surveyed people will be allowed to move back. Reading the Economist the biggest challenge is that the Government would like to coalesce some towns to save money but that is causing complaints. [1] http://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic.html http://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic.html [2] http://isis-online.org/risk/tab7 http://isis-online.org/risk/tab7

learc83 14y ago

Someone posted an article a while back that estimated that the levels people were exposed to would lead to about 194 extra cancers. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044477240457758...

Retric 14y ago
Oddly enough that can sound good or bad but the wave directly caused ~15,000 deaths, so on that scale it's not really an issue.