3 ms·

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 n

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