16 ms·

Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

148 points by AndrewDucker 13y ago

_mulder_ 13y ago
Never mind that coal mining kills almost 6000 people a year, or that populations of coal-mining areas have death rates about 10 per cent higher than non-mining areas, or that coal emissions drive global warming. I'm fully in favour of nuclear power but using partial evidence and misleading comparisons to back up arguments does not help the cause. You can't compare the death toll of mining coal to the death toll of a nuclear accident and prove one is more dangerous than the other. They are completely different things having no common factors. How many people died mining Uranium? How many people die per MW produced for both fuels? How many people die in disasters at Coal Power plants?
- AndrewDucker 13y ago
  Here's your figures on deaths per TWh: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener...
- ars 13y ago
  > They are completely different things having no common factors. No common factors? Really? They are both used to make energy. Coal is 1,888 times more deadly than nuclear power when measured in deaths per MW. According to http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de... And that includes Chernobyl, and uses the worst case scenario for the effects of radiation! If you removed Chernobyl and used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis instead (which is more likely to be accurate) the deaths attributed to nuclear power would go even lower. Nuclear power is by far the safest form of energy on earth - it even beats solar power. It is so very very very stupid we don't get 80% of our energy from it.
  - onli 13y ago
    > And that includes Chernobyl, and uses the worst case scenario for the effects of radiation! I know he writes that, but the numbers used aren't mentioned and not easily to research, as far as i saw. I heavily doubt that statement. An article talking about "two failures" of nuclear plants isn't believable, there were quite a few more.
    - JanezStupar 13y ago
      All the benefits of solar/wind are not easy to research, as far as I saw. I heavily doubt that statement. Can you see what I did there?
      - winfred 13y ago
        The problem is that people will start falling off those windmills. Edit: Can someone provide me with the windmill related death statistics in the US?
      - onli 13y ago
        Not really. I think you try to shift who has to give sources for what, evading to try to disprove my articulated doubt of your citation with another source, like by citing which numbers were used.
        JanezStupar 13y ago
        Isn't it interesting that you are commenting on a comment __with__ sources, while providing none yourself. After I make a tongue in cheek comment to your comment. You flail more rethoric at me, demanding sources from me (?). You also accuse me of trying to invert the burden of proof, while like I said you haven't really offered a source. Here is a source for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
        onli 13y ago
        That is not what I wanted to do. Thing is: The article cited is spotty in that regard, I pointed that out (you don't need sources for that) and I didn't and still don't understand your answer to that comment of mine. I don't want to discuss meta nor personal, so that's it for me.
- sasoon 13y ago
  3 people died in uranium mines in the last 10 years So that is 3 vs. 60,000 deaths for mining
  - scarmig 13y ago
    That should be normalized for TWh, but the point stands, of course.
- relix 13y ago
  Every year 1MM lives are shortened from the exhaust of coal power plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coa...
- tehabe 13y ago
  The argument is wrong because coal is as bad as nuclear power. Both are limited, both are centralized systems and both have huge environmental impacts. Mining, transport, energy production, and also exhaust and waste. It should also be noted that coal mining is done the worst conditions you can think of. I'm very glad that by 2018, Germany will stop its coal production completely and not only because it is very expensive to get the coal in Germany. This is btw something you have with all fossil and nuclear sources. With time it will get more expensive to get to the fuel needed. And according to the German government, nuclear fuel comes only partially from mining. So mining is currently not delivering the fuel for all nuclear power plants running. The rest comes from old nuclear weapons and other sources, according to the German government. Also it should be noted that nuclear power was never really profitable. It might be with old plants now but with newer plants I think it is unlikely to earn a dime with nuclear power unless you get some kind of subsidy. The new EPR currently being build in Finland already costs 100% more than expected. With that money you could have installed enough windmills to cover those 1600 MW the EPR might provide. Nuclear power was used for about 50 years, it will leave us with waste for the next 100,000 to 1,000,000 years.
robbiep 13y ago
I would have thought that the evacuation response and the ability to restore water supply to the fuel rod cooling pools would have had a bit more to do with the lack of deaths than the safety of radiation disaster.. I support nuclear as An energy source but it really seems like we are doing it wrong at the moment - it costs too much, seems like we are, or have been using reactor designs that we probably shouldn't (ie they have meltdown risk in disasters vs other newer designs). However it speaks volumes about the changed political environment, and our environmental sensitivity these days, that a response to Japan's tsunami and nuclear shutdown was also the shutdown of German reactors and fast-tracked plans to transition away from nuclear from them and other countries.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  There are two separate issues here. One is the safety of radiation. This is a medical question. It can be tested in the laboratory, but we have enough "field experience" with it by now to know that it is indeed Very Bad News(tm) in high doses. The second is the safety of nuclear power. This has many factors including the first issue and also including things such as evacuation response. Our ability to recognize threats (such as plainly unsafe radiation) and react effectively and rapidly is itself a reason that nuclear power is safe. Properly regulated nuclear power is safer than nuclear power that is not. Sort of like how cardiac arrest in Seattle is safer than it is in Detroit, since the EMS response time is about 1/3rd the time.
  - peterpathname 13y ago
    oh, stop being so sensible, pick a side like everyone else ...
Xylakant 13y ago
So now we're all back to "nuclear power is perfectly safe and cheap." The article fails to take into account that radiation is not like poison where you either die or don't. It's a statistical effect and how large the effect is can only be answered in a couple of decades. I'd not want to bet my life on that. Also, the radiation spills are not over yet. Radiated water still leaks from the reactors and flows into the ground and the sea - how and when those leaks can be plugged is yet unknown. Nobody has any idea how to treat the huge volumes of radiated water that have been captured so far. Cleanup costs and storage/disposal costs for the nuclear waste are usually also ignored when looking at the costs of nuclear power - as well as the environmental impact of mining uranium. Let's just not talk about the additional dangers associated with nuclear proliferation. Nuclear power generates elements that are extremely dangerous and extremely difficult to handle - unlike solar, wind or even coal power.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  Every single statement you made, with the exception of handling radioactive waste, applies more to coal than it does to nuclear power. Coal pollution doesn't "kill outright" - but does so slowly, over many years, and many, many more people than nuclear power. Coal waste continues to leak into the air, and into water systems. I'm not arguing that Nuclear power is "safe" (nothing, is - even solar power kills many people a year, mostly installers) - but I am suggesting we stay rational, and realize that there are consequences to any of our energy choices. If it turns out that C02 will have an outsized impact on global warming, that alone, will likely suggest that Coal powered energy systems are fairly bad for the environment - in a much greater way than the discretely managed radioactive waste put off by nuclear power plants - which can be buried underground without changing the earths environment.
  - onli 13y ago
    I always love it when coal is used as a comparision. Because: Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are Furthermore: Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 output, if you count it all together. So this argument against coal is itself an argument against nuclear energy. Most importantly: We can't manage nuclear waste. There is just no feasible scenario which makes sure for future generations that the nuclear waste we produce now won't be the mulch of the society after us. This point is what seems to seperate the people pro and against the sharpest, some seriously believing we could manage that.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Nobody dead or sick, yet tens of billions spent decommissioning nuclear reactors around the planet -- with all the environmental costs associated with that. The reason the world continues to pollute more than necessary for the energy we desire has much more to do with the irrationality of people than the physics of energy production.
- qb45 13y ago
  Billions spent decomissioning, billions spent building, billions spent operating and billions saved on coal mining and transportation. Probably people and companies who decided to invest billions in nuclear plants did some cost-benefit analysis.
  - trusche 13y ago
    "Decommissioning is a general term for a formal process to remove something from active status." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning
- workbench 13y ago
  You've never been to a coal power plant have you? Go to one and watch the endless trains of coal arriving constantly to power the thing, then come back and rethink what you just posted.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - anon1385 13y ago
    I don't think he was saying what you think he was saying. My interpretation was that he was bemoaning the political backlash that lead to shutting down nuclear power in various countries, with the related financial cost and environmental cost due to the increase in coal and gas power generation that was required to make up the gap. All because of an incident that hasn't killed anybody.
  - 13y ago
blablabla123 13y ago
I stopped reading after the first 2 or 3 sentences. In fact even the title is wrong. Sloppy investigation, can be invalidated by 5 seconds of Google.
- cytokine_storm 13y ago
  Really? My 5 seconds of google showed links saying pretty much the same thing as OP's article. No one died from radiation poisoning (yet).
  - blablabla123 13y ago
    The title of the story is "Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick". 6 (?) workers died. Maybe not from poisoning or ionization but from something else caused by the accident. What exactly happened with the "Fukushima 50" is also unclear. Obviously people are smart enough to carry Dosimeters and to protect themselves from radiation as appropriate and possible. But please, saying that "nobody died/got killed (yet) from radiation => nobody died/got killed => nobody died because of Nuclear accident" is just naive. The people died because even after the power plant became unusuable, they needed to manage radiation and spreading of nuclear material. You don't exactly have that problem when dealing with non-nuclear plants. Most of the times can just run and wait. In case of a nuclear plant you need to stay on site or else...
wyred 13y ago
From this article, 12 minors in the Fukushima prefecture have been confirmed to have thyroid cancer. Which usually strikes 1 to 2 for every million. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/05/national/fukushima-survey-lists-12-confirmed-15-suspected-thyroid-cancer-cases/#.Ua8Yz2QmnVQ http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/05/national/fukushi...
- justatdotin 13y ago
  we can expect more in coming years.
mixmax 13y ago
I have a personal theory, that I haven't really been able to confirm or deny. Here it is. After Hiroshima and during the cold war nuclear energy was associated with death and destruction. Hiroshima for obvious reasons, and the cold war because the population of the western world was constantly reminded how The Soviet Union had thousands of missiles with nuclear bombs pointing at us, ready to go. Western governments used nuclear weapons to picture the threat and to terrify populations into spending more on defense against the Soviets. There were scary videos of mushroom clouds, scary instructions on how to survive a nuclear blast, and scary stories of how a nuclear winter would pan out. This, obviously, made people scared of nuclear bombs, and nuclear energy in general. Through decades the population was told by the government that nuclear radiation was the evil silent killer. The byproduct of all this cold war propoganda was that people are now irrationally scared of nuclear radiation from power plants. If you look at the numbers you'll see that nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest scalable energy source we've got. It's the energy source that has the fewest deaths per MWH produced, it doesn't produce CO2, etc. etc. Yet we think of it as getting power from the devil. I blame the cold war propoganda for our irrational fear of nuclear energy. Here's one of the old propaganda videos from the US, "Duck and cover" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4MVJIU0gFk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4MVJIU0gFk
- elorant 13y ago
  What about nuclear waste though? You end up with some tons of radioactive material which you have to store in high-security underground facilities with the hope that in some time in the future humanity will find a way to dispose it in a safer way.
  - scythe 13y ago
    On the plus side, we are really good at it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X697yZBCN8w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X697yZBCN8w
  - nemof 13y ago
    one possibility which has never seen the light of day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor#Nuclear_waste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor#Nuclear_w...
bfcapell 13y ago
None dead, because it doesn't matter how many decontamination workers die from leukemia or heart problems, it is never officially related to radiation. None sick, because the increase in cancer that even the article mentions means nothing. The thyroid cancer rate of Fukushima children is 79 times higher than usual. But "none sick". Yeah, whatever.
Udo 13y ago
The article reads as if it was commissioned by Tepco directly. Nuclear power is not risk-free. Plants need to be operated with competent designs under the watchful eyes of competent engineers. None of which was the case at Fukushima. The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct but misleading: it doesn't mean people get to ignore the dangers. Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukushima meltdowns were a huge catastrophe that severely impacted a whole region. Ask the people who live(d) there if they think the impact of this thing was overstated in the media - they're likely to tell you if anything consequences were buried not exposed. Even if these very first statistics are true, there is likely to be more impact further down the road. There will be shortened lifespans as a result of exposure. There is massive economic damage as well. People's lives were severely affected. And let's not forget the destroyed reactors still aren't safe. There are very likely huge unpleasant surprises yet to be revealed. I don't get why everything related to nuclear power gets discussed with this much emotion and propaganda. Let's not overreact, but let's also not underreact. Somewhere here there is a middle ground supported by facts and scientific judgement.
- gmac 13y ago
  The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct ... there is a middle ground supported by facts and scientific judgement There's really no such thing as a 'correct' argument on these issues. Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that's really only something that informed democratic deliberation can do (informed by science, economics, ethics, etc.).
  - Udo 13y ago
    > Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths. But, yes, nuclear disasters are potentially much worse if things go wrong. [http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-...] > Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that's really only something that informed democratic deliberation can do (informed by science, economics, ethics, etc.). Again, I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian ;) I'm certain that you are not telling me facts and scientific judgement don't matter? Or that popular opinion, informed by a host of factors, is somehow preferable to doing the right thing? Keep in mind I'm not even "taking sides" pro or con nuclear here, just advocating an informed discussion.
PacoLinux 13y ago
http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/06/12-fukushima-children-diagnosed-to-have-thyroid-cancer-15-more-suspected-to-have-cancer-300-up-since-february/ http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/06/12-fukushima-children-dia...
PacoLinux 13y ago
http://enenews.com/kyodo-27-fukushima-minors-with-confirmed-or-suspected-thyroid-cancer-almost-tripled-since-last-report-in-february http://enenews.com/kyodo-27-fukushima-minors-with-confirmed-...
- spauka 13y ago
  From your link: >Researchers at Fukushima Medical University, which has been taking the leading role in the study, have so far said they do not believe that the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis.
ohwp 13y ago
A very detailed summary of the radiation effects also states that there is no direct proof of people being sick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushim...
oelmekki 13y ago
Well, if "authoritative reports" say so, it must be true ! Wait, "if author says so", since he doesn't provide any source other than "aristoteles dixit". It reminds me tchernobyl fallout, here in France, when government said there were no impact on our territory, before being proven wrong (and lying) almost 20 years later : http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/france-hid-info-on-effects-of-chernobyl-cloud--26210.html http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/france-hid-info-o...
VeejayRampay 13y ago
Fukushima happened a mere 2 years ago, isn't it a bit soon to draw conclusions when you know that nuclear-induced cancers and illnesses can sometimes be triggered dozens of years later? I am not an expert about that particular subject by any means, but it does seem a bit premature at this point.
tonyplee 13y ago
How many of you who think Nuclear power is safe will Visit within 10, 5 miles of Fukoshima power plant ? Take your kid(s) there? Eat any food produce there in next 5, 10, 20 year? Won't move or leave the area if the government give order to evacuate? Won't file any lawsuit against the power company when something happen? Or will knowing buy a house, start a family within evacuation zone (20, 30 miles) to Japan coastal nuclear power plant if it 30, 40, 50% cheaper for similar house AND if you can afford not to? Won't object at all after you purchase a house and some company decide to build a nuclear power plant within 20 miles of your house? I am an engineer and also think it is safe, but it can't be in my backyard or within 100 miles of silicon valley. It is perfect safe, good for the environment and produce a lot less CO2 - in Japan.
donpark 13y ago
I think finding 80 scientists from 18 countries actually willing to live in Fukushima for two years better proof of nuclear power safety.
skore 13y ago
They mean humans. No humans dead, none sick. Allswell, then, I guess.
patrickg_zill 13y ago
I wonder exactly how much access the scientists had to the raw data - TEPCO has lied before. I would offer the journalist, all-expenses paid including food (and fed by fish caught in the general area), internet, housing, to live within 10km of the plant, for 1 year with his wife and children. Would he take me up on the offer? BTW, articles like this seem to show that long-term effects can be expected: http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130429/srep01742/full/srep01742.html http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130429/srep01742/full/srep01...
gasull 13y ago
Study: 28% Increase In Thyroid Problems In Babies Born After Fukushima in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-03/study-almost-one-third-babies-born-after-fukushima-alaska-california-hawaii-o http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-03/study-almost...
humain 13y ago
What are two years compared to a gigantic pollution of products that will stay dangerous for 300 years? What a pro-nuclear disinformation article! That's a shame but so classic of general disinformation on this subject. Costs, dangers, reality of contamination, waste dangers, ... just listen to real independent scientists and concerned actors. The writer and its commissioners don't live in contaminated areas, and they probably don't care about future of these populations. Listen to real people there, for example search for "Women of Fukushima" videos : www.women-of-fukushima.com A few simple facts : 27 years after Tchernobyl, 3 children out of 4 are ill in Bielarus. 2 years after Fukushima, twelve children of Fukushima have confirmed thyroid cancer et 15 are suspected. Shame!

148 points by AndrewDucker 13y ago

Never mind that coal mining kills almost 6000 people a year, or that populations of coal-mining areas have death rates about 10 per cent higher than non-mining areas, or that coal emissions drive global warming. I'm fully in favour of nuclear power but using partial evidence and misleading comparisons to back up arguments does not help the cause. You can't compare the death toll of mining coal to the death toll of a nuclear accident and prove one is more dangerous than the other. They are completely different things having no common factors. How many people died mining Uranium? How many people die per MW produced for both fuels? How many people die in disasters at Coal Power plants?

AndrewDucker 13y ago
Here's your figures on deaths per TWh: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener...
ars 13y ago
> They are completely different things having no common factors. No common factors? Really? They are both used to make energy. Coal is 1,888 times more deadly than nuclear power when measured in deaths per MW. According to http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de... And that includes Chernobyl, and uses the worst case scenario for the effects of radiation! If you removed Chernobyl and used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis instead (which is more likely to be accurate) the deaths attributed to nuclear power would go even lower. Nuclear power is by far the safest form of energy on earth - it even beats solar power. It is so very very very stupid we don't get 80% of our energy from it.
- onli 13y ago
  > And that includes Chernobyl, and uses the worst case scenario for the effects of radiation! I know he writes that, but the numbers used aren't mentioned and not easily to research, as far as i saw. I heavily doubt that statement. An article talking about "two failures" of nuclear plants isn't believable, there were quite a few more.
  - JanezStupar 13y ago
    All the benefits of solar/wind are not easy to research, as far as I saw. I heavily doubt that statement. Can you see what I did there?
    - winfred 13y ago
      The problem is that people will start falling off those windmills. Edit: Can someone provide me with the windmill related death statistics in the US?
    - onli 13y ago
      Not really. I think you try to shift who has to give sources for what, evading to try to disprove my articulated doubt of your citation with another source, like by citing which numbers were used.
      - JanezStupar 13y ago
        Isn't it interesting that you are commenting on a comment __with__ sources, while providing none yourself. After I make a tongue in cheek comment to your comment. You flail more rethoric at me, demanding sources from me (?). You also accuse me of trying to invert the burden of proof, while like I said you haven't really offered a source. Here is a source for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
        onli 13y ago
        That is not what I wanted to do. Thing is: The article cited is spotty in that regard, I pointed that out (you don't need sources for that) and I didn't and still don't understand your answer to that comment of mine. I don't want to discuss meta nor personal, so that's it for me.
sasoon 13y ago
3 people died in uranium mines in the last 10 years So that is 3 vs. 60,000 deaths for mining
- scarmig 13y ago
  That should be normalized for TWh, but the point stands, of course.
relix 13y ago
Every year 1MM lives are shortened from the exhaust of coal power plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coa...
tehabe 13y ago
The argument is wrong because coal is as bad as nuclear power. Both are limited, both are centralized systems and both have huge environmental impacts. Mining, transport, energy production, and also exhaust and waste. It should also be noted that coal mining is done the worst conditions you can think of. I'm very glad that by 2018, Germany will stop its coal production completely and not only because it is very expensive to get the coal in Germany. This is btw something you have with all fossil and nuclear sources. With time it will get more expensive to get to the fuel needed. And according to the German government, nuclear fuel comes only partially from mining. So mining is currently not delivering the fuel for all nuclear power plants running. The rest comes from old nuclear weapons and other sources, according to the German government. Also it should be noted that nuclear power was never really profitable. It might be with old plants now but with newer plants I think it is unlikely to earn a dime with nuclear power unless you get some kind of subsidy. The new EPR currently being build in Finland already costs 100% more than expected. With that money you could have installed enough windmills to cover those 1600 MW the EPR might provide. Nuclear power was used for about 50 years, it will leave us with waste for the next 100,000 to 1,000,000 years.

robbiep 13y ago

I would have thought that the evacuation response and the ability to restore water supply to the fuel rod cooling pools would have had a bit more to do with the lack of deaths than the safety of radiation disaster.. I support nuclear as An energy source but it really seems like we are doing it wrong at the moment - it costs too much, seems like we are, or have been using reactor designs that we probably shouldn't (ie they have meltdown risk in disasters vs other newer designs). However it speaks volumes about the changed political environment, and our environmental sensitivity these days, that a response to Japan's tsunami and nuclear shutdown was also the shutdown of German reactors and fast-tracked plans to transition away from nuclear from them and other countries.

jlgreco 13y ago
There are two separate issues here. One is the safety of radiation. This is a medical question. It can be tested in the laboratory, but we have enough "field experience" with it by now to know that it is indeed Very Bad News(tm) in high doses. The second is the safety of nuclear power. This has many factors including the first issue and also including things such as evacuation response. Our ability to recognize threats (such as plainly unsafe radiation) and react effectively and rapidly is itself a reason that nuclear power is safe. Properly regulated nuclear power is safer than nuclear power that is not. Sort of like how cardiac arrest in Seattle is safer than it is in Detroit, since the EMS response time is about 1/3rd the time.
- peterpathname 13y ago
  oh, stop being so sensible, pick a side like everyone else ...

Xylakant 13y ago

So now we're all back to "nuclear power is perfectly safe and cheap." The article fails to take into account that radiation is not like poison where you either die or don't. It's a statistical effect and how large the effect is can only be answered in a couple of decades. I'd not want to bet my life on that. Also, the radiation spills are not over yet. Radiated water still leaks from the reactors and flows into the ground and the sea - how and when those leaks can be plugged is yet unknown. Nobody has any idea how to treat the huge volumes of radiated water that have been captured so far. Cleanup costs and storage/disposal costs for the nuclear waste are usually also ignored when looking at the costs of nuclear power - as well as the environmental impact of mining uranium. Let's just not talk about the additional dangers associated with nuclear proliferation. Nuclear power generates elements that are extremely dangerous and extremely difficult to handle - unlike solar, wind or even coal power.

ghshephard 13y ago
Every single statement you made, with the exception of handling radioactive waste, applies more to coal than it does to nuclear power. Coal pollution doesn't "kill outright" - but does so slowly, over many years, and many, many more people than nuclear power. Coal waste continues to leak into the air, and into water systems. I'm not arguing that Nuclear power is "safe" (nothing, is - even solar power kills many people a year, mostly installers) - but I am suggesting we stay rational, and realize that there are consequences to any of our energy choices. If it turns out that C02 will have an outsized impact on global warming, that alone, will likely suggest that Coal powered energy systems are fairly bad for the environment - in a much greater way than the discretely managed radioactive waste put off by nuclear power plants - which can be buried underground without changing the earths environment.
- onli 13y ago
  I always love it when coal is used as a comparision. Because: Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are Furthermore: Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 output, if you count it all together. So this argument against coal is itself an argument against nuclear energy. Most importantly: We can't manage nuclear waste. There is just no feasible scenario which makes sure for future generations that the nuclear waste we produce now won't be the mulch of the society after us. This point is what seems to seperate the people pro and against the sharpest, some seriously believing we could manage that.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

Nobody dead or sick, yet tens of billions spent decommissioning nuclear reactors around the planet -- with all the environmental costs associated with that. The reason the world continues to pollute more than necessary for the energy we desire has much more to do with the irrationality of people than the physics of energy production.

qb45 13y ago
Billions spent decomissioning, billions spent building, billions spent operating and billions saved on coal mining and transportation. Probably people and companies who decided to invest billions in nuclear plants did some cost-benefit analysis.
- trusche 13y ago
  "Decommissioning is a general term for a formal process to remove something from active status." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning
workbench 13y ago
You've never been to a coal power plant have you? Go to one and watch the endless trains of coal arriving constantly to power the thing, then come back and rethink what you just posted.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- anon1385 13y ago
  I don't think he was saying what you think he was saying. My interpretation was that he was bemoaning the political backlash that lead to shutting down nuclear power in various countries, with the related financial cost and environmental cost due to the increase in coal and gas power generation that was required to make up the gap. All because of an incident that hasn't killed anybody.
- 13y ago

blablabla123 13y ago

I stopped reading after the first 2 or 3 sentences. In fact even the title is wrong. Sloppy investigation, can be invalidated by 5 seconds of Google.

cytokine_storm 13y ago
Really? My 5 seconds of google showed links saying pretty much the same thing as OP's article. No one died from radiation poisoning (yet).
- blablabla123 13y ago
  The title of the story is "Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick". 6 (?) workers died. Maybe not from poisoning or ionization but from something else caused by the accident. What exactly happened with the "Fukushima 50" is also unclear. Obviously people are smart enough to carry Dosimeters and to protect themselves from radiation as appropriate and possible. But please, saying that "nobody died/got killed (yet) from radiation => nobody died/got killed => nobody died because of Nuclear accident" is just naive. The people died because even after the power plant became unusuable, they needed to manage radiation and spreading of nuclear material. You don't exactly have that problem when dealing with non-nuclear plants. Most of the times can just run and wait. In case of a nuclear plant you need to stay on site or else...

wyred 13y ago

From this article, 12 minors in the Fukushima prefecture have been confirmed to have thyroid cancer. Which usually strikes 1 to 2 for every million. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/05/national/fukushima-survey-lists-12-confirmed-15-suspected-thyroid-cancer-cases/#.Ua8Yz2QmnVQ http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/05/national/fukushi...

justatdotin 13y ago
we can expect more in coming years.

mixmax 13y ago

I have a personal theory, that I haven't really been able to confirm or deny. Here it is. After Hiroshima and during the cold war nuclear energy was associated with death and destruction. Hiroshima for obvious reasons, and the cold war because the population of the western world was constantly reminded how The Soviet Union had thousands of missiles with nuclear bombs pointing at us, ready to go. Western governments used nuclear weapons to picture the threat and to terrify populations into spending more on defense against the Soviets. There were scary videos of mushroom clouds, scary instructions on how to survive a nuclear blast, and scary stories of how a nuclear winter would pan out. This, obviously, made people scared of nuclear bombs, and nuclear energy in general. Through decades the population was told by the government that nuclear radiation was the evil silent killer. The byproduct of all this cold war propoganda was that people are now irrationally scared of nuclear radiation from power plants. If you look at the numbers you'll see that nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest scalable energy source we've got. It's the energy source that has the fewest deaths per MWH produced, it doesn't produce CO2, etc. etc. Yet we think of it as getting power from the devil. I blame the cold war propoganda for our irrational fear of nuclear energy. Here's one of the old propaganda videos from the US, "Duck and cover" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4MVJIU0gFk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4MVJIU0gFk

elorant 13y ago
What about nuclear waste though? You end up with some tons of radioactive material which you have to store in high-security underground facilities with the hope that in some time in the future humanity will find a way to dispose it in a safer way.
- scythe 13y ago
  On the plus side, we are really good at it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X697yZBCN8w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X697yZBCN8w
- nemof 13y ago
  one possibility which has never seen the light of day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor#Nuclear_waste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor#Nuclear_w...

bfcapell 13y ago

None dead, because it doesn't matter how many decontamination workers die from leukemia or heart problems, it is never officially related to radiation. None sick, because the increase in cancer that even the article mentions means nothing. The thyroid cancer rate of Fukushima children is 79 times higher than usual. But "none sick". Yeah, whatever.

Udo 13y ago

The article reads as if it was commissioned by Tepco directly. Nuclear power is not risk-free. Plants need to be operated with competent designs under the watchful eyes of competent engineers. None of which was the case at Fukushima. The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct but misleading: it doesn't mean people get to ignore the dangers. Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukushima meltdowns were a huge catastrophe that severely impacted a whole region. Ask the people who live(d) there if they think the impact of this thing was overstated in the media - they're likely to tell you if anything consequences were buried not exposed. Even if these very first statistics are true, there is likely to be more impact further down the road. There will be shortened lifespans as a result of exposure. There is massive economic damage as well. People's lives were severely affected. And let's not forget the destroyed reactors still aren't safe. There are very likely huge unpleasant surprises yet to be revealed. I don't get why everything related to nuclear power gets discussed with this much emotion and propaganda. Let's not overreact, but let's also not underreact. Somewhere here there is a middle ground supported by facts and scientific judgement.

gmac 13y ago
The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct ... there is a middle ground supported by facts and scientific judgement There's really no such thing as a 'correct' argument on these issues. Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that's really only something that informed democratic deliberation can do (informed by science, economics, ethics, etc.).
- Udo 13y ago
  > Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths. But, yes, nuclear disasters are potentially much worse if things go wrong. [http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-...] > Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that's really only something that informed democratic deliberation can do (informed by science, economics, ethics, etc.). Again, I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian ;) I'm certain that you are not telling me facts and scientific judgement don't matter? Or that popular opinion, informed by a host of factors, is somehow preferable to doing the right thing? Keep in mind I'm not even "taking sides" pro or con nuclear here, just advocating an informed discussion.

PacoLinux 13y ago

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/06/12-fukushima-children-diagnosed-to-have-thyroid-cancer-15-more-suspected-to-have-cancer-300-up-since-february/ http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/06/12-fukushima-children-dia...

PacoLinux 13y ago

http://enenews.com/kyodo-27-fukushima-minors-with-confirmed-or-suspected-thyroid-cancer-almost-tripled-since-last-report-in-february http://enenews.com/kyodo-27-fukushima-minors-with-confirmed-...

spauka 13y ago
From your link: >Researchers at Fukushima Medical University, which has been taking the leading role in the study, have so far said they do not believe that the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis.

ohwp 13y ago

A very detailed summary of the radiation effects also states that there is no direct proof of people being sick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushim...

oelmekki 13y ago

Well, if "authoritative reports" say so, it must be true ! Wait, "if author says so", since he doesn't provide any source other than "aristoteles dixit". It reminds me tchernobyl fallout, here in France, when government said there were no impact on our territory, before being proven wrong (and lying) almost 20 years later : http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/france-hid-info-on-effects-of-chernobyl-cloud--26210.html http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/france-hid-info-o...

VeejayRampay 13y ago

Fukushima happened a mere 2 years ago, isn't it a bit soon to draw conclusions when you know that nuclear-induced cancers and illnesses can sometimes be triggered dozens of years later? I am not an expert about that particular subject by any means, but it does seem a bit premature at this point.

tonyplee 13y ago

How many of you who think Nuclear power is safe will Visit within 10, 5 miles of Fukoshima power plant ? Take your kid(s) there? Eat any food produce there in next 5, 10, 20 year? Won't move or leave the area if the government give order to evacuate? Won't file any lawsuit against the power company when something happen? Or will knowing buy a house, start a family within evacuation zone (20, 30 miles) to Japan coastal nuclear power plant if it 30, 40, 50% cheaper for similar house AND if you can afford not to? Won't object at all after you purchase a house and some company decide to build a nuclear power plant within 20 miles of your house? I am an engineer and also think it is safe, but it can't be in my backyard or within 100 miles of silicon valley. It is perfect safe, good for the environment and produce a lot less CO2 - in Japan.

donpark 13y ago

I think finding 80 scientists from 18 countries actually willing to live in Fukushima for two years better proof of nuclear power safety.

skore 13y ago

They mean humans. No humans dead, none sick. Allswell, then, I guess.

patrickg_zill 13y ago

I wonder exactly how much access the scientists had to the raw data - TEPCO has lied before. I would offer the journalist, all-expenses paid including food (and fed by fish caught in the general area), internet, housing, to live within 10km of the plant, for 1 year with his wife and children. Would he take me up on the offer? BTW, articles like this seem to show that long-term effects can be expected: http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130429/srep01742/full/srep01742.html http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130429/srep01742/full/srep01...

gasull 13y ago

Study: 28% Increase In Thyroid Problems In Babies Born After Fukushima in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-03/study-almost-one-third-babies-born-after-fukushima-alaska-california-hawaii-o http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-03/study-almost...

humain 13y ago

What are two years compared to a gigantic pollution of products that will stay dangerous for 300 years? What a pro-nuclear disinformation article! That's a shame but so classic of general disinformation on this subject. Costs, dangers, reality of contamination, waste dangers, ... just listen to real independent scientists and concerned actors. The writer and its commissioners don't live in contaminated areas, and they probably don't care about future of these populations. Listen to real people there, for example search for "Women of Fukushima" videos : www.women-of-fukushima.com A few simple facts : 27 years after Tchernobyl, 3 children out of 4 are ill in Bielarus. 2 years after Fukushima, twelve children of Fukushima have confirmed thyroid cancer et 15 are suspected. Shame!