|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jun 17, 2012 23:18:36 GMT 9.5
A new post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/time-for-reckoningThis a new article on BNC written by Geoff Russell. He argues that it's time the global political Green movement showed some compassion by taking steps to try to reduce the distress and panic around the Fukushima nuclear accident, and treating risks on the basis of real-world evidence by targeting efforts to those dangers that cause most actual harm. This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post. |
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Jun 17, 2012 23:37:08 GMT 9.5
Geoff is, as usual, most persuasive.
I note today's news from Japan that political approval has been granted to recommission the first two of their reactors. For the sake of the planet and of the Japanese economy, here's hoping that there are another following in quick succession.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 18, 2012 0:19:44 GMT 9.5
I doubt very much that they actually will accept responsibility for the deaths they've caused, though confronting them on the fact that the anti-nuclear movement is more dangerous than nuclear power is something we need to be doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwalters on Jun 18, 2012 2:47:29 GMT 9.5
Geoff, you need to post this to greenleft forums, dailykos and huffington post. it needs to be taken TO the antis.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwalters on Jun 18, 2012 3:16:59 GMT 9.5
Geoff, pro-nuclear bloggers, mostly in the U.S. are attempting to make your essay go viral. They've also posted links to it at anti-nuclear blogs in Japan and other places.
|
|
|
|
Post by biodiversivist on Jun 18, 2012 6:09:56 GMT 9.5
I agree with most of this article but I also see where its vulnerable to critique. You can't really tell just by by looking at the posture of the guy in the protective suit that he's afraid of the child. He could have gotten a little closer, but then maybe he was trying not to frighten the kid.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrycuttler on Jun 18, 2012 7:18:42 GMT 9.5
Hi Folks; I've written a commentary on the appropriate radiation level for evacuations. It will be published soon in the Dose Response Journal. The prepress version is available by using the following link: dose-response.metapress.com/link.asp?id=35766131k01w4103Regards, Jerry Cuttler |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrussell on Jun 18, 2012 7:40:11 GMT 9.5
Geoff, you need to post this to greenleft forums, dailykos and huffington post. it needs to be taken TO the antis. Will they take it? I sent a version to Crikey.com and editor Jason Whittaker replied: "Not really a fit for us". Does everybody remember what was a good fit for Crikey? Guy Rundle back in March 2011 was a good fit: "As I write, the Japanese are conducting direct overflies to try and control the continuing damage — most likely a suicide mission for the pilots and crew. ..." I'd quote more but its not good to repeat myths ... people remember them. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrussell on Jun 18, 2012 7:56:07 GMT 9.5
I agree with most of this article but I also see where its vulnerable to critique. You can't really tell just by by looking at the posture of the guy in the protective suit that he's afraid of the child. He could have gotten a little closer, but then maybe he was trying not to frighten the kid. I think the body language is clear, but it isn't the factual basis of the story, merely the pedagogical hook. |
|
|
|
Post by joffan on Jun 18, 2012 12:29:24 GMT 9.5
Another question arising from the photo: Who decided it was a good idea to dress the testers up in bunny suits and masks? Really, even if every fifth person tested was fractionally above background, there is no way the testers could ever have taken enough dose to have any health impact at all. But the scare impact would be real to the families concerned who were being checked.
Another poor decision that I sadly doubt we will learn from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edward Greisch on Jun 18, 2012 12:42:32 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip White on Jun 18, 2012 13:33:05 GMT 9.5
1) It is quite likely that epidemiological studies will not reveal a clear statistically significant increase in cancer deaths for the people most directly affected by the Fukushima accident. One reason for this is that cancer is such a common cause of death that it is very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. We certainly won't know unless high quality epidemiological studies are carried out over a long period of time. Studies are being carried out, but I am not confident that enough reliable data will be produced, or that the studies will be carried out objectively.
2) However the argument in this article overlooks a few important points. The first is that it would have been a different story if people had not evacuated and given up hope of living in a large swathe of land for decades or more. The doses would have been greater and possibly more accurately measurable had everyone just stayed there. Arguments such as the one in this article completely overlook this huge impact on people's lives.
3) Of course, evacuation itself has major effects on people's health, in particular their psychological well being. To imply that cancer is the only thing that matters is grossly misleading.
4) A prime cause for the panic reaction was loss of faith in the pronouncements of the government and so-called experts. This lack of faith was entirely the fault of the government and these so-called experts, because they did not tell the unadorned truth (including the uncertainties) about the implications of radiation exposure.
5) The critical experts that I am aware of (the Japanese ones at least) did speak the truth, and they did not fan the flames of panic. For example, Tetsuji Imanaka, a well know nuclear critic from Kyoto University who is a key reference person for the anti-nuclear movement, was very circumspect in the comments he made. He made public speeches in the Fukushima region which would not have inflamed panic reactions. He gave people objective information on which to base their own decisions.
6) I personally advised people within the anti-nuclear movement to take a holistic approach, recognising that radiation impact was one of many of predictable health impacts, and probably not the greatest for most of the affected population. I argued that the basis for people's decisions should be informed consent and that the antinuclear movement should not be telling people what they ought to do. By and large I think that the movement has followed this approach. But the government has been inclined to follow the approach of misinformation and denial of rights to compensation, so the anti-nuclear movement and the affected people themselves have had to fight a rear-guard battle all he way.
7) I don't follow twitter etc, but I imagine that there was plenty of panic sown through the social media. I don't think it is appropriate to pin the blame for that on the anti-nuclear movement, not at least on the NGOs who have traditional opposed Japan's nuclear energy policy.
Philip White
formerly International Liaison Officer of the Tokyo-based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrussell on Jun 18, 2012 16:25:37 GMT 9.5
Hi Folks; I've written a commentary on the appropriate radiation level for evacuations. It will be published soon in the Dose Response Journal. The prepress version is available by using the following link: dose-response.metapress.com/link.asp?id=35766131k01w4103Regards, Jerry Cuttler I very explicitly didn't deal with the question about whether the evacuation was necessary. As a non-expert, the best I can do is pass on and explain expert judgements as best I can. It's blatantly clear that the evacuation decision wasn't based on an evaluation of cancer risks but on the risk of panic by a spooked population. Experts in the field really have to get their act together and start to draw up and communicate plans based on far broader cost-benefit criteria. They also have to explain radiation and its impacts much better so that panic isn't the first response. I hope your paper can help that happen. It deserves to be widely read. I think the issue of hormesis is somewhat of a red herring and will only inflame academic debates that aren't really relevant. You don't need to believe in hormesis to calculate that the evacuation has done far, far more harm than it could possibly have prevented. But this is an easier judgment to make in hindsight than at the time. There were too many rumours of things that may have gone wrong which didn't and the lack of information allowed those rumours to take hold. In the real world, not everything is known in time to meet media deadlines and they will fill the column inches with whatever is available. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrussell on Jun 18, 2012 16:42:26 GMT 9.5
1) It is quite likely that epidemiological studies will not reveal a clear statistically significant increase in cancer deaths for the people most directly affected by the Fukushima accident. ... Philip White formerly International Liaison Officer of the Tokyo-based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center Thanks very much for your considered comments Philip. I should have conveyed more of my concern for the suffering that the evacuation itself caused, it certainly weighed heavily in my decision to write the article. Please see Jerry Cutlers paper which looks explicitly at whether the evacuation was necessary. Given that primary containment wasn't breached, it is now clear that while people would have received higher doses had they stayed, it is unlikely that those doses would have imposed a disease risk higher than, for example, Tokyo air. And if it had been breached? I'd like to see expert analysis of this, but it still doesn't seem likely that a full and lengthy evacuation would have been the best option. Not speaking Japanese, I based my judgments on fear mongering on English speaking news sources, but the fear mongering isn't recent and blame has to go back a long way. The decision by the anti-arms race movement to focus on radiation was critical. It may explain the success of the arms-control movements but it has given us radiation phobia as a collateral impact. There is plenty of detail in Spencer Weart's updated book "The rise of nuclear fear". |
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 18, 2012 16:45:16 GMT 9.5
1) However the argument in this article overlooks a few important points. The first is that it would have been a different story if people had not evacuated and given up hope of living in a large swathe of land for decades or more. The doses would have been greater and possibly more accurately measurable had everyone just stayed there. Arguments such as the one in this article completely overlook this huge impact on people's lives. 3) Of course, evacuation itself has major effects on people's health, in particular their psychological well being. To imply that cancer is the only thing that matters is grossly misleading According to Asahi Shimbun, there are at least 163 disaster related deaths attributable directly to the evacuation and the miserable conditions that followed from it: www.asahi.com/english/TKY201110170370.htmlThis is just the start. If Chernobyl is any indication, several hundred thousand abortions are the next big risk, and thousands of causes of depression and alcoholism etc. aren't going to help the death toll. I very much doubt that no evacuation at all would have killed even 163 people. And that would be with theoretical models, whereas the 163 deaths from the evacuation are real people. Just like the thousands of coal miners that die each year are real people. |
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 18, 2012 16:50:58 GMT 9.5
I should add that it isn't just the silly journalists and activist organisations that are spreading wild fear stories. The nuclear regulator and industrial agencies are helping along with their share of fearmongering, ballooning microsieverts up with massive scare stories. Here are just some examples of the extreme fearmongering induced by the japan regulator, who should be doing the opposite. energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3453The fearmongering is clearly so pervasive, I don't know how to stop it. If even the japan industrial forum decides that fearmongering over microsieverts makes sense, the political situation in japan looks terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip White on Jun 18, 2012 17:38:46 GMT 9.5
A quick response to a couple of misunderstandings in Geoff Russell's response to my comment.
Firstly, contrary to Geoff's belief, primary containment was breached. That is why radioactive material continues to leak out into the surrounding buildings and water channels, not to mention the groundwater and ocean.
Secondly, in the early stages of the accident the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission produced an estimate of the implications of a worst case scenario. This was based on the assumption that the fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool of unit 4 were exposed for a prolonged period of time. His estimate was that a region extending almost to Tokyo would have to be evacuated, based on Chernobyl principles. Even if you choose to reject Chernobyl principles the amount of radioactive material released would have been massive, dwarfing the releases from Chernobyl.
This was a totally likely scenario. It was a pure fluke that water actually flowed back from the reactor well into the spent fuel pool to cover the fuel assemblies of unit 4. This only occurred due to a bungled inspection procedure. (Unit 4 was undergoing a periodic inspection at the time of the accident.) Had this not happened the spent fuel would have been exposed, the zirconium cladding would have burnt and most of the radioactivity would have been released. The workers would have evacuated the site and the whole kit and caboodle would have gone up.
The fundamental principle of evacuation is to do it before the situation gets out of control. It is meaningless to look back now and say that the amount of radioactive contamination released did not warrant the scale of evacuation that occurred. In fact, more people should have been evacuated faster.
Philip White
MODERATOR
As per BNC Comments Policy please supply refs/limks for your assertions or your comment may be edited or deleted
|
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 18, 2012 18:03:26 GMT 9.5
A quick response to a couple of misunderstandings in Geoff Russell's response to my comment. Secondly, in the early stages of the accident the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission produced an estimate of the implications of a worst case scenario. This was based on the assumption that the fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool of unit 4 were exposed for a prolonged period of time. His estimate was that a region extending almost to Tokyo would have to be evacuated, based on Chernobyl principles. Even if you choose to reject Chernobyl principles the amount of radioactive material released would have been massive, dwarfing the releases from Chernobyl. The Chairman is a known anti-nuke scaremongerer. There was never any risk in a 50 mile radius. Chernobyl evacuation criterion was 1 mSv/year. Much less than average global background, and a hundred times less than some places like the beaches in Brazil (lots of tourists go to the radioactive beaches, oddly). This is, by no standard, a reasonable evacuation, as billions of people living in slightly higher than normal background radiation would have to be evacuated. I do agree though that Tokyo should have been evacuated, the particulate matter from fossil fuel combustion is substantially more dangerous than anywhere in Fukushima. More than 10 million are at risk and thousands die prematurely each year due to this contiuous fossil fuel disaster. Wrong. Heatup is non-adiabatic. I'm familiar with the NRC estimates, which assume adiabatic heatup. The spent fuel pools are open to air which is about as adiabatic as a bonfire. If you make silly assumptions that violate the laws of thermodynamics, I can get my body to overheat to a billion degrees as well. Spent fuel rods in the nr. 4 spent fuel produced about the amount of heat of a standard office fluorescent lightbulb. How many office fluorescent tubes have you seen melting down? Wrong again. The fundamental principle of an evacuation is to evacuate when staying is very likely a much more dangerous situation than evacuation. Since evacuation kills a lot of people by definition, the decision to evacuate was a wrong decision. Add the fearmongering deaths, likely ranging in the thousands of abortions, alcoholism, etc. and the evacuation is clearly murder to the first degree. Since we are not evacuating polluted Tokyo, it makes no sense to evacuate Fukushima. Moving Tokyo residents to Fukushima would save many lives. |
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Jun 18, 2012 18:52:36 GMT 9.5
This was a totally likely scenario. It was a pure fluke that water actually flowed back from the reactor well into the spent fuel pool to cover the fuel assemblies of unit 4. What is the source of this claim? |
|
|
|
Post by BrianH on Jun 18, 2012 19:24:17 GMT 9.5
OMFG!!  Hear! bloody rip-roaring Hear! Hear! This needed, needs, and will be needed to be said and documented again and again. Everyone I can possibly contact will be referred to this post.  ;D Thank You!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by BrianH on Jun 18, 2012 20:06:42 GMT 9.5
denial of rights to compensation
...
Philip White
formerly International Liaison Officer of the Tokyo-based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
More nonsense from White. The DisInformation Center working overtime! The only "compensation" due was for the results of the inane decision to evacuate.
(deleted pejorative)
|
|
|
|
Post by Edward Greisch on Jun 18, 2012 21:07:02 GMT 9.5
573 certified deaths were due to evacuation-related stress at Fukushima. Zero due to radiation. February 4, 2012
Japanese authorities recognize 573 death related to Fukushima.ZERO deaths were caused by radiation. 573 deaths were caused by the evacuation that was forced by officials. The people who died were evacuated from such things as intensive care. They might have survived if the evacuation had not taken place. Fukushima's natural background radiation is still higher than the radiation from the reactor leak. Fukushima's natural background radiation plus the radiation from the reactor leak is still less than the natural background radiation here in Illinois. Natural background radiation varies greatly from place to place. Our background radiation is around 350 milli rem/year. "milli" means ".001" 350 milli rem/year means 0.350 rem/year 1 rem = 10 millisievert People living in Ramsar, Iran have a natural background radiation of 10 to 20 rems/year. We date Egyptian mummies with the radioactive carbon they ate thousands of years ago. They got radioactive carbon from the same place you get 99.9% of your C14: Cosmic rays from outer space convert some nitrogen in the air into C14. Mutagen: A good one for causing cancer is the BENZENE found in crude oil and coal. Oil refineries dump BENZENE into the air in large amounts. Scented candles make BENZENE. Please look up "Natural Background Radiation" or just "Background Radiation." The natural background comes from 2 places: 1. All rocks contain trace amounts of uranium. The decay products of uranium include the radioactive gas radon. 2. Supernovas [exploding stars] thousands of light years away are the source of cosmic rays. Coal contains: URANIUM and all of the decay products of uranium, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, THORIUM, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable ores. We should be able to get ALL THE URANIUM AND THORIUM WE NEED TO FUEL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS FOR CENTURIES BY USING COAL CINDERS AND SMOKE AS ORE. If you are an underground coal miner, you may be in violation of the rules for radiation workers. The uranium decay chain includes the radioactive gas RADON, which you are breathing. Radon decays in about a day into polonium, the super-poison. Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning in days, not years because Chinese industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic. Reference: OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE: THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE by Alex Gabbard Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN Selections from the 19th Annual Conference SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY March 14,15,16, 1996 Nashville, Tennessee Published by the SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY 1996 Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D. Conference Director The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock. The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. Coal also contains the radioactive decay products of uranium. A 1000 million watt coal fired power plant burns 4 million tons of carbon each year. If you multiply 4 million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the cinders. Coal contains from 25% carbon to 96% carbon. |
|
|
|
Post by David Walters on Jun 19, 2012 0:10:01 GMT 9.5
Geoff, you need to post this to greenleft forums, dailykos and huffington post. it needs to be taken TO the antis. Will they take it? I sent a version to Crikey.com and editor Jason Whittaker replied: "Not really a fit for us". Does everybody remember what was a good fit for Crikey? Yes, they will. You have to go through the very minor hassel of setting up accounts but most of the liberal blogs will let you post. I have one on the Daily Kos that is a center of pro-nuclear advocacy there. (If you want I can post this to the DK but it would be better if you did this yourself. You always need to check in every few hours to respond to comments however). |
|
|
|
Post by Philip White on Jun 19, 2012 0:22:44 GMT 9.5
I was asked for a source regarding the water in the spent fuel pool so I will provide one. Below is an article from the Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's four leading national newspapers. I won't follow the discussion further, because I can see it has degenerated into uninformed nonsense. Philip White ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201203080066Fukushima No. 4 reactor saved by upgrade mishap March 08, 2012 By TOSHIHIRO OKUYAMA / Staff Writer Bungled replacement work and a chance opening in a separator gate very likely saved the No. 4 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant from descending into a nightmarish situation, it has been learned. MODERATOR
This comment has been edited for violation of the Comments Policy viz: pasting large slabs of text and failing to give a personal interpretation of the contents of a link. |
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 19, 2012 1:19:29 GMT 9.5
So Philip provides a source for the water makeup, but this source does not in any way substantiate how a few watts per meter of rod worth of decay power is supposed to overheat the fuel, much less how this is going to harm people in Tokyo. I happen to know how that is supposed to be possible: ignoring the water rods and assuming adiabatic heatup. Gee whiz. I'd like to live in an adiabatic world. I could run naked in the street and not get cold. It's kind of funny to use such assumptions for accident analysis. Kind of like, let's assume that gravity suddenly stops, causing the water in the spent fuel to float out of it, overheating the fuel. Gee whiz. Also, Philip: there's no such thing as a worst case scenario. As Cohen showed, the worst case scenario is that a gasoline fire ends up putting entire cities to ashes, killing millions. www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/But if you must violate the laws of thermodynamics such as assuming adiabatic heatup on a structure that resembles my home radiator (deus ex machina) to get to it, nuclear power is clearly very safe. |
|
|
|
Post by David Walters on Jun 19, 2012 2:57:26 GMT 9.5
1) 6) I personally advised people within the anti-nuclear movement to take a holistic approach, recognising that radiation impact was one of many of predictable health impacts, and probably not the greatest for most of the affected population. I argued that the basis for people's decisions should be informed consent and that the antinuclear movement should not be telling people what they ought to do. By and large I think that the movement has followed this approach. But the government has been inclined to follow the approach of misinformation and denial of rights to compensation, so the anti-nuclear movement and the affected people themselves have had to fight a rear-guard battle all he way. Phil, good for you. You the FIRST I've heard of this. Having read the SAME newspaper tanslations you quote (It is the "paper of record" there) your 'advice' clearly wasn't heeded...at all. And those that did act in a way you considered responsible were called liars, apologists, etc etc. The *results* were panic, and by this I don't mean panic generally but political decisions made based on a panicked assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jun 19, 2012 10:13:42 GMT 9.5
I fear Philip White largely has the wrong of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrussell on Jun 19, 2012 15:21:37 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by Eamon on Jun 19, 2012 23:44:03 GMT 9.5
Just a few potted comments on the article, from the perspective of someone who lives near the disaster areas. Stress: yes, there is definitely an increase in stress - largely due to fantastical claims from the anti-nuclear movement: Greenpeace, Caldicott, Alvarez, Gundersen and others. The overwhelming flooding of the web with regurgitated claims of mass-extinction makes finding sane comment hard. On the other hand, the impermeable Japanese Bureaucracy is by no means a source of reliable information - tracking areas where fallout had affected crops was hard, and their disregarding of data on radiation release patterns was not conducive to trust. This seems to have flipped public opinion against any kind of 'official' expert, so now those at the periphery are listened to, and former authoritative voices are no-longer seen. Fear: regarding the man checking the child for radiation - sadly this kind of behavior is common in Japan. People who have problems that the public think catch-able or heritable are traditionally shunned. Many evacuees from Fukushima were denied access to services because they could not produce certification that they were free from 'contamination'. After media reports this was rescinded by the municipalities concerned - but it does show the way the traditional mindset reacts to such things. Media: as touched on above, voices of reason are rare now in the media - and certain outlets, like the Japan Times, are full-on fear-stoking mode now. Apparently we now have 'International Outrage' over the restart of two reactors in Fukui Prefecture www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120617a4.htmlAlso, we know that activists blogs predicting mass-deaths in Fukushima are all the science that is needed www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20120612hn.htmlSadly, when the kids of Fukushima die either because of stress-related ilnesses, or bad lifestyle choices brought on by being told they are the walking dead, the usual suspects will trumpet this as evidence of the dangers of nuclear power - instead of hanging their heads in shame. |
|
|
|
Post by chewho on Jun 20, 2012 4:16:30 GMT 9.5
A breathtakingly naive and partial view frankly. Guessing games about what people in pictures may or may not be thinking is not helpful in moving debates forward.
|
|
;D
