EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Spewing from Meltdowns: Dangerous Plumes of Disinformation
Well-reported plumes of radiation have spread to California and beyond from the wrecked six-reactor complex at Fukushima, Japan. What’s worse in terms of citizen awareness, clouds of disinformation are circling even faster.
The consequences of Japan’s disaster cubed — earthquakes, a tsunami and spewing radiation — can hardly be exaggerated, with over 22,000 people reportedly killed or missing, widespread contamination by long-lasting isotopes like cesium, and an early estimate of $250 billion in damages.
Yet within the blizzard of radiation being dispersed uncontrollably, day after day, from Japan’s wrecked reactors and their dry pools of burning-hot waste fuel, it’s important to note the storm of reassuring but erroneous lullabies about “safe,” “harmless” and “less than dangerous” exposures.
There is no level of radiation exposure, no matter how small, that is harmless. Every federal agency that regulates radioactive pollution agrees.
Any exposure raises cancer risk
The National Council on Radiation Protection says, “… every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremental increase in the risk of cancer.” The Environmental Protection Agency says, “… any exposure to radiation poses some risk, i.e. there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk.” The Department of Energy says about “low levels of radiation” that “… the major effect is a very slight increase in cancer risk.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, “any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer ... any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk.” The National Academy of Sciences, in its “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII,” says, “... it is unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers ....”
Long story short, “One can no longer speak of a ‘safe’ dose level,” as Dr. Ian Fairlie and Dr. Marvin Resnikoff said in their report “No dose too low,” in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
But when representatives from government agencies, universities or industry say “the amount of radiation did not reach a dangerous level,” the listener is led to believe in error that there’s some level that is risk-free.
The hiding or obscuring of radiation’s dispersal came from government and company officials early on who reported “venting of hydrogen gas,” and claimed there was “no threat to health.” Even when hydrogen gas explosions destroyed parts of four reactors, the promise of safety was repeated.
“In fact,” writes environmental anthropologist Barbara Rose Johnston in the March 18 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “the hydrogen released is tritium water vapor, a low-level [radiation] emitter that can be absorbed in a human body through simply breathing, or by drinking contaminated water.”
Principle Japanese government spokesperson, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano, has been one of the worst violators. On March 21, Edano asked the public not to overreact to reports of radioactively contaminated food, saying, “Even if you eat contaminated vegetables several times, it will not harm your health at all,” the BBC reported.
Spinach with radioactive iodine 27 times the government-established limit had been found in the city of Hitachi, more than 50 miles south of the failed reactors.
Outright lying, appalling laziness
On March 17, when radiation levels were reportedly 300 times normal just south of Fukushima, Associated Press writer Eric Talmadge reported without qualification that officials said, “It would take three years of constant exposure to these higher levels to raise a person’s risk of cancer.” This is outright lying by “officials” of course, but it also shows the appalling laziness of the AP, since information on low dose exposures is easily available from the websites of the agencies quoted above.
Dr. Chris Busby, a founder of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, and chief scientist at the Low-Level Radiation Campaign declared March 16, “Reassurances about radiation exposures issued by the Japanese government cannot be believed. They are based on an invalid risk model which the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) itself has admitted cannot be applied in accident situations.”
This ICRP radiation risk model is the basis of and dominates all present radiation exposure legislation. Yet Dr. Busby reports, “The basic concept of radiation dose is generally recognized to be invalid for many types of internal exposure relevant to the present emergency.”
Industry watchdogs are working to correct the errors. Mary Olson, of Nuclear Information and Resource Service writes, “Radiation carries a risk, not a certainty, of DNA damage at every level of exposure. An emission from a radionuclide that chanced to ride on your sandwich into your tummy — an exposure so tiny that it would never be measured — has the capacity to start what might become fatal cancer.”
Governments have set up “permissible,” “allowable” and “legal” radiation exposure limits because reactors can’t operate without venting or dumping contaminated gases and liquids. Exposure to this radiation, during routine operations or from partial meltdowns — say in milk, tap water, or vegetables — is never safe. It is merely permitted under law.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
66 Comments so far
Show AllAn excellent piece--all exposure is CUMULATIVE. In other words, every exposure is damaging to cellular life and no exposure is forgotten or forgiven.
The media is lying to preserve business as usual.
Here is a website trackiing the movement of the air from the accident site.
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~tcanty/hysplit/
Remember this shows air currents, not radiation.
NMBill,
The DOE released a radiation map today from an aerial survey. Unfortunately it is in the latest powerpoint format so it may not be compatible with all viewers. Particularly see page 4 of the powerpoint:
www . energy . gov/news/documents/AMS_Data_for_USDoS__March22_1530_JLC . pptx
Bill
>>This is outright lying by “officials” of course, but it also shows the appalling laziness of the AP, since information on low dose exposures is easily available from the websites of the agencies quoted above.
This is not laziness on the part of AP and the Media. They are in lockstep with the attempts to downplay the effects of this incident. If they reported the truth they would lose advertising revenues and their parent companies stock values would drop.
Quite right GwN, no need for the writer to make excuses for them.
"One of the arguments used in support of increasingly strict radiation dose limits is that every incremental reduction in radiation exposure carries with it a net benefit to the public health. This hypothesis is also frequently cited by those with a seemingly irrational fear of radiation as justifying their fears, and the continued use of the linear, no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis helps to feed radiation phobia. Abandoning this hypothesis or explaining that it over-predicts risks at low levels of radiation exposure, if supported by appropriate scientific studies, may help alleviate radiation phobia."
"Recently-published data suggest that there is no detectable chromsomal damage from the high levels of natural background radiation found in Ramsar and other HBRAs, contrary to the predictions of linear, no-threshold or supra-linear models of radiation dose-response (Ghiassinejad et al. 2001; Mortazvi 2000). This suggests that the linear extrapolation of radiation risk from very high dose at high dose rates (e.g., to A-bomb , many animal studies) to moderate doses at natural low dose rates is scientifically invalid."
http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl/grkfiles/images/Karam.pdf
"Based on results obtained in studies on high background radiation areas of Ramsar, high levels of natural radiation may have some bio-positive effects such as enhancing radiation-resistance. More research is needed to assess if these bio-positive effects have any implication in radiation protection (Mortazavi et al. 2001). The risk from exposure to low-dose radiation has been highly politicized for a variety of reasons. This has led to a frequently exaggerated perception of the potential health effects, and to lasting public controversies."
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/ramsar-natural-radioactivity/ramsar.html
"In the last decade, an alternative hypothesis called radiation hormesis has gained adherents. The term "hormesis" describes any physiologic effect that occurs at low doses of a substance and cannot be anticipated by extrapolation from the substance’s toxic effects at high doses. Some everyday examples of hormesis include the effects of vitamins, trace elements, and hormones. In each instance, a small amount of the substance is beneficial but a large amount is toxic. Similarly, radiation hormesis proposes that low levels of radiation exposure produce health benefits. The radiation hormesis hypothesis can be shown graphically as a decrease in the radiation risk at low levels."
http://tech.snmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/1/11
"Low doses and low dose-rates of gamma rays and x-rays appear to stimulate the body's natural defenses, an effect that has been called radiation activated natural protection (ANP). This protective mechanism involves selective removal of aberrant cells such as those that are precancerous via apoptosis (cell death). The selective removal of precancerous cells via apoptosis it thought to involve intercellular signaling involving reactive oxygen and nitrogen species and certain cytokines. In addition, there is considerable evidence supporting the action of low-dose radiation in connection with stimulating immunity against cancer cells. These protective effects would operate for both sporadic and hereditary cancers. As mentioned above, there are evolutionary arguments suggesting that such protective mechanisms may have been essential to survival."
http://www.yourhealthbase.com/radiation_and_cancer_risk.htm
http://geology.about.com/library/bl/maps/blusradiationmap.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/county-cancer-map.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939692/
And a hearty THANX! Of course sanity is hated on this web site, so you'll be fiercely attacked for actually citing peer-reviewed papers and other nasty facts.
"It matters not in the least, that many have been well paid to shill for this dangerous industry, and provide "peer-reviewed papers and other nasty facts." Having written and published something as referenced, does not indicate a real scientific consensus, only that the "peers" used to review it shared the same ( twisted ) viewpoint."
Amazing isn't it? The use of peer reviewed literature when arguing from a global warmist's perspective is often at the core of the defence. When it is used to argue for neuclear energy it is anathema. Where do you lefties get off?
Thanks for reminding the readers that so much of what passes as peer reviewed literature is really just sponsored reasoning to bolster some market driven enterprise's need to stay afloat. All credentials have to be checked and connections sought out, sooner or later, I have found, many threads in the matrix of control and 'peer reviewed literature' lead to some plush office with high vaulted ceilings on K Street.
Reducing this debate to "Empire vs Individual" is simplistic and unscientific demagogy.
Glittering generalities, vaguely worded and easily misconstrued phrases abound in your quotes
Considerable evidence
suggesting
may have been
seemingly irrational
may help alleviate radiation phobia
suggest
"effects of vitamins, trace elements, and hormone" =safety of radionuclides by what mechanism? and how are all of those related to biological processes?
oh
Look
we don't have any way of equating those
'The risk from exposure to low-dose radiation has been highly politicized for a variety of reasons.."
Some of them very good reasons too
Such as
I prefer living a healthy life to one in a cancer ward, having chemo treatments and walking around with uranium wrapped around my body's DNA.
There is no evidence of uranium contamination / failure of containment at Fukushima. Your fears of experiencing any appreciable radioactive exposure or health risk (in the form of any fission product or emission) as a result of the emergency at the Fukushima powerplant are simply not supported by the known facts, and reality of the situation.
This is admittedly a generality/assumption (yet valid if correct) that you are not loitering within, or in very close proximity to the Fukushima-Daiichi plant during this emergency.
Source(s) please re: nuclear fuel uncontained/dispersed outside Fukushima reactor buildings.
For all those who disagree with the article:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/radiation-and-pregnancy/?scp=1&sq=sweden%20chernoybl&st=cse
arch 13, 2011, 10:42 pm
Radiation and Pregnancy
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Douglas Almond, a Columbia University economist who has studied the effects of the Chernobyl disaster, is concerned that the Japanese government may not be doing enough to warn pregnant women to leave any areas at risk of radiation exposure. Those areas can be much farther from the nuclear plants than many people realize.
Mr. Almond, in an e-mail, explains:
The fetus may be particularly sensitive to low doses of ionizing radiation, a susceptibility that current public health responses in Japan seem to have overlooked. Evidence comes from a recent study of Chernobyl fallout in Sweden, which experienced comparatively low radiation doses from the accident; indeed radiation levels in Sweden were believed safe at the time.
While this has been largely confirmed in subsequent studies, there is one important exception: children in utero at the time of the accident. Swedish students who were in utero during the accident experienced significantly lower cognitive function, as reflected in performance on standardized tests in middle school, especially those tests that correspond best to IQ.
The damage was greatest for cohorts in utero in regions of Sweden that received more fallout by virtue of rainfall during the time the radioactive plume was over Sweden, and were of gestational age 8-25 weeks at the time of the accident. This last finding mirrors earlier epidemiological analysis of the survivors of Atomic bombings in Japan, which found reduced IQ and head circumference among the cohort exposed to radiation at those gestation ages.
Mr. Almond’s research — which he did with Lena Edlund of Columbia and Marten Palme of the Stockholm School of Economics — was published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2009. A version of the paper is available from the National Bureau of Economic Research.
I’m grateful to Michael Greenstone, an M.I.T. economist who is also director of the Hamilton Project in Washington, for calling this research to my attention. “The point,” Mr. Greenstone says, “is that the Japanese government should be issuing stronger warnings to pregnant women.”
Let's please not ignore the effects of a mother's stress levels on fetal development, when we make assumptions about low radiation doses during pregnancy. Traumatic events during pregnancy (such as disasters and war) often correlate with increased incidence of birth defects and a multitude of developmental problems.
Inducing fear in pregnant mothers should not happen without careful consideration of environmental effects including prenatal stress due to fears that may or may not have rational and scientific basis.
http://www.ahealthymind.org/ans/library/Fetal-maternal.pdf
http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2002/01/chernobyls-real-victims-1.html
http://spectator.org/archives/2006/01/23/chernobyl-myths
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Observations_Chernobyl.pdf
I wonder how people in Tokyo felt when they were told;"Yesterday it wasn't safe for your baby to drink the water, but today it's okay."
Relieved. As Japan recovers from the entire disaster (including the Fukushima emergency) the world should join in support and joie de vivre. Japan and the world will overcome these horrific losses and fears.
Actually Shill, I doubt very much if they felt relief. I think they wondered if the government wasn't lying to them to prevent panic.
Government sez: "Japanese Miracle Water: Dangerously radioactive yesterday, okay for your baby today!"
Sure it is.
Oh, look, "Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano was also anxious to avoid further panic following a warning that tap water could be dangerous for young children - which was later lifted and then re-established in some areas yesterday."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369993/Japan-nuclear-meltdown-Fukushima-plant-exclusion-zone-widened-reactor-fears.html#ixzz1Hdd8gJKv
And, if you haven't noticed, the NUCLEAR DISASTER is still going on.
The article you referenced is a prime example of a manipulative piece of journalism- interspersing photos of mass graves with information about the powerplant emergency. It's important in many contexts to develop a recognition of manipulative journalism, because although it is particularly extreme and rampant in coverage of nuclear power emergencies, such manipulations threaten realistic perceptions and public policy in many cases.
I'm not employed in any way by the nuclear power industry (as you have insistently implied here) but since I'm an aviation professional I often deal with the (thankfully) lower level of hysteria and ignorance that is mobilized when aviation emergencies are sensationalized, and general-public risk perceptions distorted.
I am so grateful that there is considerably more general public understanding of aviation technology than nuclear, because if the two industries had equal popular misconceptions about risk, the political implications of aviation accidents to the industry in an environment of rampant ignorance and fear would be devastating. There is a considerable degree of lost opportunity in aviation due to inflated perceptions of risk, especially in the flight training sector in which I make my living.
I am disappointed when the nuclear power industry is unreasonably stigmatized, because as an environmentalist I happen to believe that nuclear power is and important component of major practical climate-change and pollution mitigation strategies. I'm also disappointed in communities like Common Dreams (where I find clear and critical thinking to be more prevalent than in the general population, and where I generally find myself in kindred political company) to experience a conspicuous amount of shallow thinking and rhetoric when it comes to the interface of biology, ecology, and nuclear science.
The natural background range of ionizing radiation around the world, within which life goes on without demonstrable ill effects due to radiation sickness, carcinogenesis, etc includes larger variations of exposure than is occurring in the vicinity of the Fushima powerplant. Somewhat lost in the translation of the precautions that Japanese authorities are taking are the logistics of a lengthy emergency. It is not because exposure is increasing that it is becoming problematic for so many people to (prudently) stay inside their homes in proximity to the powerplant, where transient concentrated emissions are still possible.
If the Chibo refinery fire had not been brought under control, the evacuation area there would similarly have needed adjustments, because confining people indoors becomes increasingly problematic with time, especially with basic utilities and services under severe stress.
Even as journalism and official information sources have done poorly in informing the world with clarity, there is much evidence available, that is showing that the public exposure to radiation from the Fukushima complex (direct, airborne, and waterborne) has been steadily decreasing since the emergency began, and there have thankfully been no harm to the public comparable to (for example) the Chibo fire and Fukushima Dam tragedies. If you will review the chronology of tests warnings (not headlines!) pertaining to the Tokyo water supply for example- you will learn that iodine-131 levels have decreased- dangers in the water have not been rising, or misreported by authorities.
There has been so much death and suffering due to other infrastructure shared all over the world, but nuclear infrastructure is subject to so much ignorance and fear that these tragedies have been disgracefully overshadowed. There are many lessons in this that can apply not only to questions of nuclear power, but to other aspects of collective and political life where democracies especially are impeded (even rendered dysfunctional at times) due to poor education and public situational awareness.
I'm deeply disappointed in the nuclear power industry, in educational systems, the media, and in public authorities for a conspicuous level of ignorance that is being left to contribute to fearful and misguided speculation and impressions that will have a multitude of profound and long-lasting implications. In my opinion, the stigmatization of nuclear power is likely to result in a significant negative impact on the global environment. Nuclear power really is cleaner than coal, oil, and natural gas- not only in terms of radiological factors, but also considering greenhouse emissions and non-radio pollution.
I welcome informed debate about nuclear energy. I enjoy exchanging ideas and knowledge with opponents of nuclear power who have respect for and familiarity with the scientific method, and who are not in the habit of interjecting logical fallacies (such as ad-hominem distractions) and disinformation (such as shock journalism). I'm also a patient person with a fairly thick skin. I'm interested in the background of your understanding, and willing to share my own with total honesty. If you care to discuss the issues pertaining to nuclear power with me here or elsewhere with sincerity and an open intellect, I will always welcome the conversation.
A lot of straw-men there, Hugh. But I'm glad you're still exchanging ideas with me.
In biology and environmental science we learn that there are levels of challenge that our bodies are evolved to handle, and levels that exceed our evolved coping systems. This is in evidence in how our bodies fight off infection, toxic insults, and radiation. As a general rule, if you consider the range and intensity of any environmental challenges to biological systems that they evolved under, then it's often a reliable predictor of how much can be handled. It's true for how much carbon monoxide we can handle for example, or viral load... or radioactive dose. The simple reality is that there are many places on earth where people thrive, and are under a much higher load of ionizing radiation than the people of Fukushima Prefecture right now.
What I'm trying to explain (and that I'm confident you can understand) is that in the same way as even vitamins are toxic in extreme doses, the radiological environment we live in can be conducive to life, and (in the extremes) harmful to it. I hope that you will entertain enough intellectual curiosity to explore what is scientifically established about the human threshold of harm from radiation, and compare radiation levels and health data between places like Ramsar Iran, Guarapari Brazil, Kerala India, Yangjiang China, Slavutych Ukraine, Harrisburg PA, and Fukushima Japan. As I've tried to indicate in other posts, it's interesting to compare health data and radiation. This is not to say that radiation is a good thing at extreme doses- I'm pointing out that many people live and thrive (without higher cancer rates) under higher ambient radiation than the Fukushima accident has presented to its local area.
"Everyday, corporate / gov propaganda creates new divisive sub-groups of people, setting each to fight against the other, so as to never discover that the real fight is at a whole different level. They accentuate differences, hate and fear, playing off of the worse of human emotions. Our collective survival is no longer at all about winning some totally artificial battle over those contrived and insignificant differences, like : left v right, white v black, Christian v Muslim, Northern v Southern Hemisphere, Repuk v Demo, etc …."
I know from what you posted above that you have a keen awareness that there is manipulation in the media. I'm only inviting you to apply some similar critical thinking, logic, and open-minded examination of the facts to explore whether the fears we hear so much about concerning the radiological environment are based on facts. Radiation at the levels presented and feared so far and wide after nuclear accidents is around us without the accidents too, and not only in the vicinity of nuclear powerplants and uranium mines. Please avail yourself of the burgeoning resources available to us all for exploring our radiological environment around the world. For example, the everyday dose of an everyday stroll through Grand Central Station would cause much alarm, if the same levels were detected in Tokyo today. Why is that, in your understanding?
As for your other metaphors, I'm having some trouble putting them in context, and it's probably because we've misunderstood each other. I grew up in the Middle East, and I'm probably much better informed on that situation than nuclear energy. I think it would take us far off topic if I shared with you my understanding of problems of international perception concerning Palestine.
As for nuclear powered automobiles, I look forward with great enthusiasm to driving plug-in electric cars, and piloting electric airplanes too (with hydrogen or chemical batteries)... especially with nuclear-power sourcing (along with cleaner sources too). If we could use nuclear power as the minimum baseline of dirty energy beginning right now, we would fast be on our way to a considerably cleaner, safer, and more prosperous planet for us all.
Thanks for not addressing me as "Shill" in your last post. Ctrl-Z has been the worst offender, and I must confess it was a little repetitive and grating. Call me "Rob" if you like (my real name). "Hype" is fine, if you prefer a short nickname
Cheers!
(link) I have high hopes for this new organization: National Center for Radioecology (NCoRE)
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/radioecologists-developing-japan.html
Thanks for those links, Hughnanimous. Radiophobia thrives on ignorance of proportion.
Many of us calmly accept a constant and cumulative dose of radiation at 10% of the indisputably lethal level- well, at least in terms of thermal radiation (enduring the onslaught of 15 degrees C / 59F air temperature, that is). Many of us have similarly accepted the relationship of time and mortality- that there is "no safe dose" of time, with respect to the approach of our every demise.
But with time, I'm nevertheless hopeful that most intelligent people will become aware that life and the environment are inherently radioactive. There are many places on Earth where people (and life in general) thrives, in the presence of continuous ambient levels of ionizing radiation declared as horrifyingly "unsafe" within societies that are experiencing considerable dysfunction and manipulation concerning risk perception and risk management. With reason overcoming fear, we can (and I believe we shall) cope with our greatest challenges and thrive, sustainably.
http://junkscience.org/news/sws/sws-chapter7.html
http://www.bestwriters.com/orient-art/jane1.htm
http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl/grkfiles/images/Karam.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477689/
Hughnanimous: "Perhaps, you might consider explaining why what I said is somehow repudiated by all of these links?"
Sure- Where ambient ionizing radiation is highest (where natural radiation levels are higher than "safe" limits according to the Linear No-Threshold Model "all radiation is bad") evidence of higher cancer rates or reduced life expectancy refutes the model. Considering that we evolved under higher than present average background radiation, it isn't really all that surprising that our biological systems cope well with moderately-elevated radiation.
Our physiology (and that of other life forms) responds to radio challenges in similar ways as in other immune defences. The LNT model of radiation risk is not just simplistic- it misrepresents the way that biology responds to radiation at the common levels far below the extremes producing burns and sickness. Several orders of magnitude separate the public exposures presented in the Fukushima 1 accident and the threshold of radiation sickness and burns. As with thermal radiation and chemical toxicity, extrapolating the obviously harmful extremes on low and natural ambient levels isn't very informative- such extrapolations can often be very misleading.
The radiation exposures stemming from recent events in Japan are lower than those in high background radiation areas. In such areas, where there is considerably higher background radiation than now present in the Fukushima 1 environs after recent events, there is no higher incidence of carcinogenesis and other health problems.
The level of fear conveyed here at CD and in the media at large concerning levels of radiation produced in the Fukushima incident is not consistent with the facts. But that's not the worst of it, in my view.
While you and others here are quick to disparage myself and others who do not share your fears as "shills" for nuclear power, it does not seem that you have well considered the likely increase in coal and natural gas energy production that will predictably follow an irrational stigmatization of nuclear power. The world's most criminal corporate polluters and emitters of greenhouse gasses certainly are relieved and encouraged whenever a frightening nuclear event comes along.
To me, the same psychology that promotes and sustains islamophobia and other ignorance-based ideologies is much in evidence today concerning the Fukushima event. Unless we can develop a rational resistance to shock doctrines and fear-based politics, I am concerned that societies are becoming increasingly susceptible to a tyranny of sensationalism. I think that it will be healthy for progressives and all critical thinkers to develop a keen recognition of the collective behaviors that are indicative of key vulnerabilities to fear and ignorance. In fearful times, I believe that socially-conscious and responsible people must actively promote the elevation of rational public debate, of critical thinking, and of independent learning. The pace of important events is clearly accelerating through history, the present, and into the future. It is likely that our survival and that of most other Earth species will depend on the rapid evolution of collective reason (not emotion) apace with events.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html
http://www.tuftsdaily.com/op-ed/technology-politics-and-fear-1.2514639
HUGH: Great post! I also noticed that odd inversion, conflating Islamophobia with VERY REAL health threats drawn from something known to act as a cancer-causing agent. No one without a very odd agenda would pose these two completely different bases for response into the same sentence, no less category. Seems like a pro at psy-ops to me, too. Thanks for spelling it out... item by item.
By the way if they're out of Potassium Iodine, try Kelp.
Terrorism by a tiny minority of Muslims is very real, but it does not equate to a threat to Western civilization from 1/4 of the world's population (Muslims). The main point of comparison between radiophobia and islamophobia that I am suggesting is simply that the risks to the fearful are higher in perception than reality. Looking deeper, there are many points of behavioral and psychological comparison.
First let's just consider the potential disparity between perception and reality. Radiation at comparable levels to what is now present in communities surrounding Fukushima can be found in other populated places with high background radiation (Talesh Mahalleh Iran for example). Similarly, studies of populations subjected to moderately elevated ionizing radiation in nuclear accidents and attacks do not consistently support the theory that moderately elevated levels, well within normal range of radiation levels that our biological systems evolved in, are inherently and linearly harmful, in terms of carcinogenesis and other health risks.
To observe that islamophobia and radiophobia involve the promotion of irrational fears with comparable macropsychological cause and effect is not the same as to say that there is no harm. The point is that the perception of danger far exceeds the reality; radiation can certainly be harmful (especially in massive doses) but the risks to the public in nuclear accidents such as being endured with Fukushima-Daiichi are being exaggerated both in fear and in service to radiophobic ideology.
To observe that people throughout societal strata participate in promoting and perpetuating phenomena such as islamophobia and radiophobia is not the same as saying that all those affected have a common and coherent agenda in deception. There are varying motivations that range over various and separate ideologies and fears. What I do consider somewhat in evidence editorially and in comments here at Common Dreams is some degree of exploitation of the emotions of this crisis in promoting political opposition to nuclear power.
In my view this is similar (in tactics and political ethics) to cultural-supremacist agendas behind the contemporary disparagement of Islam and Muslims, as being somehow morally inferior to their detractors, with respect to violence and terrorism. Of course, stigmatizing naturally-occuring levels of radiation is not the same thing as singling out people, human cultures, and religions as inherently malignant forces.
But in both cases I'm comparing, I am indicating what I recognize to be political incitement and exploitation of primitive and fearful collective emotions. I don't consider such exploitation of fear and irrationality as intellectually or morally defensible. I do understand that many people do follow along with such agendas in a rather mindless (if not entirely innocent) way. If we believe in truth and recognize our limitations then our beliefs cannot be static. If we will explore the developing evidence together here, I believe that we can all gain a clearer sense of where the truth is. All that I know for certain is that none of us has an exclusive possession of it: We're all learning from this, who are willing to learn.
http://www.tuftsdaily.com/op-ed/technology-politics-and-fear-1.2514639
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/03/21/we_pay_a_stiff_premium_for_nuclear_fear_98917.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8395758/German-Greens-gain-in-election-on-back-of-nuclear-fears.html
http://ref.kodoom.com/en/Ramsar,_Mazandaran
http://livingissues.com/2008/04/09/radiation-and-chernobyl-realities-at-last/
http://www.hindu.com/seta/2007/05/24/stories/2007052400111700.htm
http://www.atomicinsights.com/Guests/AGC_06-11-06.pdf
http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf
Let's consider a quote from the article you're referring to:
"The ministry said that if people eat 100 grams (four ounces) a day of the vegetable for about 10 days, they would ingest half the amount of radiation typically received from the natural environment in a year.
"Even if these foods are temporarily eaten, there is no health hazard,""
As has been consistently the case in CD and major media coverage, the headlines sensationalize and misrepresent the reporting. We must wait some for scientific investigation and reporting to catch up- and consider the actual content of the reporting more than the sensational headlines sometimes accreted by aggregators.
Although the iodine danger will be short-lived, likewise (hopefully) the pollution from major industrial spills and fires that resulted from the earthquakes and tsunami- but the cesium question is the most serious. Authorities and politicians will of course be extremely cautious in their recommendations, and there is reason to expect that these early worst-case precautions and strict monitoring will be more than adequate to keep the health risks extremely low. All reasonable precautions (and more) are being taken in Japan and abroad, and our sincere compassion for the people of Japan must include a resistance to further damaging their economy by irrational fear.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/whats-the-current-radiation-threat.html?ref=hp
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/overreactions-worsen-japans-misery-118288969.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/asia/25japan.html
Shill sez: While you and others here are quick to disparage myself and others who do not share your fears as "shills" for nuclear power..."
I try to avoid encouraging or dignifying ad-hominem distractions with any response. I thank you for emphasizing the impropriety of attacking fellow CDers here in personally presumptuous ways.
More Hype from Hyperwaders.
I'm not attacking you personally, I'm attacking you as a paid agent of the nuclear industry .
Fake personas like you put the AD in ad hominem.
Spewing your industry PR crap is a hell of a lot more presumptuous than calling you a shill.
I do wonder if shill is the correct term for you and your ilk. Ghoul might be more accurate.
Don't worry about it Hugh'
Anyone who thinks nuclear power is "environmental" and "sustainable" is a dupe and/or shill and completely ignorant about how nuclear energy is produced and how uranium is extracted and processed.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html
Gee, Mr. Logician. Since most of the uranium enrichment facilities in the U.S. rely on dirty fossil fuel plants for electricity, perhaps some of those oil and coal deaths should be added to the nuclear column in this spiffy little chart. At the top of the list, two of the dirtiest coal plants in the country in Ohio and Indiana generate electricity used solely for uranium enrichment. Godin, of course, believes that part of marketing is the clever lie, one that the liar embraces totally. The nuclear industry is rife with clever liars. How else do they manage to convince huge segments of the government and the public to subsidize a technology that was deemed too expensive and too risky by private industry well before Three Mile Island? Simple truth: no subsidies, no nuclear power. Ideologues, however, routinely discard all information that doesn't fit their a priori judgments. Perhaps, you're an ideologue, hype. Let's end the corporate nanny state required by the nuclear proponents and let the market dictate our energy options.
I would have preferred for Clifty Creek Indiana / Portsmouth Ohio (I assume that's the enrichment operation you're referring to) to have used cleaner nuclear power instead of coal. I have family and regularly spend time very close by Clifty Creek. The Portsmouth enrichment facility is presently being decommissioned.
I am having difficulty following your consideration of coal-fed power for any purpose as preferable to nuclear power, on the basis of public safety or the environment- also in terms of economics when environmental and human costs are scientifically factored. The dismissal of nuclear power on the basis of any fossil fuel energy bootstrap is similar to arguments against wind solar and hydro power (as being dependant upon hydrocarbon and nuclear power for manufacturing and distribution). Trying to follow this sort of reasoning is (to me) something like watching a dog chasing his tail.
Personally I prefer solar, wind, and hydro to nuclear (and certainly hydrocarbon) energy. I've worked as a solar energy installer with much satisfaction and pride. In the near term I would like to see major power generation pollution and hazards to be expeditiously eliminated in order of ecological impact. I see a compelling scientific basis for considering coal energy to be clearly the most hazardous in terms of every sort of emissions and danger to the public and environment. I am convinced that reducing coal power production before nuclear is a faster and more rational means to improving our environmental and safety situation nationally and globally.
Any political stampede against nuclear power will be certain to result in a compounding of the dangers and damages of coal in the near term. The clearest and most worthwhile debate about base energy sourcing at present is a scientific comparison of the environmental and economic costs of nuclear vs coal power. I am completely in agreement with any of my fellow friends of earth who desire for the maximum of renewable energy to be brought on line as soon as possible. However, I am cognizant of the reality that either nuclear or hydrocarbon power must bear a considerable portion of the base grid load in the near future.
Concerning lies you are alleging about the risks and economics of Nuclear power, please be specific, and I will be interested in attentively considering anything you would like to offer here. If you have issues with any specifics of the information below (or any other specific information pertaining to the safety and economics of nuclear power you would like to introduce) and would like to discuss it here, I welcome the dialogue- especially in comparing nuclear power to coal power production for the reasons above.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clifty_Creek_Station
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ohio_Valley_Electric_Corporation
http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson/rjcoopedapr05.html
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter3.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
http://russp.org/nucfacts.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/g2yji/til_coal_powerplants_release_100x_more_radiation/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17565
http://www.fresnoedc.com/_blog/President's_Message/post/Coal_Vs_Nuclear/
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e5d4dcc4fb511e0ae0c000255111976/comments/2e70ae944fb511e0ae0c000255111976
Shill sez: " “I've worked as a solar energy installer with much satisfaction and pride.“
Shill sed (in this thread): “..I'm an aviation professional..”
Let's see, an aviation professional who installs solar panels...hmmm....
Maybe Shill worked on the "Gossamer Penguin", the experimental solar powered aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossamer_Penguin
YES! Brilliant stuff! I didn't work on GP personally but followed it avidly and closely.
Things are advancing well beyond Gossamer Penguin pioneering- fast approaching practical solar-powered aircraft (but with more batteries, and much bigger PV arrays left on the ground). I also hope to power my airplanes with solar power from panels I've installed atop my hangar. I'm fairly hands-on, both out of enthusiasm and economic necessity- licensed to maintain the airplanes I fly, willing to work in other rewarding fields when building equity in my flight school.
Here's the sort of emerging technology that has me very excited. I'm working hard to integrate this beautiful technology into my vocation:
http://www.lange-aviation.com/
http://www.mcp.com.au/sinus/models/taurus-electro.html
http://www.yuneec.com/Aircraft.html
I passionately believe that there is a bright and thrilling future awaiting us as we embrace both environmentalism and advanced technology. My most optimistic and active friends tend to be multi-talented. I admire and am inspired by that very much.
Nuclear power is a cancer forever increasing WMD.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf13.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-environment/10nukes.html
I believe seeing news reports some time back about "nuking meat" in order to kill the infectious pathogens it attracts before going to market to make it safe for folks to eat?
In "The Animals Film" ["a critically acclaimed feature documentary film about the exploitation of animals, directed by Victor Schonfeld and Myriam Alaux, and narrated by actress Julie Christie. The film was first released in 1982."], secret footage of military and research footage was shown of radiation experiments on innocent nonhuman beings. Watch them become sickened, bleeding, vomiting, falling, dying. During some of the atomic or H-bomb tests done at sea old naval vessels were located at ground-zero for the purpose of exposing the animals on board to the full blast and radiation. Then the fucking bastards in their protective gear come on board to study the results of their "experiment."
At the end of the film, “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” the1964 film that satirized the nuclear scare, footage of atomic blasts are shown, including blasts at sea, and there's one where you actually see ships in the water rocked by the blast, they were that close. I bet animals were on board those ships as part of an experiment, or else why would the ships be there in the first place?
I saw Helen Caldicott speak on this several years ago. I think it was called, irradiated meat. Now that i think of it, does anyone know if she is still with us? It seems she would be speaking out about Japan and i haven't heard anything.
wikipedia presently offers a reasonable primer on food irradiation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Food_irradiation
See also IDSA:
http://www.idsociety.org/Content.aspx?id=5984
Popular misconceptions about food irradiation are an instructive example of detrimental health implications of radiophobia.
Here is a report from a Japanese nuclear expert, which indicates how serious the radiation danger is from the plants (on the grounds of which one can get a lethal dose of radiation in an estimated = 16 = seconds), and how the nuclear apologists are obfuscating the truth:
"Around Fukushima Daiichi Station they measured 400 millisieverts... that’s per hour. With this measurement (Chief Cabinet Secretary) Edano admitted for the first time that there was a danger to health... but he didn’t explain what this means. All of the information media are at fault here I think. They are saying stupid things like, why, we are exposed to radiation all the time in our daily life, we get radiation from outer space.
But that’s one millisievert per year. A year has 365 days, a day has 24 hours; multiply 365 by 24, you get 8760. Multiply the 400 millisieverts by that... you get 3,500,000 the normal dose.
You call that safe? And what media have reported this? None. They compare it to a CT scan, which is over in an instant; that has nothing to do with it. The reason radioactivity can be measured is that radioactive material is escaping. What is dangerous is when that material enters your body and irradiates it from inside.
These industry-mouthpiece scholars come on TV and what to they say? They say as you move away the radiation is reduced in inverse ratio to the square of the distance. I want to say the reverse. Internal irradiation happens when radioactive material is ingested into the body. What happens?
Say there is a nuclear particle one meter away from you. You breathe it in, it sticks inside your body; the distance between you and it is now at the micron level. One meter is 1000 millimeters, one micron is one thousandth of a millimeter. That’s a thousand times a thousand: a thousand squared. That’s the real meaning of “inverse ratio of the square of the distance.” Radiation exposure is increased by a factor of a Trillion. Inhaling even the tiniest particle, that’s the danger. "
And reportedly there are an estimated 600,000 spent-core frangments exposed on the grounds around the plants now. Tons of fun.
So what now? Well, for one thing, give up trying to salvage (the blown financial investment of) the plants and concrete up the entire site in a gigantic sarcophagus. Like Chernobyl. And, like Chernobyl, abandon a vast area around the plant for generations.
Call it "Hiroshima 2". Another monument to, and example of, atomic power, provided by Japan. Again.
And America. Again.
So for these lessons, thanks, nukes! Who says they're good for nothing?
I too am curious about FVHorn's sources.
"you get 3,500,000 the normal dose"
Nobody stood by to soak up the high transient emissions that you mention above. The accumulated doses that you are extrapolating have not (and could not have) occurred for anyone involved, because they were transient: Not continuous; not being emitted now.
"industry-mouthpiece scholars"
If you allow yourself to become so partisan as to dismiss all who differ in their opinions from you- if you assume your counterparts in debate must have some kind of class-warfare or "corporate agenda" then you will not only be mistaken. You will be severely limiting your access to information and understanding. Wherever there is disagreement there are at least two opportunities for learning. Ideological self-censorship is highly vulnerable to tunnel-vision, and a severe handicap to scientific and interpersonal understanding.
"Inhaling even the tiniest particle, that’s the danger."
Not in this case. Fukushima is not pouring out bits of nuclear fuel. There really are many toxic materials in our environment (naturally occurring as well as man-made) sufficient to extinguish all life. That's always been true. But the delivery mechanisms (natural and man-made) are considerably less than all-pervasive, and Fukushima has not changed that status at the local, and certainly not the global scale.
Even in the extreme case of nuclear weapons as inflicted on Japan, residual radiation and particle contamination has not been the most lethal aspect: It was the blast and short-range, short-duration high radiation and heat that took so much life.
"spent-core fragments exposed on the grounds around the plants"
-are not really there (please look into it for yourself). Fukushima is not Chernobyl 2. Some of the darkest popular assumptions even about Chernobyl are also radiophobic myth. Find out for yourself: Over time emotions have subsided, and a new wealth of science is emerging on the subject.
There are valuable insights to gather someday from what you now believe -and especially in how you came to believe what you have just posted here. Please take some time to study the evidence for (and against) what you have offered. Please study the established science and history pertaining to these nuclear accidents and their known (and not exaggerated) aftermath. We'll have much more complete and verifiable information available as things cool down, and we should not be ashamed if our outlooks change as more complete information becomes available.
These are very serious matters: As with all advanced and advancing technology it will be vital for popular understanding to keep apace. Our common dreams and democracy only function for good when we are well-informed and practised in making considered, rational collective choices, with our most impulsive fears kept in their rightful (peripheral) place. Fear is what we should fear the most, because it can dangerously shutter our perceptions and awareness in our most fateful collective moments. We must become the masters of our fires and of our fates, because the only alternative to functioning mindfully together in crisis will be our extinction.
Shill on why you should listen to shills: "If you allow yourself to become so partisan as to dismiss all who differ in their opinions from you- if you assume your counterparts in debate must have some kind of class-warfare or "corporate agenda" then you will not only be mistaken. You will be severely limiting your access to information and understanding."
As if there's some "partisan" difference difference between CD posters and industry public relations shills.
Hyperwaders last PR job: "Tobacco, Natures miracle crop."
"Fukushima is not pouring out bits of nuclear fuel"
How do you know this? Are you there to give witness? Perhaps you are you relying on the information TEPCO and the Japanese government are giving?
I noticed you respond only to philosophical discussions in the thread below, so I am certain you will not respond to the facts-we know-more facts than you are willing to admit to -a big explosion blew a lot of stuff at Fukushima hundreds of feet in the air -spent fuel rods were inside the building that was very nearly demolished in the explosion. Are you stating you know exactly what happened during that explosion? Quotes from the Japanese authorities may be discounted or as the give away is the radioactive material found everywhere, food, air water-how did it get there if "Fukushima is not pouring out bits of nuclear fuel?"
"Fear is what we should fear the most"
Cool it with the pomposity and sanctimonious statements about fear-
Please share with us any credible source(s) confirming any nuclear fuel rods or fragments of fissile material outside of the reactor vessels and storage pools. These would not be difficult to detect and verify. Please substantiate your suggestion that TEPCO has misled the public in any way. I've seen no credible evidence supporting any such allegations.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/us-japan-experts-idUSTRE72N28Y20110324
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2011/03/the-debate-on-the-nuclear-renaissance-needs-a-bit-more-enlightenment/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/20/a-plea-for-a-return-to-science-on-the-nuclear-power-issue/
http://www.todayonline.com/Commentary/EDC110325-0000051/Welcome-to-the-brave-new-world-of-risk-obsessed-politics
You do not address the issues I bring up so I am not responding to your queries
I have poked enough holes in your arguments to pour water through and through them all so all of you pontificating only shows you may run all of the sock puppet software that you wish
Let it be shown for the record that I have shown that your claims are full of glittering generalities and you have accepted that.
Presently, the nuclear power industry worldwide (in spite of tremendous advances in safety and benefit to human life and the environment) is suffering a tremendous political backlash that stems from ignorance, sensationalism, and collective phobias grossly disproportionate to the actual local and global threats of the Fukishima-Daiichi emergency.
If there were a proportionate level of fear of flying (and distortion of perception of aviation risk) in circulation as there is presently regarding nuclear power, then air travel and all the many associated aviation services and benefits would have been reduced to a tiny fraction of what we enjoy today- (Tenerife, Lockerbie, and 9-11 sufficient to terrify most people into reverting to groundling lifestyles, with paranoia comparable to contemporary radiophobia). All our lives would be very different today, if we were as generally ignorant and fearful of aircraft as we are concerning nuclear power.
Similarly, if the risks of the highways were perceived so impressionably as the risks of nuclear energy- if a half-million highway deaths annually around the world had proportional psychological impact of deaths due to ionizing radiation, then life would be radically different, because all of the implications of personal mobility and commerce would have regressed.
Literal Luddites might welcome such a dramatic turn of human events. The most extreme might even revel in the population crash that would result from economic and agricultural collapse, if we were to abandon mechanized vehicles in rejection of the directly associated death toll.
But I don't think that the Common Dreams majority demographic (for example) would actually stand for the kind of paranoia we're experiencing right now concerning nuclear power to similarly stigmatize, influence, and severely inhibit the vital technology sectors intrinsic to our modern lifestyles that we are more familiar with and accepting of than nuclear power. The human costs due to unintended consequences of nuclear power are miniscule in proportion to those of many other technologies, but the perceptions of threat are inverted and greatly exaggerated. It doesn't take an advanced education to understand this- only basic literacy, access to public information, and an open mind.
Ray L. Phenicie: "How do you know [Fukushima is not pouring out bits of nuclear fuel]?"
There is no evidence of an event such as happened at Chernobyl. At Fukushima-Daiichi there has not been an uncontained explosion of burning reactor core, scattering burning nuclear fuel high into the air and around the vicinity as did occur around Chernobyl R4. So far as we can tell from all available information, all of the fuel (in the core and in storage) that was inside those reactor buildings before the F-D emergency is still inside them, except for a very small fraction of specific volatile isotopes escaping in steam and water. There are no chunks of uranium and plutonium scattered around outside of containment, as happened at Chernobyl.
Before the cooling systems were knocked out by the tsunami, the operating reactors shut down exactly as designed, and the thermal output of the operating cores immediately began ramping down to a fraction of normal operating temperatures.
Fukushima-Daiichi was designed with robust containment structures and systems that Chernobyl utterly lacked. In a chain of human error and absent the context of an epic natural catastrophe, Chernobyl was induced to run out of control and explode just as violently as a reactor can possibly do. F-D on the other hand shut itself down, riding out the earthquake very well until the tsunami hammered the Japanese coastline and lowlands with catastrophic and unforseen damage to the grid and backup power systems; along with 20,000+ lives lost; Chibo refinery fire, Fukushima Dam break, etc.
Comparing these two very different events is something like equating a weather-stranded car with a boiling radiator with the spontaneous explosion of a gas tanker.
"Are you there to give witness?"
No. There is ample information available contradicting the more alarmist reporting and commenting being concentrated here at CD and elsewhere. I've been sharing here links that include more detailed background, and more sober reporting and reflection than the mostly sensationally-headlined articles here. Usually I am in agreement with the editorial stance of Common Dreams. In this case, the staff and most members discussing nuclear power here have been caught up in an ill-informed emotional stampede.
"Perhaps you are you relying on the information TEPCO and the Japanese government are giving?"
I've seen no evidence that either of these have deliberately misled the public. These intelligent and responsible people are keenly aware that this emergency will be intently studied for many years. Minute and exhaustive scrutiny of everything that they have said and done is a given- of everything Tepco, GE, the Japanese Govt, IAEA etc alll do and say, from the tsunami forward. One of the greatest impediments to communications now is hypersensitivity on the part of responding authorities not to do or say anything that may be construed as deceptive or irresponsible.
I've been reading from the widest spectrum of sources that I can find. I prefer the sources that show respect for the scientific method, and I am dismissive of the many sources that are obviously sensationalist and alarmist.
"Are you stating you know exactly what happened during that explosion?"
Hydrogen and air exploded at the top of the shelter above the reactor, storage pools, and other equipment, blowing away the weather shelter, creating wreckage of the shelter, starting several fires, etc. The real trouble was not the explosions- the explosions were one symptom (not the worst part) of the many bad results that followed when the tsunami overwhelmed both backup power.systems, and coolant began to boil off.
"[H]ow did [the radioactive material found everywhere, food, air water] get there if 'Fukushima is not pouring out bits of nuclear fuel'?"
The "bits" are not pieces of fuel, but instead light Isotopes of Iodine-131 carried in steam and water, which present a somewhat manageable hazard, because of its 8-day half-life and diffusion. So long as the public can limit heavy exposure to I-131 for a month or so after the situation is brought back under proper control, the levels in affected areas will return to normal background range. There are also isotopes of Cesium and Strontium (which we all carry in our bodies in negligible amounts). No harmful effects of these (at Chernobyl levels and below) have been in clear scientific evidence. In the wake of the Chernobyl event, the Cesium and Strontium exposures have never presented a consistently quantifiable hazard to the public.
As I've mentioned before (and as many basic explanations of the differences between the Chernobyl and Fukushima-Daichi events show) Chernobyl spewed it's burning core upward (and in all directions) because it was designed without containment and blasted apart from the core in a runaway fission fire.
Fukushima-Daiichi contains much more fissile material, but has contained that material because of a very robust design, and because there was no fission runaway. Yes, the big wave overwhelmed the backup power systems, and this will surely be the focus of efforts to eliminate chances for a repeat occurance anywhere in the world.
Most people have a mostly rational understanding of how in aviation technology the accidents and tragedies of the past have resulted in considerable advances in safety and utility. In nuclear power, safety advances are no less dramatic than they have been for flying machines over the development of industry from the Wright Brothers to the present, and from the dawn of the atomic age up until now. In terms of energy available and provided and proportionate risk to the public, nuclear power has no rivals today.
Aviation does suffer from considerable public phobias, and waves of fear and societal and legislative backlash after spectacular accidents and attacks involving aircraft. But nuclear energy suffers a great deal more from public ignorance and phobias, especially in countries where the public is not educated about and familiarized with the technology.
If we compare the education, familiarity, and experience of the French public with nuclear power, with that of the US population, it's no surprise that attitudes (and greenhouse emissions) are considerably different today between these two societies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Public_opinion
If the we had similarly disparate and fear-based popular attitudes about cars and airplanes as compared with other nations moving ahead of the USA in nuclear energy, then the differences would be even more dramatic. I am concerned about radiophobia, because it seems likely to me that it will result in much environmental and health damage due to accelerating coal, petroleum, and gas burning in the absence of future nuclear-derived power- which is indisputably our cleanest and safest available base grid power today and in the foreseeable future.
When we rationally evaluate and compare the risks, true costs, and benefits of NP vs. fossil fuels- when we recognize that solar, wind, and hydro (however safe and guiltless) can't meet base grid demand near-term- and when we consider the implications of running the fossil-fuel age full-bore into massive climate change and pollution and precipitous energy-supply slumps and energy-cost volatility, then the potential and imperative of nuclear power can come into much more reasonable focus for all of us. It won't make for such sensational headlines and infotainment, but a discovery waits just ahead of our collective understanding and acceptance, of this potent fire we can reliably harness- essential and unrivalled technology for the benefit of our species (of all species) and of our entire ecosystem.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348