

Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick - AndrewDucker
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/japans-radiation-disaster-toll-none-dead-none-sick-20130604-2nomz.html

======
mixmax
I have a personal theory, that I haven't really been able to confirm or deny.
Here it is.

After Hiroshima and during the cold war nuclear energy was associated with
death and destruction. Hiroshima for obvious reasons, and the cold war because
the population of the western world was constantly reminded how The Soviet
Union had thousands of missiles with nuclear bombs pointing at us, ready to
go. Western governments used nuclear weapons to picture the threat and to
terrify populations into spending more on defense against the Soviets. There
were scary videos of mushroom clouds, scary instructions on how to survive a
nuclear blast, and scary stories of how a nuclear winter would pan out.

This, obviously, made people scared of nuclear bombs, and nuclear energy in
general. Through decades the population was told by the government that
nuclear radiation was the evil silent killer.

The byproduct of all this cold war propoganda was that people are now
irrationally scared of nuclear radiation from power plants.

If you look at the numbers you'll see that nuclear energy is the safest and
cleanest scalable energy source we've got. It's the energy source that has the
fewest deaths per MWH produced, it doesn't produce CO2, etc. etc. Yet we think
of it as getting power from the devil.

I blame the cold war propoganda for our irrational fear of nuclear energy.

Here's one of the old propaganda videos from the US, "Duck and cover"
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4MVJIU0gFk>

~~~
elorant
What about nuclear waste though? You end up with some tons of radioactive
material which you have to store in high-security underground facilities with
the hope that in some time in the future humanity will find a way to dispose
it in a safer way.

~~~
kmm
Nuclear waste is stored very, very deep and secure. I cannot imagine future
humans having the technology to open these up, without knowing what is in
there. Either we lose all of our knowledge and no soul will ever see that
site, or we stay an advanced civilization and we are warned of the dangers
before opening the nuclear waste facilities.

Don't forget that uranium is found naturally in the ground, in geologically
vastly more unstable regions, with water flowing through it. What we're doing
is concentrating the radioactivity, and putting it deeper and safer. If you're
afraid of mankind finding these waste sites in the future, are you not afraid
of them finding uranium in their drinking water?

~~~
kgarten
In Germany half is currently stored in an old salt mine which is at risk of
water breaking in (in a region with seismic activity) ... the other half sits
in bright daylight under tin roofs (not my definition of very very deep ... :)

~~~
Xylakant
Even worse - the risk is not water breaking in, since that's already
happening. The risk is total collapse and contamination of the ground water:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine>

So now the plan is to retrieve all the waste and store it - this time better
at an estimated cost of at least 4 - 6 billion Euro.

The general problem I have with nuclear power is that it's all fine and dandy
as long as everything goes as planned. If not, then everything goes boom in a
big way. And where humans and profits are involved, plans tend not to involve
all failure modes: The explosions in fukushima could have been avoided using
catalytic recombinators which are for example mandatory in germany [1].

[1]
[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaktorsicherheit#T.C3.B6pfer-K...](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaktorsicherheit#T.C3.B6pfer-
Kerzen) (sorry, german)

------
Xylakant
So now we're all back to "nuclear power is perfectly safe and cheap." The
article fails to take into account that radiation is not like poison where you
either die or don't. It's a statistical effect and how large the effect is can
only be answered in a couple of decades. I'd not want to bet my life on that.
Also, the radiation spills are not over yet. Radiated water still leaks from
the reactors and flows into the ground and the sea - how and when those leaks
can be plugged is yet unknown. Nobody has any idea how to treat the huge
volumes of radiated water that have been captured so far.

Cleanup costs and storage/disposal costs for the nuclear waste are usually
also ignored when looking at the costs of nuclear power - as well as the
environmental impact of mining uranium. Let's just not talk about the
additional dangers associated with nuclear proliferation. Nuclear power
generates elements that are extremely dangerous and extremely difficult to
handle - unlike solar, wind or even coal power.

~~~
ghshephard
Every single statement you made, with the exception of handling radioactive
waste, applies more to coal than it does to nuclear power.

Coal pollution doesn't "kill outright" - but does so slowly, over many years,
and many, many more people than nuclear power.

Coal waste continues to leak into the air, and into water systems.

I'm not arguing that Nuclear power is "safe" (nothing, is - even solar power
kills many people a year, mostly installers) - but I am suggesting we stay
rational, and realize that there are consequences to any of our energy
choices.

If it turns out that C02 will have an outsized impact on global warming, that
alone, will likely suggest that Coal powered energy systems are fairly bad for
the environment - in a much greater way than the discretely managed
radioactive waste put off by nuclear power plants - which can be buried
underground without changing the earths environment.

~~~
onli
I always love it when coal is used as a comparision. Because:

Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are

Furthermore:

Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 output, if you count it all together. So
this argument against coal is itself an argument against nuclear energy.

Most importantly: We can't manage nuclear waste. There is just no feasible
scenario which makes sure for future generations that the nuclear waste we
produce now won't be the mulch of the society after us. This point is what
seems to seperate the people pro and against the sharpest, some seriously
believing we could manage that.

~~~
reitzensteinm
It's disingenuous to call "solar and wind" an alternative on the same level as
nuclear and coal.

For one thing, it's an incomplete alternative; it needs to be paired with some
form of _country scale_ battery for when the sun isn't shining and the wind
isn't blowing.

This is covered in the excellent book Without Hot Air[1] which breaks down
power usage and generation potential (using UK figures), primarily to discuss
weaning the country off of fossil fuels.

Reading through estimates of what will be required _ignoring cost_ , the sheer
scale of what it would really take to power a country off of renewable energy
quickly becomes apparent.

And it's written by a physicist who strongly argues for the need to move off
of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. He just doesn't have his head in the
sand about how difficult that will be.

I tend to agree with that viewpoint but I'm skeptical we'll get there without
pairing it with a significant boost in energy efficiency, ala Reinventing
Fire[2].

1: <http://withouthotair.com/> 2: <http://www.rmi.org/rmi/ReinventingFire>

~~~
altcognito
> it needs to be paired with some form of country scale battery

This isn't true, as distributed power networks are actually preferable. I'd
much rather have uninterrupted power supply at the home than try and rely on
an entire network to provide it for me.

~~~
ghshephard
At least in the United States, if the Grid goes down, then your home solar
system (including battery supply) is automatically shut down as well for
safety reasons.

------
Udo
The article reads as if it was commissioned by Tepco directly. Nuclear power
is not risk-free. Plants need to be operated with competent designs under the
watchful eyes of competent engineers. None of which was the case at Fukushima.
The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct but
misleading: it doesn't mean people get to ignore the dangers.

Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukushima meltdowns were a
huge catastrophe that severely impacted a whole region. Ask the people who
live(d) there if they think the impact of this thing was overstated in the
media - they're likely to tell you if anything consequences were buried not
exposed. Even _if_ these very first statistics are true, there is likely to be
more impact further down the road. There will be shortened lifespans as a
result of exposure. There is massive economic damage as well. People's lives
were severely affected. And let's not forget the destroyed reactors still
aren't safe. There are very likely huge unpleasant surprises yet to be
revealed.

I don't get why everything related to nuclear power gets discussed with this
much emotion and propaganda. Let's not overreact, but let's also not
underreact. Somewhere here there is a middle ground supported by facts and
scientific judgement.

~~~
gmac
_The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct ... there
is a middle ground supported by facts and scientific judgement_

There's really no such thing as a 'correct' argument on these issues.

Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated _on average_ , but a
nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. Facts and
scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that's
really only something that informed democratic deliberation can do (informed
by science, economics, ethics, etc.).

~~~
Udo
> _Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a
> nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse._

No, coal has dramatically _more_ expected deaths. But, yes, nuclear disasters
_are_ potentially much worse if things go wrong.
[[http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-
triumph-...](http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-
coal-marketing.html)]

> _Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is
> better: that's really only something that informed democratic deliberation
> can do (informed by science, economics, ethics, etc.)._

Again, I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian ;) I'm
certain that you are not telling me facts and scientific judgement don't
matter? Or that popular opinion, informed by a host of factors, is somehow
preferable to doing the right thing? Keep in mind I'm not even "taking sides"
pro or con nuclear here, just advocating an informed discussion.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Um, Fukoshima went very, very wrong, and there were Zero deaths/sickness. That
was the point of the article. And these were the worst reactors currently in
service.

That leaves us with safer, more productive reactors. The future holds even
safer reactors. This seems like a good trajectory for everybody.

~~~
Udo
My reservations about the intent and reporting of the article aside, I do
agree with you that the future holds safer reactors and that's a good thing.

------
wyred
From this article, 12 minors in the Fukushima prefecture have been confirmed
to have thyroid cancer. Which usually strikes 1 to 2 for every million.

[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/05/national/fukushi...](http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/05/national/fukushima-
survey-lists-12-confirmed-15-suspected-thyroid-cancer-cases/#.Ua8Yz2QmnVQ)

~~~
justatdotin
we can expect more in coming years.

------
_mulder_
_Never mind that coal mining kills almost 6000 people a year, or that
populations of coal-mining areas have death rates about 10 per cent higher
than non-mining areas, or that coal emissions drive global warming._

I'm fully in favour of nuclear power but using partial evidence and misleading
comparisons to back up arguments does not help the cause.

You can't compare the death toll of mining coal to the death toll of a nuclear
accident and prove one is more dangerous than the other. They are completely
different things having no common factors. How many people died mining
Uranium? How many people die per MW produced for both fuels? How many people
die in disasters at Coal Power plants?

~~~
ars
> They are completely different things having no common factors.

No common factors? Really? They are both used to make energy.

Coal is 1,888 times more deadly than nuclear power when measured in deaths per
MW. According to [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-
de...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-
price-always-paid/)

And that includes Chernobyl, and uses the worst case scenario for the effects
of radiation!

If you removed Chernobyl and used
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis> instead (which is more
likely to be accurate) the deaths attributed to nuclear power would go even
lower.

Nuclear power is by far the safest form of energy on earth - it even beats
solar power. It is so very very very stupid we don't get 80% of our energy
from it.

~~~
_mulder_
Yes there are no common factors between mining a product and an industrial
accident occurring when using a product.

Agreed, they are all part of the mix when comparing the overall life-cycle
dangers of different fuels, but the Author of the article is not comparing
like-with-like. If you're comparing Coal vs Nuclear, you can only compare the
death toll of mining coal with the death toll of mining uranium. Or the health
effects from coal burning vs uranium fission.

An article claiming BMW's are safer than Volvos because nobody ever dies
during their manufacture whereas Volvo's are dangerous because 1000 people
crash and die in them per year would hold no wieght.

~~~
astine
No, not really.

That article would indeed be a problem, but only if it ignored either Volvo
manufacturing deaths or BMW driving deaths. An article comparing _total_ Vovlo
and BMW related deaths as a measure of the make's cost to society would
present a valid argument. Granted, generally when someone calls and automobile
make "safe," they mean safe to drive, and that's what matters to car buyers,
but part of the point of this article is that's not what matters when
discussing power plants, which are payed for by 'society' rather than
individual buyers.

Total deaths from Coal power generation vs Nuclear Power generation is indeed
a meaningful comparison.

~~~
_mulder_
_That article would indeed be a problem, but only if it ignored either Volvo
manufacturing deaths or BMW driving deaths_

Which is exactly what that article does. I see no reference to the deaths from
uranium mining, or the deaths from industrial accidents at coal power plants.

I'm not saying these figures don't exist and certainly not suggesting they
suggest nuclear isn't quite so squeaky clean. Other HN commenters have
supplied links suggesting uranium mining is much safer. My original point was
that misleading comparisons, like the one mentioned, don't help pro nuclear
arguments because they are frankly desperate, sensational and don't hold up to
scrutiny.

------
tonyplee
How many of you who think Nuclear power is safe will

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

------
robbiep
I would have thought that the evacuation response and the ability to restore
water supply to the fuel rod cooling pools would have had a bit more to do
with the lack of deaths than the safety of radiation disaster..

I support nuclear as An energy source but it really seems like we are doing it
wrong at the moment - it costs too much, seems like we are, or have been using
reactor designs that we probably shouldn't (ie they have meltdown risk in
disasters vs other newer designs).

However it speaks volumes about the changed political environment, and our
environmental sensitivity these days, that a response to Japan's tsunami and
nuclear shutdown was also the shutdown of German reactors and fast-tracked
plans to transition away from nuclear from them and other countries.

~~~
jlgreco
There are two separate issues here.

One is the safety of radiation. This is a medical question. It can be tested
in the laboratory, but we have enough "field experience" with it by now to
know that it is indeed Very Bad News(tm) in high doses.

The second is the safety of nuclear power. This has many factors _including_
the first issue _and also_ including things such as evacuation response. Our
ability to recognize threats (such as plainly unsafe radiation) and react
effectively and rapidly is itself a reason that nuclear power is safe.

Properly regulated nuclear power is safer than nuclear power that is not. Sort
of like how cardiac arrest in Seattle is safer than it is in Detroit, since
the EMS response time is about 1/3rd the time.

~~~
peterpathname
oh, stop being so sensible, pick a side like everyone else ...

------
DanielBMarkham
Nobody dead or sick, yet tens of billions spent decommissioning nuclear
reactors around the planet -- with all the environmental costs associated with
that.

The reason the world continues to pollute more than necessary for the energy
we desire has much more to do with the irrationality of people than the
physics of energy production.

~~~
workbench
You've never been to a coal power plant have you?

Go to one and watch the endless trains of coal arriving constantly to power
the thing, then come back and rethink what you just posted.

~~~
anon1385
I don't think he was saying what you think he was saying.

My interpretation was that he was bemoaning the political backlash that lead
to shutting down nuclear power in various countries, with the related
financial cost and environmental cost due to the increase in coal and gas
power generation that was required to make up the gap. All because of an
incident that hasn't killed anybody.

------
humain
What are two years compared to a gigantic pollution of products that will stay
dangerous for 300 years?

What a pro-nuclear disinformation article! That's a shame but so classic of
general disinformation on this subject. Costs, dangers, reality of
contamination, waste dangers, ... just listen to real independent scientists
and concerned actors. The writer and its commissioners don't live in
contaminated areas, and they probably don't care about future of these
populations. Listen to real people there, for example search for "Women of
Fukushima" videos : www.women-of-fukushima.com

A few simple facts : 27 years after Tchernobyl, 3 children out of 4 are ill in
Bielarus. 2 years after Fukushima, twelve children of Fukushima have confirmed
thyroid cancer et 15 are suspected.

Shame!

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

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

------
patrickg_zill
I wonder exactly how much access the scientists had to the raw data - TEPCO
has lied before.

I would offer the journalist, all-expenses paid including food (and fed by
fish caught in the general area), internet, housing, to live within 10km of
the plant, for 1 year with his wife and children.

Would he take me up on the offer?

BTW, articles like this seem to show that long-term effects can be expected:
[http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130429/srep01742/full/srep01...](http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130429/srep01742/full/srep01742.html)

------
oelmekki
Well, if "authoritative reports" say so, it must be true !

Wait, "if author says so", since he doesn't provide any source other than
"aristoteles dixit".

It reminds me tchernobyl fallout, here in France, when government said there
were no impact on our territory, before being proven wrong (and lying) almost
20 years later : [http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/france-hid-
info-o...](http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/france-hid-info-on-
effects-of-chernobyl-cloud--26210.html)

------
blablabla123
I stopped reading after the first 2 or 3 sentences. In fact even the title is
wrong. Sloppy investigation, can be invalidated by 5 seconds of Google.

~~~
cytokine_storm
Really? My 5 seconds of google showed links saying pretty much the same thing
as OP's article. No one died from radiation poisoning (yet).

~~~
blablabla123
The title of the story is "Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none
sick".

6 (?) workers died. Maybe not from poisoning or ionization but from something
else caused by the accident. What exactly happened with the "Fukushima 50" is
also unclear.

Obviously people are smart enough to carry Dosimeters and to protect
themselves from radiation as appropriate and possible.

But please, saying that "nobody died/got killed (yet) from radiation => nobody
died/got killed => nobody died because of Nuclear accident" is just naive. The
people died because even after the power plant became unusuable, they needed
to manage radiation and spreading of nuclear material. You don't exactly have
that problem when dealing with non-nuclear plants. Most of the times can just
run and wait. In case of a nuclear plant you need to stay on site or else...

------
gasull
Study: 28% Increase In Thyroid Problems In Babies Born After Fukushima in
Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington

[http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-03/study-
almost...](http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-03/study-almost-one-
third-babies-born-after-fukushima-alaska-california-hawaii-o)

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

------
bfcapell
None dead, because it doesn't matter how many decontamination workers die from
leukemia or heart problems, it is never officially related to radiation.

None sick, because the increase in cancer that even the article mentions means
nothing.

The thyroid cancer rate of Fukushima children is 79 times higher than usual.
But "none sick". Yeah, whatever.

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

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

~~~
spauka
From your link:

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

------
skore
They mean _humans_. No _humans_ dead, none sick. Allswell, then, I guess.

