
Homes should not be abandoned after a big nuclear accident - jwilk
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2017/november/nuclearaccident.html
======
mikeash
A lot of the response focuses on the questionable morality of making this
decision for the people who will be affected, and trading dollars for lives.

Maybe we should shortcut that whole issue. Unlike most instances of pollution,
we have a case where a single entity is clearly responsible for the
contamination. That entity should be required to offer a buy-out of all
property in the affected area at pre-accident market prices. They can then
resell at whatever price they can obtain. If the damage caused by the
contamination is small, the difference between the prices will be small, and
their loss will be small. If their victims don’t think it’s worth moving at
all, the loss will be zero since nobody will accept the offer.

Something tells me that this idea will be rejected as being too expensive,
which should be quite telling.

~~~
Retric
> market prices

I would expect a rather large premium to be associated with a forced sale of
any kind. Remember, if they where willing to sell at market rates they would
have been sold. I am of the opinion that forced sales like this should provide
~2-3x market rates to reduce the need for such sales, and provide for the loss
of property like cars which need to be abandoned if contaminated.

~~~
news_to_me
They could just be forced to make the offer instead, and if the original owner
is willing to accept the damage, they can refuse to sell.

~~~
gpm
Then they are going to make offers at post-accident-market rates not pre-
accident-market...

------
cameldrv
I don’t think this analysis is helpful to nuclear. As a big nuclear supporter
and someone in general agreement that there was an over evacuation at
Fukushima, setting a nine month life expectancy standard is way too high. At
that rate, very large numbers of people, maybe 10% are going to be getting
cancer, not to mention birth defects. On average, about 2 people live in a
housing unit, so you're trading off 18 months of life, substantial suffering
from cancer, substantial stress and worry, and reproductive effects for a
single housing unit. This unreasonableness masks an underlying reasonableness
if the number were more like a few weeks or a month.

~~~
notahacker
The critical bit is that people aren't being expected to shave a few months
off their life dying peacefully in their sleep in their late eighties in
return for retaining their own home, they're trading a significant
proportional increase in some very unpleasant cancers curtailing their life
much earlier.

The article doesn't help fudging it by highlighting life expectancy
differentials which are down to socioeconomic status and patterns of higher
risk behaviour. Blackpool's lower life expectancy isn't random like background
radiation; you can live in Blackpool _without_ experiencing a significant
threat to your health provided you avoid the alcohol consumption problems more
prevalent amongst people that live there.

~~~
roenxi
There are two parts to the analysis though; this chain sounds like it is
comparing death from radiation to completely normal life.

The comparison in the article is death from radiation vs death from
evacuation. Being compulsorily and unexpectedly evacuated from your home is
catastrophic. My memory of Fukashima is that experience of living as an
evacuee looked very woeful.

If people lose 12 months to stress and whatnot from an evacuation, is losing 9
months to cancer really that much worse? I've lost a relative to cancer, the
quality of his life was actually quite high until the last month. I've seen
chronic depression do much more damage. I'm not advocating either, but if
there is a choice to be made I don't think it is clear.

~~~
cameldrv
Fukishima was (maybe) unusual though in that the nuclear accident was in the
context of a much larger disaster. The original Japanese advice to stay put
and turn off the HVAC was generally pretty good. Radiation from a nuclear
reaction decays very rapidly once the reaction stops, and so the worst part of
the exposure is going to be in the first days after the accident. Depending on
the structure you're in, it's generally healthier to wait a few days before
moving and exposing yourself to radiation in transit. For people in a
hospital, that goes double, as long as the power is on, and it's possible to
filter the air intake. Hospitals are generally big concrete buildings, so
staying in one is pretty safe.

In the case of Fukishima, the people being evacuated because of radiation were
only a small portion of the casualties from the Tsunami, and so the emergency
services were seriously stressed. I'd imagine that evacuating those people
would have gone much more smoothly if it hadn't been for all of the other
Tsunami damage.

------
brudgers
People have children. The "think about the children" argument I'm making here
is that the description of the calculation does not mention the effects of
radiation on the life expectancy of future generations and does not describe a
rationale for ignoring these effects in its calculus.

I'm not saying those effects can or cannot be ignored because I'm not an
expert. But I'm skeptical because the analysis does not address human
reproduction.

~~~
dsp1234
Is there any evidence of reduced "life expectancy of future generations" for
radiation exposure at the levels discussed? If not, then that may be why it
was not addressed.

While I don't know if there is or not, these studies of the results of the
Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs[0] shows that the effects were limited to those
currently pregnant, and without 1200 meters of ground zero of the blast. With
no effect on the future children born to parents exposed to ionizing radiation
of those levels.

[0] -
[http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/yapa2/](http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/yapa2/)

 _" The many studies that were conducted after the nuclear bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki determined that some of the risks that the public
perceives to be associated with radiation exposure are non-existent, while
others are in fact matters of concern. The cancer risk for children who were
in-utero when their mothers were exposed is higher than it would be for others
without this exposure, but children who were conceived after their parents
were exposed to radiation had no increased cancer risk. Similarly for both
birth defects and mental retardation, it was found that in-utero exposure
possibly increased the rate of incidence of these conditions, but results from
all studies are inconclusive, except for the case of pregnant mothers within
1200m of the hypocenter. All of the in-utero children born to these mothers
experienced mental retardation. All three of these cases found that there is
no increased risk of these conditions if the parents of the child were exposed
to the ionizing radiation of the atomic bomb (child was not conceived at the
time of the exposure)."_

~~~
brudgers
The US atomic bombing of Japan used 64kg of Uranium (Little Boy and 6.2kg of
Plutonium (Fat Man). Each nuclear reactor at Fukishima used tons of Uranium or
Plutonium fuel. Each reactor generated tons of radioactive waste each year it
was in operation.

The amount of radioactive material involved in the 1945 events is several
orders of magnitude smaller than at Fukishima. Perhaps there are robust cross
examined theories indicating that the events are comparable. I am skeptical
that the events are similar enough in important ways (i.e. ways other than
occurring in Japan) that a single anecdote is sufficient basis to claim
support for the proposed policy.

~~~
loeg
Totally different kind of Uranium. You can't just compare kg and tonnage.

~~~
brudgers
Nuclear fuel is typically 3.5% to 5% U235 [1],[2] Fukushima had six reactors
of 1100 MW each. A 1000 MW reactor uses approximately 27 tonnes of fresh fuel
per year [1] equating to 945 kg of U235/reactor/year. Fukushima has six
reactors and was commissioned in 1971 (forty years prior to the 2011 event).
For comparison Little Boy used 64kg of U235.[4]

The scale of radioactive materials are orders of magnitude different.

[1]: [http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/how-is-
uranium-o...](http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/how-is-uranium-ore-
made-into-nuclear-fuel.aspx)

[2]: Fukushima 3 where the failure occurred used MOX fuel containing Plutonium
as well as Uranium.

[3]: [http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-
and-...](http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-
security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-reactor-background.aspx)

[4]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy)

~~~
nitrogen
Was 100% of the Fukushima fuel fissioned and vaporized into the atmosphere?
How is this a useful comparison?

~~~
brudgers
No.

------
Spooky23
So, after some authority fucks up and explodes a nuclear reactor complex, I'm
expected to trust that everything is perfectly fine?

Yeah, no. At Fukushima, the civil authorities didn't know what had even
happened for awhile.

Academic analysis of risk falls apart on the ground. What happened in places
like the World Trade Center and Grenfell tower, and minor high rise disasters
that I've experienced first hand have taught a clear lesson: know your
surroundings, know all of the egress routes, proceed with caution, and get the
hell out.

~~~
OscarCunningham
>I'm expected to trust that everything is perfectly fine.

Sure, you shouldn't be forced to stay. But by the same token the government
shouldn't be able to force you to leave your perfectly safe home and
possessions just for the sake of giving them some "caring" PR.

------
phkahler
Since they seem to be happy to put a price on months of human lives that are
not their own, how about instead they just factor the expected costs of
accidents and relocations into the cost of nuclear power and tax the utility
accordingly. Why is it always the little guy who has to get fucked when shit
goes wrong?

~~~
guscost
You're describing the Price-Anderson Act:
[http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_nuclear_liability_insu...](http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_nuclear_liability_insurance.htm)

~~~
phkahler
Was not aware of that! I was being partly sarcastic. The problem with any such
system is that there will be people whose job is to deny claims. Of course
there would also be some people trying to make unjustified claims too.

------
cmurf
No matter what the public policy is, some percentage of people will leave. And
that will shrink the local economies, and that will act as an incentive for
even more people to leave. To make things right for those who stay, the
government would have to subsidize the local economies, and even that would be
a fraction of what things were like before the disaster.

The reality is a nuclear accident causes massive asset destruction, it touches
people who had absolutely no say in the economic transaction, and probably no
meaningful political say either.

Pretty much the only fair solution, is equal unfairness. Part of the "not in
my backyard" is because the track record is, local residents are
disproportionately impacted, and there is no where near enough support for
them, while people far away are minimally impacted. This is trust damaging,
and incentivizes people to vote against nuclear power: not in my backyard = I
do not trust you to make me whole in the unlikely event there is an accident.

------
roenxi
A lot of the responses drift away from the article to broader issues of
nuclear power - cool. But it would be wise to focus on this point:

After nuclear accidents, governments are compulsorily ejecting people from
their homes.

This isn't the end of the world, but it is clearly an extreme action. There
should be some standard of evidence that they are held to before they do this.
Maybe most of the people would leave anyway.

The question needs to b asked. The bloke in the article is making a point that
evacuations might be worse than radiation. This is a point that seemed likely
to me after reading about Fukashima.

It is possible we are facing a scenario where: * Governments are ejecting
people from their homes * This is leading to worse outcomes than if they where
allowed to live there peacefully or leave at their own speed

If this is the case, we really need clearer standards to stop governments
acting this way.

------
kazinator
Does this take into account the social stigma of living in the affected zone?
It could easily turn to family-registry (koseki tohon) based discrimination.
For instance, it's not difficult to imagine someone's parents being opposed to
marriage with someone living in that zone, reminiscent of the historic
discrimination against the _burakumin_.

Anyone doing agriculture there will face difficulties selling the produce
elsewhere in the country. Anyone depending on tourism is going to struggle.

People are going to mistrust governmental assurances that it's safe to be
somewhere, suspecting various political motivations.

How about the simple question of development: investment in the area is going
to be very cool.

------
gumby
It would be interesting to see this vs cost of relocation, which I believe has
been enormously high (as has the emotional cost).º

Different agencies price the cost of a single life ("statistical live value")
differently. For instance the US department of transportation won't install a
highway guard rail that would save one life per year if the installation costs
more than $9.6M. FAA $5.8M. (and TSA clearly 0 while for DoD it's clearly
enormous).

º Even people who stay will suffer psychological problems, in part due to poor
understanding of physics, and that isn't taken account of in the summary. Then
again some people near phone towers suffer imaginary fears too. The original
article is paywalled so sorry to the authors if these topics are discussed.

------
CodeWriter23
I say have the courage of your convictions, study authors, and volunteer to
relocate to the next nuclear accident site.

------
bacro
In another news, people should duck and cover when there is lava coming in
your way.

------
Piskvorrr
Sure. Hard to think clearly and break from the herd reaction "BUT BUT BUT IT'S
NUCULAR, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!"

~~~
dang
Please don't use allcaps for emphasis:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

------
tryingagainbro
20 years later a child has some sort of disability and you are ready to kill
yourself, even if the disability is not from radiation. Never mention cancers
or even coughs--"it might be from radiation, I'm probably gonna die." And
that's if he's right, a big if, especially when dealing with lives.

Thanks, but no, Mr Scientist.

