I completely agree, but Radon doesn’t bioaccumulate. That was the point I was making.
Deeply flawed article. Why?
Not true, the meltdowns/melt-through of the 3 reactors was unstoppable before the arrival of the tsunami.
Thyroid cysts and nodules are perfectly normal in a population. Thyroid cancer isn’t. It is deliberately misleading to present data on cysts and nodules as an indication of health. There is no doubt whatsoever that there has been a massive surge of Thyroid cancer in the Fukushima region.
Whoop-dee-do! But then you realise that this was a study of 100 meals by a Fukushima Food Co-op. And when you have a look at the study you find this bit which the article omitted…
“The proportion of meals which measured above the detection limit was 10 percent in fiscal 2011, 4.5 percent in fiscal 2012, 3.0 percent in fiscal 2013 and zero in fiscal 2014. Testing by the prefectural government and efforts by producers, among other factors, led to the decrease,” said an official of Coop Fukushima."
Quite an abrupt fall off in that study for a radioactive element with a 30 year half-life!
Hmmm… I know that when I do the sums with the Japanese death rate of 1 in 120,000,000 'vehicle kilometers and then adjust those figures for 25k kms of driving taking up only 5% of a person’s year I’m going to discover that driving a car 24 hours a day is actually very very risky. Anyone fancy figuring it out? I would guess a probability that it would kill you once every 200 years, if it could. Again deeply misleading.
I’ll have more time later…
Its best to look at credible journals like the Lancet
The Fukushima Daiichi disaster: 4 years on
Fear of contamination effects normally has the greatest effect on peoples health. There is also another effect i wasn’t aware of before
But, but, but, I thought that nuclear power was wiping out mankind with the massive “hot particles” leak from Fukushima? But don’t worry, anti-nuclear zealots are having their way and it’s back to dirty old coal and oil mining, exploration and burning we go… the massive scale of actual verifiable deaths in these industries don’t seem to matter.
You thought that because you’re an idiot. Fact. When you are able to distinguish between an event causing significant negative health impacts and extinction then this conversation can continue.
The Big Tobacco argument. ‘How can you prove that any specific death was caused by nuclear radiation?’
For you to state that a massive (and continuing) release of radioactive particles into the environment can be harmless you have to prove that the ‘linear no threshold’ model is incorrect. You have to present a body of evidence that clearly shows that radiation does not cause harm. You can not do that.
First of all switch on your sarcasm detector, Mr Name Caller and Mr. Incorrect Quote Apportioner.
Now on to your quotes above, perhaps your “body of evidence” re the effects of the few nuclear accidents we have had that typically resulted in low dosage emissions? Never mind that most of the radiation being measured may have actually come from ambient natural sources or even coal burning?
Well those quoted conclusions are not much of a body of evidence, are they? To paraphrase this evidence and add in your conclusions - *there may be a link between dosages and possible tumours, or it may be beneficial, frankly we don’t have a clue. It’s likely quite minimal in terms of numbers but let’s not build any more nuclear reactors because the real and verifiable 100’s of thousands of deaths in conventional power industries are acceptable nice clean deaths. Let’s not be logical and balance (the low known) nuclear risks against the (much bigger known) risks of conventional power because these other risks don’t count in my narrative *
This type of thinking is frankly is what you get too often with people in charge of science or engineering projects and decisions who don’t have any (or good quality) science and engineering degrees and training, allied with the ability to cooly decide on the balance of risks without a prior bias.
So which is the lesser of two evils? fossil fuels or Nuclear? Or Can they be replaced by enough wind and or solar? Tidal? Are the hard figures available?
I would have tended towards being anti nuclear. Deaths from respiratory illnesses caused by pollution are real and in large numbers are changing my mind.
cbsnews.com/news/brown-cloud … outh-asia/
Newer Nuclear technologies have the ability to reduce waste from tens of thousands of years to hundreds and less. Game changing. Leaving us with the risks of laying large areas effectively to waste in the event of a disaster.
My vote is for Roscommon … would any of us really miss it ?
That’s probably what the Brits said about Ireland when they built Windscale and now Hinkley Point and Moorside.
Any thermal process we trust should be able to do Combined Heat and Power for max efficiency. I’m thinking of 30-story apartment blocks with a nuke in the basement.
Same thing happened in Chernobyl. I have given up trying to understand the many vested interests and why they manipulate mainstream propaganda. Most likely oil companies in this case however.
The IAEA has a single mandate. To promote nuclear energy. Nothing else.
And the evidence for the ecological devastation are become very hard to hide, particularly when up to 90% of fir tree in the most contaminated areas are deformed, with deformity rates in excess of 30% in other less contaminated areas. Link
Does that article provide a single reference to any concrete evidence for any of his claims? I’m struggling to find one. He also doesn’t understand the word stochastic which isn’t a good sign …
I’d be surprised if he didn’t know what he’s talking about given his CV shows that he has studied and worked at the highest levels of his profession.
Everything he says is either referenced in the article or undisputed because it is absolutely beyond all doubt.
Who pays his wages? He’s an independent consultant who works for private individuals if that doesn’t raise a red flag… His qualifications are irrelevent if he doesn’t even understand the word he makes his whole argument around…
Raises questions about the linear no-threshold model of radiation exposure.
Personally, I think it raises questions about when I can get a wolf butler, and will he keep his paws off my wife!
Not to mention that said wolves now have opposable thumbs and have liberated a large cache of post-soviet weaponry…
Catbear has competition for the predators-with-kalashnikovs niche!