Very well put!

The risks from nuclear power are being greatly down played.

Radioactive caesium has a half life of 30 years

Caesium's half-life is 30 years, but that doesn't make it toxic.
Indeed it is its chemical similarity to Potassium ( a completely essential and non-toxic element) that means it is taken up by the food chain, bio-accumulating in long-lived species at the top of the food chain.

It is its radioactivity that is its problem, not its toxicity.
With a half-life of 30 years (hence an eighth-life of 90 years) once you have it, you have it for life.

It is extremely unlikely that it is just one species of fish that is contaminated.
Small fish are eaten by larger fish.
Each trophic level up the chain is about 10 - 30% efficient at absorbing the nutrients (including Potassium/Caesium) in its food,so the Caesium will take a while to accumulate in the top fish predators, and then in humans, if they are stupid enough to eat the fish,
but the Caesium will be around for a long time, so it is certain to happen.

And wherever there is Caesium-137, there is also Strontium-90, because fissioning U-235 produces :
U-235 + 1n => Cs-137 + Rb-96 + 3n [ 6.2% ]
U-235 + 1n => Sr-90 + Xe-143 + 3n [ 5.8% ]
and many other fission product pairings with the highest frequency of outcome centred around atomic weights of 140 and 96.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/68/ThermalFissionYield.svg/500px-ThermalFissionYield.svg.png
One of each fission pairing, and often both, is always radioactive, sometimes only needing one decay step to reach a stable isotope, sometimes more.

With thanks to Dave Kimble

Please, Professor Allison, the last thing we need right now are facts.

We need a whole lot more Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, to justify our decision to ignore the inclusion of a nuclear component in our future power generation plans.

We don't like nuclear power because we don't understand it. And anything we don't understand is to be feared, isn't it?

Coal, we know well. We know how people used to make a coal fire, all of their very own, in their own fireplace. And we know how to light the gas on the stove, once mummy had shown us how to be safe.

Of course, we know all about those elegant windmills, we used to wave little versions of them around when we were kids. Wouldn't it be nice of everyone could have a little windmill on their own rooftop. Then we wouldn't have to burn any more of that nasty coal or gas.

But we can't boil a kettle with nuclear fuel in our kitchens, can we. So it must be nasty. Even mummy couldn't show us how to boil a kettle with it, and so she must think it's dangerous too.

No more facts please. We will be much happier to pay lots more money to make our baked dinner on Sundays, than listen to people trying to persuade us that mummy was wrong.

Because she was never wrong, was she.

Good article. Logic is absent today particularly in Science and the media. Environmentalism and fear rules. People fear radioactivity but are unaware it is a big part of modern day medical testing and saves many lives every day.

Wade Allison is a nuclear and medical physicist. That is why I find this article so powerful. In particular I did not know the dosages for radiation treatment which are truly huge, but clearly not fatal.
Of course, Pericles is right, people do not want facts, actual data, they want a nice dose of panic mixed with an even more enjoyable feeling of 'I told you so'.
The Earthquake in Japan was monstrous, about 8000 times as powerful as the Christchurch quake. The resultant tsunami was of almost Biblical proportions. Some official Japanese estimates put the greatest height at over 120ft, say a bit less than 40metres.
The Fukushima nuclear reactors are old, first going on line in 1971 and have all the signs of being of a late 1950s/early 1960's design. Even then the damage to human health has been relatively small. The data on that issue in the article makes that clear.
On a personal note; am I the only one who has watched the results of the earthquake and tsunami with tears in the eyes, and am I the only one who thinks the deaths of say 20000 people as a result is awful? And most important; am I the only one who finds the concentration of the media and the antinukes on the relatively trivial events at the power plant rather than those deaths to be utterly disgusting?

sarnian - your post was a prime example of what the author was talking about .. 10,000 people dead and you're essentially talking about quite slight risks once you're outside the immediate vicinity of the reactor.

Having read more comments about the reactor in recent days I'm beginning to suspect that the danger even to the workers at the plant has been highly exagerated in the media.

But once you get outside the reactor the radioactive caesium of which you are so terrified will disperse. The business about concentration up the food chain in certain areas might be possible if there was to be a continuous production of the stuff and it was reasonably concentrated in the sea water over a fairly wide are to begin with. Further, the risk can be overcome with a program of testing, or simply avoiding fishing in the area for a time.

In any case, you realise there's been an enormous fire at the gigantic refinery at Chiba, spilling megatonnes of toxic material into the atmosphere, and you're seriously worried about the caesium? From any realistic point of view the oil fire is a vastly more important source of pollution

An excellent article with some good hard numbers and deviod of emotion. Society needs to come to realise that radiation is a natural part of life, and that nuclear energy, even with 3 reactors melting down simultaneously contributes a very small increase. And the sooner we can make rational decisions based on numbers and probabilities the better.

Our fear of radiation is akin to the fear of witchcraft iin medieval times.

Very good article, thanks.

Atman,
You are aware of Barry Brook, yes? You know he is an environmentalist, yes? You know he's all for nuclear power, yes?

You misrepresent those that care for the environment as fear mongerers. People with a political agenda do it all the time, confusing environmentalism with a political ideology - it's not.

Environmentalists can come from both sides of the political spectrum - you know that, right?

eyejaw

no you're not you are simply one of a growing number of people who are analysising the media and the merchants of fear messages and who are seeing their absurdity.

The greens anti nuclear power messages linked to the nuclear fear are suffering greatly because of this stupidity.

Apparently figures are showing safe power producing wind farms kill more people and certainly more wildlife than damaged nuclear reactors.

Yep we live in an interesting age where blind faith seems to override science and fact. The more well educated we've become the stupidier and gullible some have become.

It sounds just a bit pre-mature to draw pro-N conclusions from the Fukushima disaster while events are still unfolding ... as in the the NYT article of 5 April

"U.S. Sees Array of New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plant"
By JAMES GLANZ and WILLIAM J. BROAD

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig)

Before any more people expose their ignorance on theis topic and embarrass themselves,see http://www.fairewinds.com/ Arnie Gunderson is a Nuclear Engineer with 25 yrs experience in decomissioning nuclear reactors.

andy1 was that meant to be "Arjay sees New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plan"

perhaps it was a typo

sorry sorry, that was just frivolous .. won't happen again (but it was just there asking for that!)

I refer to the post by Sarnian.

“With a half-life of 30 years (hence an eighth-life of 90 years) once you have it, you have it for life.”

This is not so. The biological half-life following ingestion is quoted as 70 day1 or 100 day2 a very much shorter period.

Muck3 has reported in detail on the decrease in Cs-137 and other radionuclides after nuclear fallout. A decrease in radio-activity in plant or animal may be expected from the following processes:

• Radioactive decay
• Weathering (wash-off , leaching and loss of plant parts).
• Dilution due to plant growth
• Transfer to non-edible or non-useable parts of the plant
• Removal from root layer of soil by transfer into deeper layers or other geo-physical factors acting on the soil.
• Continuing fixation of radionuclides in the soil.

In the first three months after the Chernobyl accident the activity (in terms of effective half-life in days) for a number of commodities was grass 10.5d; lettuce and spinach 4.2d; milk 33.4d

A long term decreases of Cs-137 concentration in various foods over subsequent years was reported by Muck.

You should know that the major source of Cs-137 or Sr-90 to the environment was from atmospheric atomic testing estimated to be about 100 times greater than the release from Chernobyl.

One other thing what do you mean by an eighth life of 90 years?

1. http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/biohalf.html#c2

2. Unscear 2000, Annex C.

3. Muck K . Health Physics 1997; 72:659-673.

Gentlemen & ladies, as much as 99% of the population hate, loath & despise the Far Loony Left factions of the RED/green, getup, GAYLP, Socialist Alliance.

Do any of you really want to drink the water, or eat food irrigated by it, after its been through a nuclear power plant?

Be honest now NIMBY's.

There are other practical ways to make electricity.

Hey sausage,

Just for a minute (attention span issues), let's say nuclear power is no longer an option for Japan and all those other countries that presently use it in their back yard.

What "other practical ways" do you suggest?

Green faith being exposed again. Don't expect any invitations from the National Broadcasters Professor Wade but your integrity is more important. Thanks.

An interesting article, though I would personally have liked more data- such as the amount of radiation from safe degrees of sun exposure (and how much would prove excess) in correspondence to how the 200Bq/L in water would supposedly not impact a person (which, either which way of looking at it, is still quadruple the radioactive mass of a whole adult person being added on top of the 50 already in one person's body).
Without something like this we really can't actually gauge how serious or non-serious a 200bq/L intake would actually be.

Bowel cancer is expected to soar 50 percent and strike over 20,000 Australians annually within a decade. With better knowledge like need for more fibre that we now understand, bowel cancer should be decreasing. The increase seems to coincide in time with nuclear testing and reactor leakage.

Is there any scientific evidence the increase in bowel cancer is not caused by radioactive pollution already in our environment and/or food supply?

Jf Aus.It is not just Fukushima.The US has been using depleted Uranium in Iraq and now some say in Libya.In the last 10 yrs male sperm counts in Israel have fallen by 40%.They have not done the stats in Abrabic countries but it is probably just as bad.

Radiation on our planet is accumulative and the elites that be, don't give a stuff about factors which do not enhance their power base.They are psychopathic and totally engrossed by self gratification even if it exists just for a fleeting moment.

"Bowel cancer is expected to soar 50 percent and strike over 20,000 Australians annually within a decade."

"In the last 10 yrs male sperm counts in Israel have fallen by 40%."

Interesting, ebay was founded in 1995, about 15 years ago...... coincidence, I think not. Even thought the elite, zionist, neoliberal, communists would like us to think that.

Is there any scientific evidence the increase in bowel cancer/decrease sperm count is not caused by online auction websites? Go on show me the evidence!

You blokes definitely aren't scientists are you?

stezza look at the numerous articles.
http://www.countercurrents.org/king150410.htm
Just google Israel 40% reduction in sperm counts.It is not an illusion.Using DU in ammunition is a biological disaster.This radiation drifts around the planet.We as humans are slowly exterminating oursleves in an orgy of fearful inferiority.

The Zionists,Roman Catholics and Muslims all think that they are gods' chosen people and would like to murder each other in order to achieve mediocre mortality.

Do you not suspect a little insanity here?

The fake scare is also fuelled by anti-Japanese hysteria. Or racism.
Also, if latte lefties are scared of nuclear, they should stop holidaying in France. Excellent points in here.

I'm not denying the observations. Just the link. Scientist are taught that correlation does not imply causation.

Also that citing webpages that cite other webpages as evidence is a no-no.

Stezza.Just google birth deformities Iraq,particularily in Fallujah.The deformity rate since 2003 is 10 times higher than normal.Not only that, the deformities are extreme. US soldiers come home with Gulf War syndrome which no one can expalain.They have extremely high suicide rates and a multitude of medical problems.

Would you like a container of DU ammunition under your bed,or live in an area where it has been used?Depleted Uranium is not really so depleted.It is 1.7 times heavier than lead and partially vapourises on impact.

We might not be able to find a direct causal relationship because the US authorities refuse to do a proper study.Can you suggest another environmental cause for the birth defects in Iraq and the 40% reduction in sperm counts in Israel?

Stezza,
You say, "Scientist are taught that correlation does not imply causation".
Is that true, because some science is already costing the world community trillions in time and money with claim global warming is caused by CO2 emissions?

Some 'science' finds evidence to suit agenda. That 'science' in the minds of many people is bringing disrespect to real science.

Yes Arjay, lower sperm count is another factor that coincides with global radioactive pollution, as with plutonium being found in surface soil generally. The latter is indicated in discussion about plutonium found at the Fukushima "partial" meltdown.
Where is the evidence all this radioactive residue is not causing cancer and low sperm counts?

Science is an empirical evidence-based method, consistent with the basic laws of physics and chemistry, forming the basis of modern civilization, which benefits from medical science, agricultural science, aeronautics and many other fields.

Regarding the nuclear issue, here is what Dr Jim Green, an expert on reactors and radio isotopes states
(http://newmatilda.com/2011/04/07/do-we-know-chernobyl-death-toll)

"The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates a total collective dose of 600,000 person-Sieverts over 50 years from Chernobyl fallout (see the IAEA Bulletin, Vol.38, No.1, 1996). A standard risk estimate from the International Commission on Radiological Protection is 0.05 fatal cancers per Sievert. Multiply those figures and we get an estimated 30,000 fatal cancers. Now let’s recall that, according to the BEIR report, the LNT model may overstate risks or understate them by a factor of two. Thus the estimated death toll ranges from something less than 30,000 — up to 60,000."

“Wade Allison is a nuclear and medical physicist.”
It all comes down to a question of: “ My experts are bigger & better than your experts.
I keep on being told how safe nuclear radiation is. I can produce “experts who disagree on this, who do you believe?
I would sooner do with out it thank you.
The cancer rate worldwide in 1900 was 1 in 500. Now it is 1 in 2 in the “developed” world and will soon be 1 to 1.
The highest rate of cancer in the world is in Australia and second highest the US.
Does that tell you anything about what we have done to the environment in the last 110 years?
Out of interest there is a possibility that DU was used on ranges in Australia during combined US/Australia exercises. Not a nice thought as it will aerosol and blow for a 100 Kms or so.
By the way Curmudgeon, 10,000 dead in the earthquake, if you include all the deaths from radiation caused cancer and other illness in the last 60 years, how many would that add up to?
Yes I agree that there are other pollutants that are wreaking destruction, Bhopal for example but that does not mean that we should accept them as a way of living (or dying).

Too ridiculous to respond anymore. This thread is morphing into why people die in this 'enlightened' age.

Hey sarnian, ever thought about food additives, preservatives and all the other processed stuff not nuclear? That is causing more havoc in society than you can ever level at nuclear radiation?

Some teachers ring the bell when unable to keep ahead of the students. These days it is vacating a thread.

I think nuclear medicine is good. Nuclear power generation would be good if and when absolute safety is possible.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11868#203233

hey bonmot, everybody with an electric hot water system is spending about 1/3 of their electricity bill on it, at discounted rates BTW. Solar hot water water systems are more expensive, but practical, proven, "on the shelf" technology, to name but one.

we all know there are plenty of others.

Frankfurter from a bygone era (or are you really that sensitive new age guy?)

I was sorta hoping you would see the big picture but it seems the question went over your head. Let me make it simpler.

Japan uses nuclear power for 30% of its electricity generation, for a very rational Japanese reason. What power generation do you think they should replace it with and would you want it in your back yard?

Hint: "on the shelf" hot water systems won't power big cities, industry or very fast trains (and plenty other examples) - and particularly sausage, in winter or when the sun ain't shining.