The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Smog a bigger risk in Japan than nuclear radiation > Comments

Smog a bigger risk in Japan than nuclear radiation : Comments

By Jonathan Hughes, published 21/11/2011

The fallout from the Fukushima reactors is not the problem it has been portrayed and leaves the pro-nuclear case intact.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
It's quite remarkable that despite 20,000 tsunami and related deaths all the media hysteria is over the nuclear issues in which no-one received a fatal dose of radiation. More remarkable is the fact that 1960s nuclear technology could survive a Richter 9 quake. Of Japan's 127m population about 30m will die of cancer regardless and perhaps an extra 1,000 will die of radiation complications in older age, barely significant in statistical terms.

Meanwhile despite lack of evidence we cling to the belief that wind, solar and geothermal will replace coal. We may end up trashing the Great Barrier Reef for a few lousy bucks in coal revenue. There's something strange about humans that we see things that aren't there while ignoring stark reality.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 21 November 2011 8:03:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article.

The problem is of course, that the few boys, & many of the girls, who were good at writing compositions at school, all too often go on & become "journalists".

Any of these that I have known need a calculator to figure out the change if they buy a bus ticket, & they are even more competent with anything practical.

Put the words science or physics in a topic, & they go blank.

The ABC employ these almost exclusively, & send them off all over the world to report back on what they think they've learnt. Then the locals, with no taxpayer support to fund such trips, parrots the same rubbish, as if it's gospel
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 21 November 2011 8:47:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an interesting site which monitors the levels of radiation dose in Japan.

http://jciv.iidj.net/map

As I understood it, typical background levels of radiation are of the order of 8 micro Sv/day. That is around 340 nano Sv/hr. Presumably this could vary by a factor of at least 5 either way depending on location (some locations are much more I believe Ramsar in Iran is more like 70 times or 24,000 nSv/hr).

According to this radiation map, much of Japan seems to be around 100 nSv/hr (about a third the world average) with some on the west coast as low as 40 nSv/hr.

Leaving aside the hot spots south east of Fukushima city, the rest is probably not too dangerous given the known variation around the world - Fukushima city itself is around 3 times background.

Apart from the Dia-ichi plant all the locations seem to be below Ramsar where people have lived for generations with no apparent impacts on health from radiation.
Posted by Martin N, Monday, 21 November 2011 9:03:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article is an excellent summary of the poor quality of media reporting. Even the Fukushima reactor problems are the fault of general engineering design not faulty reactor design.

It would be feasible to make every future reactor free of the hazard of faulty design. Every future reactor could be built floating on a barge on its own cooling water lakes built with the water surface level at least 30m above sea level. Such a design would overcome earthquake and tsunami risks. In Australia there are many sites where existing water storage dams could provide gravity fed back up cooling water to on site cooling water lakes.

With either fast breeder reactors or Thorium reactors the fuel supplies available would last 50,000 years or so and with either the waste products are nowhere near the rsik that opponents of nuclear power suggest.
Posted by John Turner, Monday, 21 November 2011 10:04:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article.
There is no doubt that what should happen is that all the inhabitants of the supposedly dangerous area should go home now. There are greater risks from psychological and other issues to do with dislocation than the tiny radiation problem in the area round the plant.
I am no good at showing links to items on the web, but two articles, one re Ramsar mentioned earlier and the other the UNCEAR 2008 report on health issues due to Chernobyl can be found by Googling. Be prepared for a shock re deaths from Chernobyl.
Firstly Google: Very high background radiation areas of Ramsar Iran:Prelinminary biological studies..
Secondly Google: UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the general assembly with scientific annexes. Volume 2 Annex D Health effects.

Sorry asbout my teck inadequacies.

Oh God. I just had a drink of water, it contained Radon. Poor me. Oh, even worse: this house is built of concrete - more radiation.
The fact is that all species of plants/animals that have ever existed developed in a world where there was radiation all the time. If we were as sensitive as the anti newks think we would not exist.
Posted by eyejaw, Monday, 21 November 2011 11:01:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am always amazed at the rubbish environmental groups will shameless publish even though they have been widely discredited. I can only assume that they feel that because their cause is just, they don't need to conform to usual norms of honesty.

In another thread another fervent anti nuke poster made the moronic claim that uranium supplies were sufficient for between 9 and 30 years.

While Jonathan Hughes has presented a reasoned rational approach, the truth is that the anti Nuke crusade is based on emotion and an effective scare mongering campaign.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 21 November 2011 2:29:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy