My mistake, cancel the underground; we'll all go down in yellow[cake] submarines.

@Arjay Mate, these issues are not a matter of opinion, the processes of both these accidents are extensively documented. You just seem to be confused.

Firstly, none of the Fukushima reactors have exploded. Three explosions of vented hydrogen gas occurred in the space in between the reactor containment (very strong) and the reactor building (not), with the result that the reactor buildings were damaged. An actual exploded reactor is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING, far more serious. This is what occurred at Chernobyl as a result of a massive power surge in the reactor itself while in operation. The Fukushima reactors were all shut down automatically following the quake. The issues have been from decay heat. This can cause meltdowns, it's not enough to blow up reactors.

Furthermore, what is a meltdown? It is melted fuel. There are meltdowns at Fukushima, we have known that for quite sometime, but the material is basically going no where, it is in containment. Likewise the spent fuel; yep, there is a lot of it, it was overheating but it is now being cooled and the releases of radioactivity are well and truly under control, but of course still needs to be looked after.

You seem to be completely confusing the presence of radioactive material at an accident site with widespread distribution of that material in a way that could cause harm, as occurred at Chernobyl in a far more serious way than at Fukushima. 28 people actually died from radiation in the immediate aftermath of Chernobyl, yes? That should be a clue.

Thanks for the link. Arne Gundersen yeah? No comment. Why not read the minute by minute report of the incident and learn? It’s the "Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station" published by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.

A bit like my last comment, I don't wish to downplay the Fukushima site, it's a serious accident and is going to take a very long time to completely resolve. There is just no need to contaminate things with utter tosh.

Having read the report, most of the findings on low dose ionizing radiation is based on the results from high doses and extrapolating down. The numbers given for cancer the "low" doses are roughly 100 to 1000 times the normal background radiation level that one receives.

This is like concluding that as a car collision at 100kmph is 90% fatal for passengers, and collisions at 60kmph are 50% fatal, that a collision at 10kmph is likely to be 8% fatal. Considering that all the nuclear weapon testing from the 60s contributes about 0.05% of this background, we are using data from a mountain to extrapolate what happens to a pebble. The body has the ability to repair damage to DNA from radiation, chemicals and viruses, as the body has the ability to repair small injuries, and while the "precautionary" principle justifies the extrapolation, the reality is that there is no real evidence as to the effect of small radiation doses.

Arjay

Yes, your comments on the Japanese incident versus Chernobyl are completely wrong. Chernobyl was by far the worset incident by several orders of magnitude. Your comments on numbers of people in a tomb or whatever it was, are also wild nonsense. While you may wish to prove a point about your fears cocnerning nucelare energy it is always best to stick to the facts..

@Shadow Minister that's not my reading. Looks to me like they have divided the cohort by dose, including a substantial group below the 0.1 Gy mark and based their findings on that.

Unless you mean that these are all acute doses in which case, yes I agree that even 0.05Gy all at once is a lot more than most people ever receive. Can you explain a little further your reading of this please?

Ben,

Considering that an annual dosage from background radiation is in the order of 0.0024 Gy, 0.1 Gy is a lifetime's dose, which firstly I see as as stretching the definition of "low". Most of the results are of much higher doses. Secondly, most of the deaths below 0.1 Gy is due to non cancer related issues and given the post war conditions I find the inclusion of these into the studies as dubious. Thirdly, radioactive iodine is the most deadly single product of uranium fission due to the large proportion produced and the ready absorption into the thyroid. This generally gives a signature result of a preponderance of thyroid cancer, which is notably absent in this research.

Finally, the results from the area around Chernobyl do not show a significant increase in cancer other than thyroid.

For example the prefecture of Fukushima has received levels of between 0.0001 to 0.001 Gy with one village adjacent (evacuated) has received a maximum of 0.05 Gy and wonder what part of this research would be valid here.