Fukushima disaster has not raised cancer risks [1]
We need more nuclear power and less nuclear scaremongering.
[1] http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/06/un-report-fukushim...
We need more nuclear power and less nuclear scaremongering.
[1] http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/06/un-report-fukushim...
But, having had the water in my apartment's shower tainted with cesium from Fukushima for weeks after the accident, and my local supermarket apologize for selling me beef with higher-than-legal cesium contamination, this kind of "rah rah! more nukes! less kooks!" boosterism is really annoying.
The second sentence of the only link you provide begins "Some scientists remain sceptical of this claim, as the findings of the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) differ from those of several other studies, including a recent (WHO) report..."
Furthermore, cancer is far from only problem mismanagement of nuclear power causes. Ask any of the tens of thousands of people who have been removed from their homes, many of them forever.
So I would fix your sentence like this: "We need [a] more [rational and realistic framework for managing the real and potentially catastrophic risks of] nuclear power, [along with functional regulatory oversight], and less nuclear scaremongering.
Yeah, especially when the ambient radioactivity was lower than the natural radioactivity observed in many places around Japan. The evacuation should have been temporary only (a couple of days/weeks maybe) until matters were settled and the radioactivity levels confirmed. Moving them away from their homes forever was a huge mistake and certainly caused more deaths than any nuclear incident. Living in temporary accommodation, you lose your job, your earnings, you are far from everything, which means overall worse welfare than living in a not-really-as-much-as-the-media-says "contaminated" area.
People are way too scared of radioactivity - just because they don't understand it one bit and are constantly misinformed by media, green peace and other organizations which have vested interest in promoting other energies.
Many people were placed in newly erected villages of "temporary housing", and then left there. The housing is pretty good quality. But what little social provision there was has now been largely withdrawn.
It's a terrible indictment of the "Japanese model" of government provision: pour concrete, but ignore the people.
That's literally the first paragraph of the article you linked. Doesn't sound like there's consensus on the matter.
And why not more investment in solar power and renewable energy sources, instead of a potentially dangerous industry that produces extremely toxic waste, and can fuck everything around it in case of a terrorist attack, meltdown, etc?
This is totally besides the fact that when you look at the break down of the environmental impact of all power sources, nuclear continues to be one of the greenest solutions.
As an aside, having one does not exclude using / researching the other.
2. Alternately laugh and cry as you read the nuclear plant chapter(s).
3. Begin to seriously consider marching in the streets to protest new and existing nuclear plants (of the common, standard models).[1]
[1] More modern designs without tightly coupled systems and associated risks (thorium, molten salt, pebble-bed, whatever) seem very promising.
However toxic nuclear waste may be in its most compact form, that is a political issue, not an engineering one.
And the plant itself is hardly a problem in the scope of a terrorist attack, flying a plane into a skyscraper or disabling the brakes on a petroleum-filled train parked on a hill would be greater risks to public health for a given group of terrorists.
Someday we may even finally upgrade from 1950s and 60s designs that can meltdown, but even the rickety old reactors have not been public health disasters on a par with coal or hydro.
But even if you managed to break in, you can't destroy the containment building with just the explosives you can carry on your person (it is, after all, designed to contain something much worse). Likewise you wouldn't be able to make it near the reactor complex itself as the radiation would kill the terrorists before they could get close enough to damage something.
The best case (for the terrorists) is trying to impeded reactor cooling from the control stations, but that takes a long time for actual damage to occur (time enough to preclude the damage in the first place), and even if you somehow managed to hold out for a whole day and let the reactor try to melt itself (at a rickety old facility without passive safety), you'd just get something like Three Mile Island, not Fukushima.
Perhaps you might try to fly a plane into the containment? But even that wouldn't cause a nuclear yield or anything close, especially with U.S. style containments. Steel-reinforced concrete simply eats planes for breakfast.
The story you linked comes from a description of a nuclear weapons production facility, and even that security lapse was not inherently more severe than breaking into something like a chemical production facility.
There's no magic fairies that kill 10,000 people just because you touched something labeled 'nuclear' after all, so even breaching into the facility wouldn't be a public health risk by itself.
Solar power produces far far more toxic waste per energy produced.
No idea regarding relative amounts/toxicity etc., but I presume they are referring to these issues:
http://news.yahoo.com/solar-industry-grapples-hazardous-wast...
It's not like large-scale low-dose ionizing radiation is an unknown phenomenon: radiation exposure from the ground and sunlight vary widely, and we have very large data from chernobyl and 1950s above-ground nuclear testing.
In fact, even saying controversial would not be enough, most major health physics societies assume there is no such threshold and that any exposure increases risk. Only France's national society and (IIRC) one U.S. health physics society seem to be confident enough in the current research to stake out a claim that there is a threshold.
With all that said I personally lean towards the idea of a threshold-based response, though the no-threshold models are certainly easier to use for planning purposes (for which they've been used to assess risk for decades). Even if there is a threshold, that threshold may depend on length of previous exposure (acclimation) and may only be good for exposure within a certain time limit, both of which again make use within models more difficult (though not impossible).
It's controversial politically, not scientifically.
People have a knee jerk reaction to the idea of any radiation - except if it's natural of course, despite that making no sense.
Besides hormesis the other popular models seem to be LNT (linear response, no threshold) and LT (linear response, above a threshold).
LNT is used by most right now, mostly because it's the most conservative-possible model that fits the very-high-exposure data that we do have from atomic bomb survivors. It is the model which gives us ALARA and 'Man-REM' planning.
LT is more what I would lean towards given available studies of very-low-exposure, but that still leaves open the question of what that would actually mean for public health advice, radiation worksite planning, etc.
There's very clearly a threshold effect, just like in many natural phenomenons. Political nonsense is what is causing confusion, not the scientific basis. And most of the "science" trying to prove otherwise is based on too few numbers to be statistically significant. (the cases of reported leukemias, for example, is very often misleading when you look at the ACTUAL numbers and not just the percentages.)
If you use "no-threshold" for planning purpose then you can't technically live on Earth anywhere, since there's natural radioactivity all around us and cosmic rays as well through the atmosphere.
The regulatory limits for radiations are based on No Science whatsoever. Currently, at least. We know radiations kill with certainty at very high levels, there is no debate about that, but at low levels it's just a political issue more than anything else.
The fact that people can survive in those areas without noticeable increase in risk of cancer seems to lend credence to the idea that there is a threshold that one can become acclimated to. But it's still a politically sensitive topic, enough so that the experts still don't want to push away from the harbor of the current ALARA recommendations.
Yeah, and God Forbid we talk about the positive aspects of radiations - some level of radiation is actually beneficial to kill some bacteria in your bodies and reduce some types of ailments and cancers. This has been observed (but certainly NOT widely reported in the media for which Nuclear Energy is the Devil Incarnate) in several studies.
We need both total transparency and proper education on the risks/benefits of nuclear technology.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=2...
That said, I agree with you that we need more nuclear power.