New Radiation Safety Levels

The Japanese government has announced new radiation exposure and ingestion limits that will become law by next Spring.

The current level for food radiation caesium exposure, currently set at 500 becquerels per kilogram, will be lowered to 100.  The limit for milk will be brought down from 200 becquerels per liter to 50, and for drinking water the new limit will be just 10 becquerels per liter, down from 200.

The government claims that the new limits are in line with international guidelines, and that the strictness of the new rules is to ensure a margin of safety.

However these claims are only partly correct.  Yes, the World Health Organization suggests a limit of 10 becquerels for water, but notes that the limit is extremely conservative, and not meant for 'nuclear emergencies', but considered over a lifetime.  If an infant were to drink a liter of water containing 10 becquerels of radiation, the infant would receive 0.00024 millisieverts of exposure, worlds away from the level of 100 millisieverts a year which has an actual measurable risk.

And in regard to caesium radionucleotides in food, the new limit for food is 10 times as strict as that recommended by the WHO; and the American FDA will not intervene until 12 times the limit.

The government panel that decided the new safety measures knows very well that public health is not affected one way or the other by these guidelines.  The new levels are not really about safety; the old levels were already extremely safe, even needlessly conservative.  The new measures are really a misguided attempt by the government to regain public trust by arbitrarily lowering radiation standards, reassuring the radiation-fearful public that everything really is 'okay'.

Adding difficulty to misjudgement, the new standards will create a huge headache for laboratories and other affected agencies, because new highly sensitive equipment will be needed.  Indeed there is some doubt over whether substantial amounts of food, water or milk can be tested at all, logistically speaking.

But it's the hypocrisy of the effort that maddens me.  Inevitably some agricultural products will fall foul of the new limits, resulting in rising levels of public fear and unnecessary food wastage.  Meanwhile, these low levels of radiactivity are dwarfed by the carcinogens and pollutants regularly introduced into the environment by other sources and other industries.  See here for an example of FDA limits being exceeded by 1000 times in an oil spill and barely being newsworthy, let alone scaring an entire nation.

Was the Fukushima response a failure?

A 507-page report on the Japanese government and TEPCO's response to the accident at Fukushima was released yesterday.  The report took months to prepare and included the interviews of 400 people.  It found that various mistakes were made both before and after the accident. 

Before the tsunami, TEPCO was found not to have considered the possibility of a tsunami nine metres or higher, and didn't take precautions such as building a higher sea wall or preparing for the possibility that cooling systems would be flooded.  And after the tsunami, a number of other miscalculations or errors were made.  These include breakdowns in communication between officials and on-site workers, switching off the wrong cooling system at reactor number 3, and waiting longer than necessary to start emergency cooling at reactor number 1, mistakenly believing an alternative system was still operational.  On the other hand, the report indicates that it is unclear to what extent these mishaps contributed to the partial or full meltdowns that occurred.

The government was also found to have reacted imperfectly.  Communication among officials at the prime minister's office and the ministries was insufficient.  Specifically, a more accurate estimate of radiation exposure was available, in some forgotten office, that the one the prime minister had immediate access to.  Without the more accurate estimates, the government decided on an evacuation zone of a simple 20 km radius from the plant.  This resulted, for example, in instances of people evacuating to areas which had higher radiation than the places they evacuated from.

All of these criticisms of the response to the nuclear accident are valid.  And there are others as well.  But a little perspective is in order.  On March 11, Japan was hit by major disasters.  An unprecedented tsunami killed 20,000 people.  Mistakes were made.  But I feel that it must be pointed out that in any situation of such magnitude, mistakes are inevitable.  No system is perfect, let alone the Japanese government or bureacratic power companies.  To be completely honest, I am in awe of the government's response, and considering the circumstances it is difficult to imagine anything that would have been more effective.  I challenge the Australian or American governments to respond half so well.  Does anybody remember Katrina? 

I clearly recall the first few days after March 11: 24 hour English news coverage, daily updates by the prime minister.  One had the feeling of a system struggling, being tested certainly.  But also responding to the best of its ability.  The more I think about it, the more awe I feel.  Hundreds of thousands of people evacuated, housed and fed for months.  Without a single radiation-caused death or injury.  Massive amounts of aid pouring in.  Distribution systems stretched to the limit.  Hundreds of workers flocking to the crippled plant, working 24 hours a day to ensure its safety.

In the cold light of reason, the government and TEPCO both come out well.  Yes, TEPCO could have anticipated a tsunami greater than 10 meters.  Or 20.  Or 200.  But there are limits to what can be prepared for.  And you can be certain of one thing: it is impossible for a 14-meter sea wall to be built all around Japan.  And if just around nuclear power plants, why not populated areas?  Are they less important?  And as for the mix-up with the radiation exposures, what the newspaper articles based on the report neglect to mention is the scientific fact that nobody outside the plant, no matter where they were, received enough radiation to adversely affect their health.

It is right and proper that a report be made on the response to the Fukushima accident.  It is appropriate that the mistakes that were made are exposed and analysed, so that improvements can be made.  But to label this response a failure, as newspaper reports around the world have done, is very disappointing. 

The report itself makes no dramatic claim.  Indeed the reporting of the panel's findings by different media sources is a lesson in itself, a lesson in how public opinion is manipulated by the media.  Associated press-sourced articles are headlined "Nuclear disaster response failed", whereas the Mainichi Daily news headlines their article with "Fukushima accident shows need to prepare for the unexpected." Inside, the article's contents are virtually identical.

Makes you think.

Kim Jong Il dies, Pork Chop to succeed him

The TV and other forms of media in Japan have been filled since yesterday with news about the death of Kim Jong Il and speculation about what will happen next in North Korea.

Newspapers were driven into a frenzy with extra editions printed.  The nightly news went for an hour instead of half an hour.

The Great Leader was the saviour of mankind who hit six holes-in-one the first time he picked up a golf club.  He could also alter the weather at will.  His fashion sense also influenced the entire world

At least according to North Korean media.  Makes you wonder if someone there has a sense of humour.  Who could write that with a straight face?

North Korea is one of the most bizarre places on Earth.  It is one of my greatest regrets that my dream of living there will probably now not come true.  That's what happens when you marry a Japanese woman I guess.

Media speculation has centred around the succession to Kim Jong Il.  He had three sons.

The oldest, Kim Jong Nam, was caught in 2001 trying to enter Japan on a fake passport in an unsuccessful attempt to go to Tokyo Disneyland.  I am not making this up.  He was deported and the incident apparently raised questions about his leadership abilities.  Makes you wonder.  If the passport had been of slightly higher quality we might now be facing a completely different leader, one who likes Mickey Mouse.

The second, Kim Jong Chul, is said to have a weak character.

The third, Kim Jong 'Pork Chop' Un, has been anointed as leader and will very likely succeed, though for a long time he may be merely a figurehead.  He shares his late father's dress sense and apparent appetite for fried foods.  He was also apparently educated in a prestigious Swiss boarding school.

The late Kim Jong Il with his son Pork Chop on the right.

The Japanese media is also speculating futilely about the abduction issue.  Hopes have been expressed that Pork Chop will address the issue of Japanese nationals who were abducted by North Korea back in the 70s.  The North Koreans returned five such abducted Japanese several years ago, but unfortunately for Japan, the chances that any others are left alive in North Korea approximate the chances that Kim Jong Il will go on a diet soon.

People's perception of Fukushima

The word 'Fukushima' has entered the English language as a synonym for massive disaster.  The public's perception of the accident has been moulded unconsciously by months of fearful media exposure and this perception bears little resemblance to the rather more bland reality.

An example of this image of catastrophe can be found on top of the current talk page behind the Fukushima wikipedia article.  An editor named Chrisrus wrote:

"Readers want to know...

how many people died as a result of not the earthquake or tsunami, but as a result of the nuclear meltdown radiation per se. If you use the table of contents you can't find this information easily. Just if you hit "casualties" it jumps you to the fact that a couple of workers who were directly right there have died. That can't be all! If we don't or can't know, please say so and explain, and please make it easier to find. I don't need all this information, I just want to know how many people died because of all of these meltdowns, and how many were emergency workers who went right into it to try and fix the problem and how many were citizens who lived downwind or in the surrounding area. We know that the earthquake and tsunami killed tons of people, but as this reads it seems like nuclear meltdowns are only dangerous to you if you're a first responder or some such who jumps right into it with a fire hose or some such. Great heroes, don't get me wrong, but nuclear meltdowns are supposed to kill everyone in the surrounding area pretty quickly and then many many others over the course of time who were farther away and this article leaves one with the impression that if there's an earthquake/tsunami big enough to cause a meltdown, the meltdown is the least of your problems."

This statement is the saddest thing I have read since March 11.  This person came into the wikipedia page expecting to read about thousands of people dead and dying from radiation; and when he couldn't find those numbers he assumed it was an editing problem and went to the talk page to complain.  Yet he writes lucidly; he may be well-educated, possibly an experienced wikipedia editor.  The tragedy is not that his pre-conceived ideas of the accident were so different from the reality; the tragedy is how widespread these ideas probably are.

Some short answers to his pleas:

"I just want to know how many people died because of all these meltdowns."  Nobody

"as this reads it seems like meltdowns are only dangerous to you if you're a first responder or some such who jumps right into it..."  Yep, that just about sums it up

"nuclear meltdowns are supposed to kill everyone in the area pretty quickly"  Are they?

"this article leaves one with the impression that if there's an earthquake/tsunami big enough to cause a meltdown, the meltdown is the least of your worries"  Um, yes.

Unfortunately this thing has taken on a life of its own and is probably not correctable.  Decades from now Fukushima will be an example of why nuclear power is a bad idea. It should be an example of why nuclear power is a good idea.  Public opinion has been permanently altered; governments dare not go against the feeling of the electorate and when making energy decisions may take fear of radiation into account more than the science.  Even now well-meaning family members in Australia enquire after my well-being and advise me not to eat the fish; they even express reservations about seafood in Australia...

It becomes difficult to imagine any news that will balance out the negativity; and from now every cancer case in Japan will be blamed by a large section of the public on the reactor accident.  Every story of unnecessary decontamination will become part of the greater 'nuclear crisis', and every minor bumble by TEPCO or the Japanese governement will become evidence of the vast conspiracy of governments and nuclear power companies hell-bent on poisoning all of us and keeping it secret at the same time.

Meanwhile coal, oil and gas power station continue to pour massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, simuntaneously spewing out toxic materials out of designed leaks call smokestacks even under normal circumstances.  And when accidents happen to those power stations, well, we don't hear about it for very long.

Check out this video of an oil refinery that burned for 12 days non-stop in Chiba prefecture after the quake.  Never heard of it?  You're not the only one.  We don't hear much in the media these days about the hazardous materials released into the atmosphere from that accident.

Fukushima-linked cancer risk so low it cannot be measured

There was a very interesting article in the Japan Times on Friday.  It concerned the risk of getting cancer due to radiation released from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant.  The science is clear- the risk is so low that it cannot be measured.  But that wasn't the interesting thing.  What stood out to me was how the information was presented.

I found it curious how 'no cancer detectable' becomes 'cancer may be impossible to detect'.  In one the implication is there is no cancer; in the other, there is cancer, just impossible to detect. Language is a funny thing. There's a lesson here about how the media works and what people want to read.

The writer is very keen to keep alive the possibility of danger.  Rather than simply inform readers that there is nothing to worry about, the article airs the views of housewives like Yuka Saito, who doesn't let her children play outside from fear of radiation, and makes them wear hats, face masks and long sleeves if they go out at all.  We hear about residents who want to flee but 'have no place to go'.  We read of consumers who are so worried about radiation they constantly carry geiger counters.  One could be forgiven, after having read the article, for having the impression that radiation was a deadly and insidious menace killing at will and unseen.

I think it's very sad that these kinds of views are presented as a valid alternative to those of mainstream scientists who say there is no measurable danger.  The risk is quite literally immeasurably small.  It's impossible to report a measure of risk that is lower than that.  If residents of Fukushima desire to leave because of that risk, can they really said to be acting rationally?  If they move to, say, Tokyo, they will be subject to other small, but actual genuine and measurable risks: the risk of reduced life expectancy due to pollution, the risk of violent crime. 

By any reasonable measure, if risks to health were to be objectively and rationally evaluated and acted upon, then Tokyo would be evacuated to Fukushima.

Of course we cannot rule out the possibility of Fukushima power plant radiation-induced cancer completely.  Science is not capable of that; nothing can be said with 100% certainty.  For example, I cannot rule out with 100% certainty that fairies live at the bottom of my garden.  After all, they certainly are impossible to detect!  But if somebody wants me to take the possibility into account, they are damn sure going to have to provide some pretty convincing evidence.

Not...no evidence at all.

Fukushima decontamination: Is it really necessary?

You can probably guess my opinion: definitely not.

When the Japanese national government took over responsibility for decontamination of radiation affected areas in and around Fukushima, the initial plan was to decontaminate areas that had over 5 mSv/yr of radiation exposure a year, as determined by aerial survey.  However, demands by local governments, based on residents' fear of radiation, have resulted in an expansion of the decontamination area to include any area of above 1 millisievert a year of radiation.  This is a 7-fold increase in size, from 1,800 sq kilometers to 13,000 sq kilometers, and includes substantial areas outside of Fukushima itself.  Considering that the cost of the first contamination plan was said to be 2.84 billion dollars, the final cost will be colossal indeed.  Are they really going to spend 20 billion dollars on removing topsoil, hosing down buildings, and clearing away rubble?

But wait.  Decontamination is good, right?  It's necessary to ensure the safety of local residents, isn't it?

Well, let's look at 1 millisievert a year (1 mSv/yr) and compare it to other radiation exposures:

• 1.5 mSv/yr is the average natural background radiation of Australia.
• 1.5 mSv/yr is also the average natural background radiation level of Japan, according to a pamphlet on radiation released to schools last week by the Ministry of Education.
• 5 mSv/yr is an exposure typically received by aircrew.
• 50 mSv/yr is the natural background exposure in several parts of the world, places in India, Brazil, Iran, and Europe. Source
• 100 mSv/yr is so low that the risk to human health cannot be measured. Source
• 260 mSv/yr is the natural background level at Ramsar, in Iran, where radioactive spas are used for their beneficial health effects by locals and tourists, and where no increase in cancer has been measured. Source

To me at least, this is definitely a case where fear of radiation has won over reason.  Although educating the public would be much better for Japan in the long term, it seems that short term expediency is more important.  Increasingly, national standards are being dictated by a vocal and paranoid minority.

Radioactive fireworks!

Last weekend, organizers of a festival in Aichi canceled a plan to use fireworks made in Fukushima Prefecture, even though the event was staged in support of regions devastated by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.  In what must have come as a humiliation to people who actually come from Fukushima, local residents successfully protested the use of the fireworks, fearing they could be contaminated with radioactive materials.  Given that radiation levels in Fukushima are too low to affect human health, and that there is no known way for radioactive materials to enter into...fireworks, the incident might be portrayed as an example of how not to support earthquake affected regions.  This is the kind of irrational fear that will perpetuate and worsen the discrimination that residents of Fukushima already face.

Some people in Japan don't need radiation detectors.  They need irony detectors.

Radioactive Hot Springs in Japan

I wasn't aware of this but Japan actually has many onsens (hot springs) that are naturally radioactive and well-known for it.  In fact Japan has something of a reputation for them.  They are visited by locals and tourists for their supposedly health-inducing and even cancer-preventative properties.  The most common source of the radioactivity is radon, a naturally occurring element that results from the breakdown of uranium or thorium. 

 Here's an ad for Misasa Hot Springs, which promotes its 'health-promoting radium', and a newspaper article about the cancer-fighting action of the radiation at Yawaragi onsen, located, ironically enough, in the mountains of Fukushima.  Wouldn't it be extraordinary if nearby residents had been suddenly evacuated from there because of something they had been enjoying for generations?

Radiation levels at these onsens are certainly low, low enough for radiation hormesis (if it exists) to be responsible for the health benefits, but they certainly raise eyebrows when compared to the kind of radiation that has caused widespread fear since March 11.  According to wikipedia, these kind of hot springs must have a concentration of a minimum of 74 Bq/cubic meter to qualify, and certain hot springs in Italy have concentrations of 4,000 kBq/cubic meter, while I found one Japanese site that states that Masatomi hot spring has a radiation level of 11,000 Bq/liter, and people bathe there and even drink the water for their health.  Those kinds of figures tend to put into perspective the panic that resulted when radiation levels in contaminated beef topped 500 Bq/kilogram. 

I even came across this by accident last week while on holiday in Kagoshima:

"This leg bath is a radon onsen.  For the full body bath please come inside the onsen building."

Where plenty of families (including my own) were happily bathing.

At first I found it odd that there has been no mention of these onsens in the media the last few months.  Upon reflection, it was not surprising, because the media would suffer a kind of cognitive dissonance if forced to confront the contradictions inherent in such coverage.  On one hand the public is encouraged to panic when levels of radiation are over 500 Bq/kilo of beef, but on the other hand people are known to bathe in and drink water that is much much more radioactive than that - for their health...

I wonder how many people in Japan visit their local onsen weekly, unknowingly or uncaringly luxuriating in significant levels of radon-induced radiation, only to fearfully cringe away from Fukushima produce at the supermarket

The Reality of Radiation in Japan

Before March 11, like everybody, I had only the vaguest ideas about nuclear power and radiation. 

But I have to tell you, it has been a revelation since then. I have been reading and reading. The net is extraordinary. I have searched for and read mainstream scientific views, and have been bombarded with alarmist articles and videos by well-meaning friends.  The amount of unsubstantiated fear-grounded media out there is extraordinary.  But if you read the science objectively, in my view it is impossible to not come to the conclusion that 99% of the fear Japan is experiencing is unnecessary.

Half the battle is to be careful about your sources.   This site is an example.  Here, they have just decided to include everything they could find that was anti-nuclear, seemingly on principle, and have thrown in massive numbers that are meaningless without context. Then there are the youtube videos like this one by Arnold Gundersen.  He comes across as a credible speaker and looks the part; then he starts talking about 'black rain', something no reputable media source would mention, and then you know you're in trouble. 

The craziest video is the one called 'Japanese government killing its own people', which you can see here.   You might call it the 'piss video'.  It's an exercise in clumsy propaganda. We don't see the calm, measured presentation from the bureaucrat simply stating that the local radiation is not dangerous. Instead, the original video has been cut and we see this aggressive (and irrelevant) questioning: they don't bother to include anything as boring or prosaic as actual radiation measurements.  I guess people would rather see bottles of urine being thrust around. Oh well. And yes, that Japanese bureacrat does come across as a heartless. But I have to tell you: the man with the urine trying to block the elevator is getting 10 times the sympathy I got last year at the Yokohama immigration office when my visa was unceremoniously cut for no reason from 3 years to 1.   But if I had tried the same shit as the urine guy, I would have been detained, interrogated, and deported before you could say 'discrimination'. My point is: that Japanese bureacrat is being heartless not because of radiation, but because he is a Japanese bureaucrat. And did you ever think why it is THIS video that goes around the net, and not some calm NHK presentation? Well, people love to feed their fears; and this video tells me a lot more about human paranoia (quite a bit) than it does about radiation in Fukushima (nothing).

That's enough of the fear-mongering for the moment.  If you are really interested in finding out the facts, you need to go to trustworthy sources. Wikipedia is one. In fact, it's the best source of information on the planet; because it's free, nobody gets paid, and it is beholden to noone. All it is is people slogging it out with facts and sources. Start with the article on the Fukushima accident

In fact, read the discussion page behind it; it is truly a wonder and I am in awe of it. For example, on the main page there is a quote from a man (I just looked it up, and, low and behold, it is Arnold Gundersen, the 'black rain' guy!), saying that Fukushima was the biggest industrial catastrophe in history.   I thought, that's a bit rough, especially in comparison with genuine disasters like Bhopal in India. So I go to the discussion page and there is a huge discussion about whether to remove the quote. Or not. You should read it yourself and make up your own mind. I also just noticed that above the quote there is a little wikipedia note: neutrality disputed. What other news source will take that much care?  For impartiality, go to wikipedia. 

As for actual radiation measurements in Fukushima (or Tokyo, or anywhere in Japan), they are freely available, in Japanese at least: e.g. an independent company or the more official NHK site. 

To interprest the figures, you have to know about the sievert, which is how radiation is usually measured when it affects humans affects bodies.  Included in this one unit is all the different types of radiation.  10 of these sieverts will kills you, and 1 will make you sick.  When thinking about how much radiation is dangerous, you can start by comparing the dose to natural background radiation, and that's where it starts to get interesting.   This natural radiation can vary a lot from place to place, anywhere from about 0.3 to 2 or 3 millisieverts a year  (a millisievert is 1/1000th of a sievert.)   Well, according to the Naver site Tokyo today has 0.056 microsieverts an hour, 0.49 millisieverts a year, on the lower end of the natural background radiation range.   Obviously nothing to worry about.   Up in Fukushima itself it is a little more interesting. People in Fukushima city are getting 10.6 millisieverts a year, some 20 times what people in Tokyo are getting.   But, in different places in the world the natural background radiation is substantially higher than even this, up to 20 or 50 or more millisieverts, or even more in certain areas in Iran or India. Those areas do not have higher cancer rates than other areas. In fact, no negative health impacts on humans have been observed for doses less than 50 millisieverts a year (according to who you read, it could be higher). In fact according to wikipedia, some areas in Iran have high natural radioactivity of more than 200 times normal background level, higher than safety levels for nuclear workers, and hot springs there are visited by locals and tourists!

Which brings me to radiation hormesis. Never heard of it? Neither had I, before all this happened. Radiation hormesis is the theory that very low doses of radiation are...good for you! It's not accepted by the mainstream of nuclear science, but there seems to be substantial evidence for it, and scientists are at least taking the idea seriously.  The very lack of widespread knowledge of the existence of this theory should tell you how much the media is disposed to negativity on the subject.  Now, I am not a supporter of radiation hormesis.   I don't have a degree in nuclear science, I have not published on the issue in academic peer-reviewed journals. But the issue demonstrates there is some evidence that low level radiation is good for you, just not enough evidence to overturn the dominant paradigm. Science is very conservative; you need a lot of evidence to overturn an existing theory.  And that's probably a good thing.

Now there a lot of people, strident activists, who are firmly against nuclear power. Arnold Gundersen is one. Helen Caldicott, an Australian woman, is another. You can see an interesting debate between her and George Manbiot, a British journalist and environomentalist.  I've spent hours watching debates like this, and much longer chasing up the substance of what the people say, a much less interesting but rather more illuminating pursuit.  As an example, George Manbiot wrote a detailed reply to issues Ms Caldicott raised in the debate, detailing her inadequacies at some length.  The comments after his article are themselves amazing.

One thing that comes out clearly in these debates is that anti-nuclear activists always maintain the mainstream of nuclear scientific opinion is wrong.   Not only do they question the scientific consensus, they charge that there is a conspiracy, a cover-up, to hide the much more dangerous and sinister truth.  Well, my take on that is this: it stretches credulity to suggest there is a huge international conspiracy, involving not only thousands of respected scientists, but including the organisations of the United Nations.  But this is what you have to believe if you believe that the paranoia and fear-mongering in the media is justified.

For the official, authoritative view of the dangers of low-level radiation, see this publication by the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiation.  Their FAQ is particularly readable.  In these documents you can see the moderate, rigorously scientific viewpoint.  You might summarize this view by saying that the tiny releases of radiation from Fukushima will have a negligible effect upon human health.  Not only that, but the response of the Japanese government and TEPCO to the nuclear accident, derided in both Japanese and foreign media as shambolic and ineffective, is revealed by the relevant agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, as both effective and appropriate.

But be aware, now we're getting into the actual science; but it's where you have to be if you want to think about this issue with any authority. It's the kind of authority that Arnold Gundersen and Helen Caldicott have to deny. In fact, it was clear in the debate that she hadn't even read the documents.

For me, personally, I became suspicious of the 'dangers' of radioactivity when I saw how the media was treating it. There seemed to be a lot of panic and precious little data. As an example of the fear of radiation versus radiation, consider the current beef scare. When it broke out NHK featured an hour-long news report focusing on this issue. There was a lengthy introduction, footage from cattle farms in Fukushima, an examination of flaws in the inpection system, repeated shrill announcements of becquerels in the hundreds and thousands, interviews with crying supermarket managers who had inadvertently sold the meat, on-the-street interviews with young mothers fearfully clutching babies and wailing about the safety of their family etc etc. Finally, there was a 10-second clip from an actual nuclear scientist at Tokyo university, calmly stating that you would have to eat a kilogram of the beef every day for several years in order for it to have any measurable effect upon your health.

And that contrast- between 45 minutes of fear-mongering and 10 seconds of reality – tells you all you need to know about the nuclear ‘crisis’ in Japan.

And now, if you haven't before, you are now obliged to read some unashamedly pro-nuclear opinion to balance it up all the negativity. You can start with this site, The Hiroshima Syndrome, which has an excellent chronology of the actual accident, among other things. There is also Rod Adams, who has an interesting take on Arnold Gundersen.  Read it yourself and make your own judgement about him!

For one view of why the media is full of disaster, watch this British documentary.

And here is a link where you can compare fatalities from different energy-related accidents in history. As you can see, nuclear energy is much much safer than fossil fuels such as coal, and even safer than hydro.

Finally, and very sadly, the Fukushima accident will have a long-term and substantial detrimental impact upon the planet, in terms of contributing very significantly to global warming.  Germany may be the first of several countries who regrettably roll back nuclear power because of the irrational fear of radiation.

Risk vs Perception of Risk

Back in March, in the days after the nuclear accident, there was panicked talk of evacuating Tokyo.

Well, risk is a funny thing.  It is quite extraordinary that we are allowed to live in large cities, with the associated vehicle emissions and other pollutions, shortening our lives by a very measureable amount.  Given that the radiation levels in Fukushima are far lower than those that could adversely affect human health, it is absolutely clear that there was an argument for evacuating Tokyo.  If the people of Tokyo had been evacuated into the Fukushima evacuation zone, they would be living longer than if they stayed in Tokyo city.