Well, if the latest research is anything to go by, not many, if any.
WHERE are those shameless nuclear hysterics who whipped up the Fukushima panic, now punctured by a United Nations report?
The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation last week found none of the Japanese public is likely to get sick from the 2011 incident, when a tsunami smashed into the Fukushima reactor.
“It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers,” UNSCEAR it said.
“No radiation-related deaths or acute effects have been observed among nearly 25,000 workers . . . It is unlikely that excess cases of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure would be detectable.”Â Read more »
So far the expensive study of Rena impacts has disclosed that the environment has not suffered any lasting harm.
Students and academics working under research team Te Mauri Moana this week began a project to gauge how a range of species have fared in the eight months since the Rena ran aground on the Astrolabe Reef off the coast of Tauranga.
The group’s leader, Professor Chris Battershill, said early samples were promising.
“Our observations suggest we avoided the worst of the disaster, and much of that is because the salvors managed quite effectively to get most of the oil, if not all of it, that hadn’t come ashore. If they hadn’t, then we’d be in a very different space right now.”
Of the 1712 tonnes of oil on board the Rena when it grounded on October 5, 350 tonnes were believed to have spilled into the ocean in the six days after.
The hysterical and self-serving claims of activists probably caused the worst impact (by undermining tourism and the local economy).
Note that the study still remains hopeful that they will find something awful in the remaining area to be studied.Â But they won’t.Â Â Just like Chernobyl, when Greenpeace predicted at least 250,000 deaths.Â A UN study showed that less than 50 died.
Those lefties do like end-of-the-world scenarios, but we just keep trucking on despite them.
Tom Chivers attempts and fails to understand greens opposition to nuclear power:
I don’t like the idea of being “fundamentally opposed” to one of the most obvious available options for keeping our lights on. If it is shown to be safe and economic, then we should use it. It’s not a moral issue; it’s just one more tool, which we can use well or badly, safely or unsafely. Also: how can an energy technology be “elitist”? I literally don’t know what that means. Is it elitist because it’s hi-tech and third-world countries can’t easily make their own? Well, so are iPads, then, and Toyota Priuses. Or does the word “elitist” just mean “bad” in Green-land, in the same way that “natural” means “good”?Â [Edit: I can’t believe I didn’t pick up on “undemocratic” as well. Since when are power stations democratic institutions?]
As for it not being renewable: well, neither is sunlight or the wind, if you’re taking a sufficiently long view. Eventually the Sun will consume the last of its hydrogen and expand into a red giant, probably blasting the Earth to its constituent atoms as it does so. But that’s quite a long way off, so we don’t worry about that. In the shorter but still decently long term, even if no more uranium deposits are foundÂ (although they will be) and no more efficient ways of using it developed (although they will be),Â “total identified resources are sufficient for over 100 years of supply”, according to the IAEA. That ain’t nothing.
“Carbon neutral” is a bit of a red herring as well in this case. It’s true, nuclear power is not carbon neutral. But it’s much less carbon positive, if that makes sense, than fossil fuels.Â The perfect is the enemy of the good, as the saying goes: just because something isn’t the best possible, doesn’t mean you should ignore it if it’s an improvement over what is available. Furthermore, there is potential to improve the carbon emissions of nuclear; if it is made economically attractive to do so, companies will do it themselves. Targeted carbon taxes, or an auction of carbon credits, would work;Â certainly the latter did for industrial sulphur dioxide emissions.
Of course once rpesented with all that the Green types fall back on the “safety” issue. But that too is a fatuous argument:
It’s about safety. Nuclear power is unsafe. Look at Chernobyl, look at Three Mile Island, look at Fukushima. It’s dangerous, as the Greens say, and its cost, dangers and waste will be “passed on to future generations”.
But asÂ Prof Paddy Regan says in our paper today, that’s false. Chernobyl killed about 50 people (28 people in the immediate weeks after; an estimated 19, according to the WHO, died of radiation-induced cancers in the following 20 years). Three Mile Island killed, and indeed harmed, precisely nobody. And Fukushima was the most ridiculous of all: as a vast earthquake and tsunami killed 15,000 people, the world’s attention was focused on a meltdown in a 40-year-old reactor which, again, killed no one at all.
How many have died from other energy sources?
Meanwhile, in the last 40 years, tens of thousands of people have been killed by failures at hydroelectric dams; hundreds more have died in coal mines, and of courseÂ thousands every year in the US alone from respiratory problems caused by fossil fuels. But the fear of “radiation”, evident in the nonsense scares about “electrosmog”, trump the very real dangers of other energy sources.
Right so how about we get ourselves some nuclear plants and have cheap abundant energy, please.
The left wing like to tell lies. Big lies.
Danyl McLauchlin is no different. With his post about energy deaths he tells a lie, but buries the lie inside a bit of truth. He posts the following image:
The infographic is true, it comes from here. But then Danyl tells the lie, and it is quite a whopper. I’d point it out in his comments but he deletes every comment I make there. Another nice left wing trick, suppression of information they don’t like. Still, Danyl tells the lie:
The fatality rate of renewable sources like wind and hydro arenât included, but theyâre smaller than nuclear by a significant margin.
Sure they aren’t included in the infographic but the stats are included at the link and as you can see Danyl has lied big time. Renewables are included, even hydro and wind (bold) and they are in fact larger than nuclear by a significant margin.
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) Coal â world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal â China 278 Coal â USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
So despite Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear energy remains the safest and ironically the greenest source of energy known to man. But Danyl didn’t want you to know that, he preferred to tell a lie.
Rob Fyfe is to be commended for taking a stand against the sensationalist media regarding the supposed threat to humanity from Fukushima power station.
Air New Zealand’s CEO Rob Fyfe has hit out at the news media in two messages to his staff, saying they are guilty of leading the world toward a ”humanitarian travesty” in coverage of the Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster.
In his second message he described himself as ”a lone voice” trying to fight sensational media.
In the first message, written four days ago, he said there was no probability that Tokyo residents would be affected by radioactivity from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power station.
He blamed the media for the fears.
And in a new message out today, he said it was “clear the media are struggling between which disaster and human tragedy to give greatest prominence too”.
Fyfe’s first message on the disaster was highly critical of media.
“As a result of misleading media coverage in many countries around the world, some airlines have come under pressure to stop flying to Japan and some governments are coming under pressure to recall their search and rescue personnel,” Fyfe said in the message.
”If lives are lost and human suffering is exacerbated in those areas affected by the earthquake and tsunami because of exaggerated and inaccurate media coverage, it will be a humanitarian travesty.”
Air New Zealand, he said, would keep its staff in Tokyo.
He said he had been disappointed with New Zealand media coverage on Fukushima: ”Little of it is fact based, it is increasingly taking the form of a docu-drama with a mixture of fact, ill-informed non-expert opinion and a fair dose of fiction.”
He said expert advice showed that ”the situation is completely safe for our staff resident in Tokyo and our visiting crews who are more than 200km away from the nuclear power stations”.
Even if there was a meltdown at the plant, the exclusion zone would only need to be 50km.
”The bottom line is that these experts do not see there being a possibility of a health problem for residents in Tokyo,” Fyfe said.
About time someone called bullshit on the media and their repeating over Fukushima.
In actual fact there is a greater risk of radiation exposure flying anywhere, but just by way of example a flight from Los Angelas to New York will give you a dose of radiation far exceeding anything coming from Fukushima.
Good on Rob Fyfe for speaking out.
Fyfe said the situation was very different from Chernobyl, where the reactor went into meltdown and the encasement, which exploded, was left to burn for weeks without any control.”There have been no radiation levels reported in Tokyo above normal ambient levels. There is no panic in Tokyo and in fact life is very quickly returning to normal. There are the occasional aftershocks and a small percentage of shops are still closed, but the vast majority are open,” Fyfe wrote.
He was critical of TVNZ’s Close-Up programme which interviewed him, just after running a piece about Chernobyl.
”In my view it was a shameful piece of drama. The woman’s story was tragic, the piece was designed to instil fear in the minds of those who have loved ones in Japan such as search and rescue personnel, Air New Zealand flight crew plus the 6000 New Zealanders that may be in the country along with those who have Japanese friends.”
In his latest message, Fyfe said given the news agenda ”there was no shortage of drama, instability and human suffering to choose from”.
”Yet, as much as the media coverage is dominated by all this doom and gloom, it continues to be the resilience of the human spirit that stands out for me in all this coverage.”
Fyfe said he spent most of the week ”as a lone voice in wanting people to take a fact-based, rational approach to the issues facing Japan, it is with some relief to see an increasing number of international agencies coming out with more realistic assessments of the nuclear situation and media coverage becoming less sensational and exaggerated”.
He told his staff that the International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation had declared that international flight and maritime operations could continue normally.
So far not a single person has died at or near the power station yet up to 20,000 have been killed as a result of the tsunami. Rob Fyfe is right in pointing out whereÂ theÂ real humanitarian catastrophe lies.
xkcd, an online cartoon has a great infographic comparing radiation exposure from various sources, including theÂ “accidents” and the current Japanese situation.
Thereâs a lot of discussion of radiation from the Fukushima plants, along with comparisons to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Radiation levels are often described as â<X> times the normal levelâ or â<Y>% over the legal limit,â which can be pretty confusing.
Ellen, a friend of mine whoâs a student at Reed and Senior Reactor Operator at the Reed Research Reactor, has been spending the last few days answering questions about radiation dosage virtually nonstop (Iâve actually seen her interrupt them with âbrb, reactorâ). She suggested a chart might help put different amounts of radiation into perspective, and so with her help, I put one together. She also madeÂ one of her own; it has fewer colors, but contains more information about what radiation exposure consists of and how it affects the body.
Since the awful earthquake and terrible tsunami the media haveÂ largelyÂ ignored the thousands of deaths insteadÂ focussingÂ on a small power plantÂ whereÂ not a single person has died, nor will a single person has died. Predictably too the green eco-fascists who foisted global warming upon us all and carbon taxes are now railing against the very technology that produces the least greenhouse gases, has killed far less than any otherÂ powerÂ generatingÂ technologyÂ and ironically is the greenest source of power there is by their rules.
While they posture against Nuclear power stations they forget that more people have died in Ted Kennedy’s car than in American nuclear accidents. We have also seen the more stupidÂ amongstÂ our MPs rail against nuclear power. i just hope they never get cancer and need a bit ofÂ nuclearÂ medicine to put them right. Funny thing is though they protest against nuclear power but not a single one of them has come outÂ againstÂ the building of new cyclotrons in New Zealand.
We need to get some perspective rather than rely on mis-informed headline writers of the mainstream media. The BBC fortunately has a great article about the imagined risks of Fukushima compared with real risks that exist already.
The apocalyptic visions of destruction brought by the Japanese earthquake and subsequent tsunami have been largely replaced in the media this week by reports of the struggle to control radiation from the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant.
This provides a gripping narrative – a brave team battling to contain the threat, warnings of catastrophe and claims of incompetence, families desperate to protect their children and leave the area.
But perhaps the media coverage tells us more about ourselves than it does about the threat of radiation.
Psychologists have spent years identifying the factors that lead to increased feelings of risk and vulnerability – and escaped radiation from nuclear plants ticks all the boxes.
It is an invisible hazard, mysterious and not understood, associated with dire consequences such as cancer and birth defects. It feels unnatural.
Ohhh scary…the MSM even used the word fallout multiple times in their scare-mongering stories.Meanwhile we all, well not all, remainÂ obliviousÂ to the risks of just living in our naturalÂ environmentÂ from radiation.Â RadiationÂ that doesn’t come from broken power stations. Radiation that seeps from the ground naturally.
In contrast, few in the west of England seem concerned at the natural radiation they are exposed to from the earth in the form of the gas radon, even though it is estimated to lead to more than 1,000 cancer deaths a year in this country.
But if radiation comes from an accident and has been imposed on us unwillingly, we feel we can’t control it or avoid it.
It is therefore not surprising that the psychological effects of man-made and unintended radiation exposure, or even its possibility, are strong.
So in the UK alone more than a 1000 people die of cancer from Radon. What about the deaths from 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
It has been estimated that 17 million were exposed to significant radiation after Chernobyl and nearly 2,000 people have since developed thyroid cancer having consumed contaminated food and milk as children.
This is very serious, but nothing like the impact that had been expected, and a UN reportÂ identified psychological problems as the major consequence for health.
The perception of the extreme risk of radiation exposure is also somewhat contradicted by the experience of 87,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who have been followed up for their whole lives.
By 1992, over 40,000 had died, but it has been estimated that only 690 of those deaths were due to the radiation. Again, the psychological effects were major.
Riiiight….so we have zero deaths in 3 Mile Island, less than 50 deaths so far in Chernobyl but not likely to exceed 3000 and only 690 of the 87,000 survivors of Hirshima and Nagasaki have died due to radiation. Are we getting any perspective yet?
Radiation does, however, feel acceptable when used in benign circumstances such as medical imaging. You can pay ÂŁ100 ($160) and get a whole-body CT scan as part of a medical check-up, but it can deliver youÂ a dose equivalent to being 1.5 miles from the centre of the Hiroshima explosion.
Because more than 70 million CT scans are carried out each year, the US National Cancer Institute has estimated that 29,000 Americans will get cancer as a result of the CT scans they received in 2007 alone.
Oh dear. You have more chance of dying from radiation as a result of medical treatment than you do living next door to a nuclear power station. Great. Where areÂ theÂ politicians rushing to shut dow those killing CT scanners?
So based on evidence rather than emotion it would seem the headline writers have scared a good proportion of the population for something that they shouldn’t be scared of.
Michael Hanlon, the Science Editor of the Daily Mail goes even further. He suggests thatÂ “what has happened in Japan should in fact be seen as a massive endorsement of nuclear power“. He isn’t wrong either.
Anyone reading the oceans of coverage given to the Japanese catastrophe could be forgiven for thinking that the biggest story, among all the terrible, terrifying heart-rending stories that have emerged in the last week, is that of the impending nuclear apocalypse, invocations of Chernobyl; the ultimate atomic nightmare.
Radiation levels are said to be rising, a nervous Tokyo looks to the northern skies and waits.
There is frantic talk of melting fuel-rods, cooling tanks boiling dry, of American warships edging back from the coast fearful of a few stray Becquerels drifting their way, helicopters dousing the errant reactors with seawater in a last-ditch attempt to avert catastrophe.
Yes, anyone else noticed?
But this concentration on the nuclear angle is overstated, a peculiar misreading of the real situation. It illustrates a perverse desire to ignore what is by far and away the biggest real story here – the thousands, most probably tens of thousands, of Japanese people who have been drowned, crushed, entombed in mud, burned alive and swept away by that black tide of death that came sweeping through towns like Sendai and Minamisanriku last Friday afternoon.
The real story is of whole communities literally sluiced away, families shattered, economies ruined. This is, truly, a disaster on a biblical scale, a true apocalypse not the hysterical nuclear-version alluded to by, among others, Gunther Oetinger of the European Commission (who is talking of an âapocalypseâ), the French government (which has told its nationals to evacuate Tokyo), German Chancellor Angela Merkel (who has put Germanyâs nuclear programme on hold) and many other people who should know better.
Our own government is included in the worry-worts and panic artists and they should hang their heads in shame.
Because the other real story, which is a much happier – yes happier – one, is how the Japanese nuclear plants have performed magnificently in the past few days despite being hit by a disaster vastly greater than they were designed to withstand.
What has happened in Japan should in fact be seen as a massive endorsement of nuclear power. But of course, people being what they are, it will not be.
Think about it: despite being faced with a Magnitude 9 Great Earthquake which knocked the whole island of Honshu several feet to the west, a 35ft tsunami and the complete breakdown of the infrastructure, a handful of rather ancient atomic reactors have remained largely intact and have released only tiny amounts of radiation.
There have been some dramatic explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, but casualties have been light; maybe a dozen blast-injuries and a handful of cases of suspected radiation sickness. And remember: thousands were killed by the tsunami.
And how many by issues at the power station? So far none!
As the tsunami and its victims are pushed off the front pages to be replaced by telephoto shots of sinister white buildings, hovering Chinooks and evocative explosion clouds, you could be forgiven for thinking that we are staring into the atomic abyss.
At a press conference at the Royal Institution on Tuesday, nuclear scientists speculated that indeed it could, that if the reactor cores could not be cooled then we could be looking at a rerun of the Three Mile Island disaster. And that, surely, would be terrible?
Well, not really. The accident at the eponymous nuclear plant in Pennsylvania took place on 29 March 1978. That day, a partial core meltdown in Reactor Core No 2 led to local then national panic. There was talk of a China Syndrome, the title of a schlock disaster movie released coincidentally that year which dealt with a reactor meltdown leading to a blob of molten nuclear fuel burning its way through the Earth to emerge on the other side (i.e, from the US to China).
In the end the meltdown was contained, and there was no breach of the reactor containment vessel and certainly no China Syndrome (which turns out to be a myth in any case).
As with Japan today, a small amount of radioactivity was released but this resulted in zero deaths and no measureable increase in illness. In fact, one epidemiological study concluded that the net effect of the worldâs second-worst nuclear accident was to give everyone living within 15 miles of the plant a radiation dose equivalent to one chest x-ray.
All right, so the official worst-case-scenario is a disaster which kills zero people, but these nuclear boffins can get it wrong, right? What would happen if Fukushima does a Chernobyl?
Yes OMG what about if Fukushima turns into another Chernobyl?
The thing is, even Chernobyl did not do a Chernobyl. This was, by far, the worst nuclear accident in history (a Category 7) and yet the most astonishing thing about Chernobyl is just how uncatastrophic even this mega-disaster turned out to be.
After the explosion, the world waited. For the cancers, for the gruesome birth defects, terrible radiation burns. Up until the mid-1990s, the generally accepted death toll (including that quoted by the Ukrainian Health Ministry) was in the region or 125,000. As time wore on, these figures plummeted.
In fact, 31 people were killed when the reactor blew – 28 from radiation exposure and three scalded to death by escaping steam. In addition, 134 people received high radiation doses and several dozen of these have subsequently died, although several of unrelated causes. A few hundred people, maybe a few thousand, may die prematurely in years to come, mostly from untreated thyroid cancers, but it is becoming clear that the original assessment was wildly pessimistic.
Yes, wildly pessimistic and horribly inaccurate. An awful like the repeating coming out of Fukushima.
As is the news coming from Japan.Â The cooling-system failures that have seen the Fukushima reactors go into near-meltdown are being addressed by the engineers on site. Seawater is being pumped in to dissipate the residual heat, helicopters are dousing the reactors from the air, and water is being blasted onto them from the ground.Â But if this does not work there is a risk that one or more of the cores will melt, possibly even escaping their concrete containers.
But, but the media says it is an apocalypse! What should we do? Well perhaps we should listen to the British Government experts rather than our silly government.
What then? How bad could it get? Well, Britainâs excellent Chief Scientist, Sir John Beddington, couldnât have explained it more clearly. This is what he said in a transcribed conversation with the British Embassy in Tokyo.
Iâll quote him in full because it summarises perfectly what is really going on in Japan:
‘If the Japanese fail to keep the reactors cool and fail to keep the pressure in the containment vessels at an appropriate level, you can get the dramatic word ‘meltdown’. But what does that actually mean?Â What a meltdown involves is [that] the basic reactor core melts, and as it melts, nuclear material will fall through to the floor of the container. There it will react with concrete and other materials. That is likelyâŠ remember this is the reasonable worst case, we donât think anything worse is going to happen.
‘In this reasonable worst case you get an explosion. You get some radioactive material going up to about 500 metres up into the air.Â Now, thatâs really serious, but itâs serious again for the local area.Â Itâs not serious for elsewhere âŠ if you then couple that with the worst possible weather situation i.e. prevailing weather taking radioactive material in the direction of Greater Tokyo and you had maybe rainfall which would bring the radioactive material down – do we have a problem?
‘The answer is unequivocally no. Absolutely no issue. The problems are within 30 km of the reactor.Â And to give you a flavour for that, when Chernobyl had a massive fire at the graphite core, material was going up not just 500 metres but to 30,000 feet.Â It was lasting not for the odd hour or so but lasted months, and that was putting nuclear radioactive material up into the upper atmosphere for a very long period of time.Â But even in the case of Chernobyl, the exclusion zone that they had was about 30 kilometres.
‘And in that exclusion zone, outside that, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate people had problems from the radiation. The problems with Chernobyl were people were continuing to drink the water, continuing to eat vegetables and so on and that was where the problems came from. Thatâs not going to be the case here. So what I would really re-emphasise is that this is very problematic for the area and the immediate vicinity and one has to have concerns for the people working there. Beyond that 20 or 30 kilometres, itâs really not an issue for health.’
There you have it:Â the voice of reason. But this is not what you have been reading, and this is not what the politicians are saying. To reiterate: if you say at least 20 miles from the Fukushima Complex, even if all the reactors blow up, you will be fine.
Yes there you have it. But the Greenie wankers will have none of this. They want all nuclear power stations turned off because they are “unsafe”.
None of this will matter of course to a resurgent anti-nuclear movement. After Three Mile Island which killed â remember â no one at all, Americaâs nuclear industry was paralysed. This is set to happen again, on a larger scale, just when the world has woken up to the fact that to combat the twin evils of climate change and an impending energy crisis we are going to need a massive revival of fission power.
In a way, the speed with which the nuclear angle has come to dominate coverage of the Japanese catastrophe is understandable. The earthquake and tsunami could not be comprehended. Tales of survival will emerge but, in essence, the story of the great Black Wave is over. The towns are gone, the people are dead. We need to âmove the story onâ, to use the mediaâs dread parlance.
But the nuclear crisis is all too comprehensible, and on-going. Our fear of the rogue, effervescent atom, the invisible, DNA-mutating ultra-poison appears to be primordial. By concentrating on the atomic plants we make this story about the works of Man, not of Nature, and thus write ourselves back into the centre of a narrative in which we, in truth, have played merely the role of hapless and helpless bystanders and victims.Â Scaremongering and hubris; an unhappy combination.
The luddites can’t have it both ways. They can’t demand that we shut down Nuclear power plants without suggesting real alternatives, not ones that damage the environment more than nuclear power does, or ones that kill more people like the coal powered stations. If they want to tax us for emissions then they have to let us buildÂ emissionÂ free stations and so far the cleanest and safest of those is nuclear. Nothing else comes even close.