The opposition into Japan is not about the exact number of cancers or deaths. It is about trust. To quote the official report [1]:<p>...the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response.<p>How could such an accident occur in Japan, a nation that takes such great pride in its global reputation for excellence in engineering and technology? This Commission believes the Japanese people – and the global community – deserve a full, honest and transparent answer to this question.<p>Our report catalogues a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11. And it examines serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government.<p>For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey – especially to a global audience – is the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster. What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.”<p>Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.<p>(the rest is worth reading too)<p>If your government and industry had failed you like that would you trust them to continue with nuclear power without fixing the underlying problems?<p>[1] <a href="http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf</a>
The author of the submitted article, Richard Muller, is the developer of a Physics for Future Presidents course at UC Berkeley, author of a book with the same title as the course, and author of a new book Physics and Technology for Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know<p><a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html" rel="nofollow">http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html</a><p>that is well worth a read. In other words, Muller has been thinking about how to apply the facts of nature to the contentious issues of public policy for a long time, and has a good sense of economic and political trade-offs in policy- making. The article submitted here is a great example of clear thinking on a scary issue, and I endorse it as well worth reading and thinking about.<p>P.S. I have just been to Colorado Springs, Colorado, transiting the Denver, Colorado airport to get there, and I am not worried about increasing my cancer risk by returning to the Front Range each year for the business that brought me there.<p><a href="http://www.epsiloncamp.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.epsiloncamp.org/</a><p>I checked some of the statements made in other comments in this thread since posting this, and I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country.<p>P.P.S. I live in one of the states of the United States in which an exceptionally large percentage of electricity is generated at nuclear power plants. Both plants are located along the Mississippi River, as is most of Minnesota's population centers. Electricity is unusually inexpensive here, and health statistics are unusually good here, compared to other parts of the United States.
"It is remarkable that so much attention has been given to the radioactive release from Fukushima, considering that the direct death and destruction from the tsunami was enormously greater. Perhaps the reason for the focus on the reactor meltdown is that it is a solvable problem; in contrast, there is no plausible way to protect Japan from 50-foot tsunamis."<p>It's amazing to be able to take such an arrogant attitude. The outrage regarding the Fukushima disaster is exactly that there would have been <i>no</i> fallout if not for several human errors leading up to the disaster -- and the lies and misinformation following the disaster. There is a complete and justified lack of trust in the government and the industry -- and no indication that there will be no further accidents -- whether induced by natural disasters or just poor maintenance.<p>So yes, over engineering does indeed work -- and is a necessary measure when dealing with potential radioactive fallout -- but even then accidents do happen. I've seen people claim that the fact that human error is behind this and other accidents "proves" that nuclear power is safe -- this is of course rubbish. Human error will always be a big risk factor in any engineering project.<p>The author also ignores the fact that Japan has done an unprecedented job of mitigating the damage tsunamis can do -- but that the effort had been scaled towards what was assumed to be the likely threat -- a tsunami smaller than the one associated with this earthquake. He implies that this effort was for nothing -- which isn't true. It simply wasn't effective along large parts of the coast as it should (could) have been.<p>Consciously allowing a potentially huge risk -- the long time destruction of farmland and populated areas by radioactive contamination -- versus not mitigating all possible natural disasters and risks of war -- is a false dichotomy.<p>The problem with nuclear power isn't that a lot of people might die from cancer -- it's that <i>generations</i> might be affected by a single accident -- and will be burdened with containing spent fuel for longer than human civilization have existed.<p>Finally, if it turns out that geothermal power is a viable alternative -- then it should be possible to fulfil Japan's energy need without any risk of nuclear fallout.
> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test.<p>He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know there were multiple meltdowns and dumping radioactive water into the ocean. From an engineering point of view, it was a clear-cut failure. If not of implementation, then at least of specifications and margins.
As an experiment, I volunteer to expose myself, my wife and my children to a yearly dose of radiation that is three times the maximum safe-level recommended by The International Commission on Radiological Protection. i.e. we happily live in the Denver area ;-)
Lately I've been reevaluating my predictable sci/techy pro-nuclear stance. I still roll my eyes at folks who don't really know what radiation is but think it's inherently bad, and I still think nuclear power is probably a lesser evil than fossil fuels. But two things I learned this week gave me pause:<p>First, that Fukushima was not as benign as I believed if butterflys are mutating
<a href="http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00570.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00...</a><p>Second, and maybe everyone else knew this, but I never knew that we haven't been able to produce low-background steel since 1945
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel</a><p>And maybe those are both insignificant. But I think they both serve as non-partisan evidence that we can and have semi-permanently altered the planet with each nuclear mistake we've made.
Physicist Richard Muller should clearly demonstrate his beliefs by moving to Fukushima, instead of discussing the panic from the other side of the world. And he should also put nuclear risks in perspective, and contradict Seaborg:<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom....</a>
Handy radiation dose effect chart provided by Randall of XKCD (note: 1 microsievert = 0.0001 rem)<p><a href="http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/</a><p>Perhaps an interesting meta-discussion is the phenomenon of how choice of units affects the framing of a discussion. 0.1 rem doesn't sound nearly as dangerous as 1,000 μSv, though of course both numbers are completely meaningless to most lay people.
I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship described here<p>"If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"
With 2 reactors online and several thermal plants taken offline Japan is more than meeting it's current demand even though an exceptionally hot summer.<p>(Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the demand & availability numbers. Not just making stuff up in advance like others here.)<p>In fact if you took the 2 reactors offline they would still meet demand.<p>Now as the renewable energy industry actually gets a chance, rather than being squashed by the nuclear industry stranglehold on government the reactors are becoming clearly unnecessary long term.<p>Statements like many of the blog posts here are frankly ridiculous propaganda.
Infertility and High Natural Background Radiation ...<p><i>"Conclusion: Findings of this study indicate that women's Primary infertility rate in the HBR residents was considerably less than in the area with ordinary background radiation."</i><p><a href="http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/rjbsci/2008/534-536.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/rjbsci/2008/534-53...</a><p>"Y. Tabarraie , S. Refahi , M.H. Dehghan and M. Mashoufi , 2008. Impact of High Natural Background Radiation on Woman`s Primary Infertility. Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 3: 534-536."
Random question: Could the altitude of Denver contribute to its lower incidence rate of cancer? Your body does have to work a bit harder to live higher up. Just curious.
The conclusion of the WSJ was: "The great tragedy of the Fukushima accident is that Japan shut down all its nuclear reactors. Even though officials have now turned two back on, the hardships and economic disruptions induced by this policy will be enormous and will dwarf any danger from the reactors themselves."<p>The conclusion of The Corbett Report was: "Along with the tragic loss of life, the destruction of homes, farms, businesses and property, and the beginning of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami exposed the biggest secret of all: that the myth of the necessity of nuclear power in Japan is just that. A myth."<p><a href="http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode237_fukushimas_biggest_secret.mp3" rel="nofollow">http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode237_fukushimas_bigge...</a>