Fear is a killer: Nuclear expert reveals radiation’s real danger – energy

https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/6av5ft/fear_is_a_killer_nuclear_expert_reveals/

Experience in Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Fukushima has taught Shunichi Yamashita that anxiety and disruption can hurt people far worse than radiation itself.

“Many people thought even a tiny amount of radiation was dangerous”

Mass screening done anywhere is bound to show up cancers that wouldn’t otherwise have been diagnosed. They have nothing to do with radiation, but the public and the media don’t understand this.

4 Comments

  1. Tomi Engdahl says:

    It goes completely against what most believe, but out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
    https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy/

    One terrawatt-hour is roughly equivalent to the annual energy consumption of 12,400 US citizens. Although deaths from accidents and air pollution have been combined, it’s important to note that air-pollution related deaths are dominant. In the case of brown coal, coal, oil and gas, they account for greater than 99% of deaths, as well as 70% of nuclear-related deaths4, and all biomass-related deaths.

    We can see that brown coal and coal rate the worst when it comes to energy-related fatalities. Coal-fired power plants are a key source of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, key precursors to ozone and particulate matter (PM) pollution, which can have an impact on human health, even at low concentrations.

    Reply
  2. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Russia Detects a Significant Radiation Spike In Mountains Close To Soviet-Era Nuclear Plant
    https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/11/21/2319252/russia-detects-a-significant-radiation-spike-in-mountains-close-to-soviet-era-nuclear-plant?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot%2Fto+%28%28Title%29Slashdot+%28rdf%29%29

    According to a report via The New York Times, Russia said that it had detected a significant radiation spike in the Ural Mountains, close to a sprawling Soviet-era nuclear plant still remembered as the site of an accident 60 years ago. Russia did however reject suggestions that it was the source of a radioactive cloud that hovered over Europe.

    The location of the spike — in the Chelyabinsk region near the border with Kazakhstan — has been identified by French and German nuclear safety institutions as a potential source for a concentration of a radioactive isotope called ruthenium 106 detected in the air in late September above several European countries. But nuclear energy authorities in Moscow insisted Monday that still-higher levels of atmospheric contamination had been detected outside Russia, in southeastern Europe.

    Russian radiation leak: everything you need to know
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/21/russian-radiation-leak-everything-you-need-to-know

    ‘Extremely high’ levels of a radioactive isotope were discovered in parts of Russia in September. But where did it come from? And is it dangerous?

    Is it dangerous?

    The highest levels reported were 986 times the background levels, which sounds alarming. However, the background levels are close to zero and nuclear safety experts believe the leak is unlikely to pose a health risk or require people in the vicinity to be evacuated. Professor Paddy Regan, a nuclear expert at the University of Surrey told me: “The levels detected may be extremely high relatively to the background, but they’re not extremely dangerous.”
    How long will it stick around for?

    The half-life of Ru-106 is 374 days, meaning that in just over a year, half of the material will have decayed away. So the leak will still be detectable for five or six years, but it is unlikely to require any major environmental cleanup operation.

    Reply
  3. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Homes should not be abandoned after a big nuclear accident
    http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2017/november/nuclearaccident.html

    New research suggests that few people, if any, should be asked to leave their homes after a big nuclear accident, which is what happened in March 2011 following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

    This is the main finding of a multi-university research study led by Philip Thomas, Professor of Risk Management at the University of Bristol, involving the universities of Manchester and Warwick, The Open University and City, University of London. The results are published in a special issue of Process Safety and Environmental Protection, a journal from the Institution of Chemical Engineers.

    Reply
  4. Tomi Engdahl says:

    “Mass relocation is expensive and disruptive. But it is in danger of becoming established as the prime policy choice after a big nuclear accident. It should not be. Remediation should be the watchword for the decision maker, not relocation.”

    Source: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2017/november/nuclearaccident.html

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*