Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

48 Comments

  1. Good feature. Wish it could get out in public or media! Only thing to add is answering the layperson’s question of why is Iodine in a reactor to start with.

    I think one of the more insidious reasons for being anti-nuclear or nuke-phobia even beyond FUD is the nuclear grudge. Something nuclear hit you and stuck and festered from a fret into unreasonable consternation, like a 6-year-old in the 1960s being scared witless by the first Godzilla movie and can’t sleep because they’re haunted by H-bomb spawned monsters that clings way into adulthood. Or a laid-off nuclear worker or scientist or someone having a bad emotional or economic experience on the nuke job. Or the Hiroshima guilt syndrome, longing to purge the soul and “pay back” the atom by banishing it for all the uniquely “evil” things it did at Hiroshima. The atomic grudge is a philosophical vengeful mindset that will twist reason or logic or fact to paint nuclear applications or records black with hyper-exaggerations and trillion-chance extrapolations and every excuse possible to see to it that nuclear is punished just for existing. Never mind that you can pack 60 years worth of nuclear energy fatalities on one Greyhound bus. Never mind that the third world could have pollution-less clean water or long lasting irradiated food being shipped to them deep into barely accessible country interiors. Never mind that children will be hacking and wheezing from air pollution and diseases. Never mind that even the heat of a full unimpeded meltdown wouldn’t even breech its container. We must banish the atom for what perils it Could/Might do, despite and in spite all the real-world millions lives long lost and suffering from famine and bad water and no clean electricity because worst case Doomsday nightmares that have never realized are retarding a proven and reliable solution. The parents of the nuclear grudge are wounded ego and hypocrisy, and unfortunately way too many people are paying the price for others’ hang-ups getting in the way.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

    1. Great rant. I wish I could write like that!

      Having spent 12 years in charge of radiation safety at a facility with truly lethal gamma rays (LD50 in 10 seconds) I find it absurd that people were prevented from returning to their property in Fukushima on the grounds of such tiny radiation hazards.

  2. “from March 12 to March 20th”

    this is pretty discriminant information.

    Cesium and Iodine in liquid tend to form a CsI, a soluble salt. Liquid releases long term are the major direct transporter of Cesium and Iodine. Injection reduces the volatility of Iodine by providing a holding solution for the CsI salt. While in solution, the liquid runoff to the surrounding land and waters becomes the major release path.

    When fuel melts and changes location, the Noble Gas release is virtually 100%.
    In the stated time interval, Noble Gases left the station.
    Xenon decays to Cesium and will do so in the environment.
    Similarly Krypton at the other peak of the fission yield curve decays to Strontium.

    Both Noble Gases are released in vent evolutions.
    If Mark I venting is not performed at extreme Containment Pressures, as shown at Fukushima – the containment via leakage or failure tends to vent itself.

    Yes, grams of elemental Cesium and Iodine likely left the station in the first few days.
    And virtually the complete core inventory of Noble Gas.

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/2313/2012/acp-12-2313-2012.pdf

    The Peach Bottom SOARCA analysis is an accurate model of a BWR Severe Accident, it is important to mitigate and prevent core damage, even though the health effects of a radiological release are minimal to non-existent.

    1. Xe-137 decays fairly rapidly to Cs-137, and the release is of the delayed type, so almost all the Cs-137 released was already present in the core as Cs not Xe. Cs is volatile, a major fission product, and scrubbed by rain so tends to contaminate land.

      Other noble gasses are not of concern, they just float away to be diluted in the atmosphere.

      Release to sea is not a big deal, just lots of fuss from supposed “environmental” organisations (even though not a single fish was actually killed by the sea releases, you’d think this would make “environmental” groups happy but clearly they’re intellectually challenged yell-hard-feel-good people rather than scientists). The airborne releases are the biggest issue because that’s the type that contaminates land. Even there though, more than 99% of the evacuated land is fine for agricultural use, if we had risk-based radiation standards rather than radiophobia.

  3. “I think it is a travesty that people are still being forcibly separated from their homes”

    Japan is a democracy and they chose evacuation limits democratically, in the calm.

    With the accident, many people around Fukushima demanded evacuation (at someone else’s expense) and were unhappy they didn’t get evacuated. Here’s one example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRW7c0AZGhg

    In their minds it’s a travesty that they weren’t being evacuated.

    Others have returned to their homes against government orders.

    1. @Bob

      Is it possible that the actions of the radiation protection community, in adhering to the assumption that all radiation is hazardous, no matter how low the dose might have contributed to the fear inspired choice of radiation limits?

      Sure, there are people that are independent enough to violate the law and go home against government orders. Does that change the travesty?

      1. Strawman…the radiation protection community does not adhere to that assumption.

        So obviously the answer to the non-reality based question is no.

        The society chose nuclear power (and a non-zero risk of an accident, though they were probably led to believe the risk was zero) and with it evacuation limits.

        The accident happened and people were evacuated. They got what they ordered.

        How is that a travesty? The tsunami and the accident are travesties, not the evacuation, other than it was carried out poorly.

        Who is responsible for emergency planning and response in the event of a nuclear accident? Why are the residents fearful if the planning (which should include education) was done correctly? Why was the evacuation so poorly done?

        Oh, I know….the radiation protection community. HA!

        1. @Bob

          People are pretty simple. They want a straight answer to a simple question, is it safe to remain in there home? By refusing to say yes if there is any dose at all, the radiation protection community says no. Sure the practitioners may be able to justify themselves by waffling and talking about low risk, but people hear the word risk and here there’s a probability of a very scary outcome.

          Low level radiation is safe. That is defined by studies to be less than 100 mSv because below that level there are no measured consequences, only statistically calculated consequences.

          That dose can most likely be repeated every month without measurable risk.

        2. @ Bob,

          I am very glad to hear that the Radiation Protection community does not adhere to the assumption that all radiation is hazardous no matter how low the dose. Will you join us in campaigning for regulations that set a dose As High as Reasonably Safe? Could you give us some idea of what you consider to be a reasonably safe dose? Say a dose that gives a risk of death in the next 10 years that is about the same as driving a car in Japan?

          Thanks! Glad to see you back and discussing this important issue.

    2. Uhm, no. Japan did not set democratic evacuation limits. Most people don’t know the difference between a millisievert and a becquerel so such democratic efforts would be pointless and even dangerous.

      The 20 mile evacuation circle was drawn up in haste by nervous officials who did not consider actual data even though this was available from e.g. Speedy software modelling that were already done at the time.

      The international atomic energy association has a suggested evacuation limit of a few miles when the worst comes about. Yet the clueless government officials didn’t bother to conform to the official internationally recognized expert body on these things. The clueless officials drew a circle. An 8 year old could do it.

      The evacuation did considerably more damage, in both death toll and economic loss, than just about any alternative, including doing nothing.

      1. @Cyril; “…IAEA has a suggested evacuation limit of a few miles ….
        Yet the clueless government officials didn’t bother to conform…”

        I assume that the Japanese looked at the IAEA/WHO figures regarding the victims of Chernobyl and compared those with their know how regarding Hiroshima (LSS) and the many other studies regarding Cherobyl (also Japanese) published.

        The huge differences regarding victims, the neglected studies by WHO, etc, must have driven them to the conclusions that official IAEA/WHO figures are rather worthless. See e.g.:
        http://sfbayview.com/2011/chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-25-years-later/

  4. @ Rod – I noticed that you left out the Cs-134 in the calculation. From what I’ve read, the initial activity ratio for 134/137 was one. Because 134 is more radioactive than 137, the inclusion of it should not change the total mass estimate by much. It should also be noted that half of the Cs-134 has decayed away already, which is a major factor in bringing the radiation fields in the evacuation zones down by more than 40% since deposition occurred.

  5. For what its worth, your math checks out with me, Rod. However, there is one typo where you wrote I-137 when you meant I-131.

    It is interesting to do these calculations when I read that some fish caught near Fukushima had a reading of 1000 Bq per kg or whatever. The actual mass of radioactive material the fish ingested is so microscopic, it is difficult to see how it could be a danger. Part of the problem is because they report everything in Bq instead of Curies. I suppose Bq is the official SI unit, and a few million Bq sounds like a big number to the uninformed public, but it really is a tiny amount of material.

    It is also interesting how the area around Chernobyl is a thriving wildlife preserve today. The wolves, deer, boar, wild horses and other animals seem to be doing just fine.

    1. Greenpeace had predicted several hundred thousand deaths as a result of the Chernobyl accident. They had also made hellish predictions about wildlife in the area. How wrong they were. Not that I listen to them very much anyway, their site is full of lengthy diatribe and emotive environmental nonsense.

      1. @Josh: That depends.

        Studies now come to far worse conclusions,
        also due to the delayed effects of low level radiation (just a with sun burn, nicotine, asbestos, micro particles in the air, etc):
        http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/HEofC25yrsAC.html

        Note that IAEA has the target to promote peaceful nuclear, and that WHO is bound to the IAEA regarding radiation due to their 1959 (cold war) agreement.

        1. Note that IAEA has the target to promote peaceful nuclear, and that WHO is bound to the IAEA regarding radiation due to their 1959 (cold war) agreement.

          Bas – Geez … Is there any lie that you won’t swallow without a moment of critical thought?

          The agreement, which can be found on the Internet, actually protects “the right of the World Health Organization to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting and co-ordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects.

          In other words, because of this agreement, the IAEA is prohibited from interfering with any health-related research conducted by the WHO, including research into the health effects of exposure to radiation, whether it is related to anything “nuclear” or not.

          You need to stop listening to websites like radical.org and Greenpeace. They have been lying to you for all these years.

  6. >> Total mass of main isotopes of concern from Fukushima:
    >> I-131 – 43 grams
    >> Cs-137 – 4 kilograms

    (1) I assume this is the estimate for the initial release. How much of this is left now?

    (2) I think the paper said that the total amount released was revised upward. By how much in %?

    Thanks

    1. Forty three grams of I-131 is 0.328 gram-molecules which amounts to 1.98 x 10^23 atoms.

      The Fukishima explosion occurred 736 days ago. The half life of !-131 is 8 days. This means that the concentration of I-131 has fallen to (0.5)^92 = 10^-29. This means there is not even one atom of radioactive Iodine left.

      Cs137 is quite different. It has a half life of 30 years so it will be around for quite a while. Only 4.7% has decayed so 95.3% remains.

      1. 30 years sounds scary at first but remember that the biological half-life of cesium in the body is naturally about 70 days. If there is a known acute exposure, with chelation therapy than can be reduced to 30 days. So with very dilute amounts distributed in the biosphere it is doubtful if anyone among the general population will attain an equilibrium concentration of 137Cs of any consequence.

    1. James G.,

      One might say that Bas is a one-man fertilizer plant. 😉 Sorry, I am bad tonight!

    2. One day later and that has all but forgotten by the press. Likely it will several times the casualties from fukushima even in in very long run, certainly in the short run it was far, far worse and the coverage dropped off a cliff after less than a day.

      There was no natural disaster precipitating that event and that community is absolutely devastated and traumatized.

      1. I was waiting for Greenpeace to suggest that all fertilizer plants be banned.

        After all, better that 3 billion people die of starvation than risking a few hundred dead from an explosion.

        Oh, scary! Explosion!

        But wait, there’s a better solution. Greenpeace and other anti-nukes produce so much crap, we can use that to fertilize the plants.

        Problem solved.

  7. Oh sheesh… I don’t have a nuclear power backround as many of you do, but I do have a physics degree. The absolute b.s. around Fukushima pisses me off to end. I’ll write more later, but I salute Rod and all of you other rationalists who have contributed to clean energy for decades.

    1. “but I do have a physics degree”.
      I love it!
      I note that despite such an expression of modesty, you can nevertheless show better sense than pundits like Amory Lovins. He manages to say, quite truthfully, that U-238 is radioactive for billions of years, and that the longer it stays around, the more radiation its decay products add to its own. What he doesn’t seem to know, or deliberately misleads about, is that the total radioactivity of a ton of uranium will never be higher than that of the ore from which it was refined. That ore already contains a complete inventory of the decay products, from uranium to polonium-210, except for the radon that escaped and diffused through the ground, perhaps into Lovins’s basement, if the Rocky Mountain Institute is indeed near the uranium-rich granite of the Rockies.

  8. If people reacted to other incidents and technologies the way they react to nuc power the world might realize how silly they are. Should we ban all marathons and fertilizer plants? Of course not but an imcodent at a nuc power plant that kills no one and they all go nutz!

  9. Nice.

    Now the Fukushima accident was rated a 7 out of a INES scale of 7.

    Should that be revisited now with these new metrics. And if so, when ?

    I think we need closure and that this incident be scaled properly by the responsible agencies.

    So Rod, Brian or DV82XL was is the proper magnitude of this event ? A 4?

    1. The INES scale is worse than pointless.

      This is a disaster scale which rates an accident 7 out 7 even though no one was killed or even seriously injured by the radiation. Nor is this to be expected based on doses and concentrations measured.

      How can a disaster scale give maximum rating to a zero death toll?

      The real disaster is our utter inability to analyse the situation and put things in perspective. Which has now resulted in even more dangerous coal burning than before Fukushima.

    2. Note that the Fukushima event scores a 7 only when units 1-3 are considered together, and then only because the releases from all three are totaled. Individually, none of the units is rated higher than a 5.

    3. So Brian and Cyril R.,

      In light of these new metrics provided here, what are the odds that the NRC this time will revoke the 50 miles evacuation order ?

      It looks really silly now.

      1. Daniel – Is that still in effect? To tell you the truth, I haven’t followed it closely and assumed that it was effective only in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami.

        But, yeah, it was silly to begin with.

  10. a bit one-sided, this comment thread? seems a little suspicious, no? you guys seem like you’d put radiation on your cereal in the morning. you admit to being pro-nuclear, too. couldn’t be more transparent. I don’t believe you.

    1. a bit one-sided, this comment thread?

      Becky – Yes, there is only one side to “correct.” It doesn’t come any other way.

      you guys seem like you’d put radiation on your cereal in the morning.

      Of course we would! And I think that you probably would too, believe it or not. Don’t you like to have milk with your cereal? A single serving of skim milk contains over 300 pCi of naturally occurring radioactive material, and that’s just from the K-40.

      I don’t believe you.

      Science is not about belief; it’s about hard, reproducible evidence. If you want to talk about what you “believe,” then you should take it up with your priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, druid, or whatever floats your boat. Please don’t bring your superstitions here. Thanks.

      1. @Brian,
        Science is not about belief; it’s about hard, reproducible evidence.
        So it would be nice if you take that excellent radiation research (thanks to unique circumstances) in Bavaria after Chernobyl, that shows real low levels already harm, serious!

        want to talk about what you “believe,” then … don’t bring your superstitions
        Many here write about what they believe, not supported by any serious scientific evidence (even contrary to scientific evidence). People that have another point of view can call that superstitious, but that won’t bring the debate further.

        Only meeting people that have same point of view, is not productive.
        One may feel more happy but it does not improve one’s ideas, neither society.
        While good discussion does!

        1. @Bas

          Science is not about picking the study that you like and discarding all other indicators.

          You have exposed yourself as a pro-lignite, pro-coal, pro-gas, pro-industrial wind, pro-solar activist who dislikes nuclear for patently obvious reasons; it is more capable than all of your favorite energy sources.

          It might not be completely risk free, but then neither are the ones for which you cheer.

          1. @Rod,
            For electricity generation I like in order of preference:
            Solar PV-panels on the roof, offshore Wind turbines, PV-panels in the field (if concealed by e.g. hedges), onshore Wind turbines, concentrated solar (mirrors heating salt).

            Furthermore nuclear fusion if its promises turn out to become true.
            Also conversion of electricity into (synthetic natural) gas and/or car fuel.

            Neutral: burning waste for electricity generation. Pumped storage / hydro.

            Dislike in order: burning biomass, gas, coal, lignite, thorium, uranium.

            Remember my proposals for a tax raise on car fuel towards €10/liter or $40/gallon, as driving a car is highly subsidized now!

            ____
            Above all I like good science, as that brings mankind further. Agree it is not about picking one study. The problem is twofold:

            There are hardly any studies that are sensitive enough to show effects of real low level radiation. Many studies are so insensitive designed that they can never find any harm (if that harm is according to LNT).

            Quite a number of studies show harm of low level radiation (e.g. Swedish children showing intelligence dip after Chernobyl), but those are enthusiastic attacked by all pro-nuclear folks here.

            So a rock solid designed study that shows real harm of ‘permanent’ real low levels of radiation (<1mSv/a) is needed.
            I do not know of such study sensitive enough to show the LNT predicted harm, which did not show that harm!

        2. @Bas : It seems you missed the word “reproducible”. If that level actually had a reproducible effect, all area on earth with slightly elevated radiation would see the same effect. Here’s a map of average background does in Europe, you will see that actually due to Radon many areas have a larger exposition than Bavaria had in this study :
          http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/NaturalbackgroundradiationEurope.gif

          Also the fallout of the nuclear bomb testing has had a significant effect on the level of radio-elements everywhere, I have already tried to make you notice that the level of cesium ingested by people in Belgium after the atmospheric nuclear testing was higher than the one after Tchernobyl :
          http://www.laradioactivite.com/fr/site/images/Cs137_CorpsHumain.jpg

    2. @Becky

      Why is it suspicious? I am the moderator and generally do not delete or disallow any civilized, on topic comment. If there is a thread that seems “one-sided” to you, perhaps it is because there was general agreement among the people who bothered to comment on the topic.

      If you decide to spend much time on this site and to participate in the comment threads, you will be able to engage in conversations with people who have a healthy respect and a professional understanding of radiation and radioactive material. Yes, many of us proudly claim to be in favor of the beneficial use of nuclear energy. We study it, we work with it, we see how useful it can be, and we would like to share our knowledge and understanding more widely.

      Would you prefer that we try to subtly hide our position and our support instead of being open and transparent about it? There are plenty of people in the world that try to hide their true position; there is no need for us to join that crowd of cheerful deceivers.

      (By way of a gentle correction, it is not possible to “put radiation” on cereal; you can put radioactive material on cereal, though. In my early days of learning to become a “radiation worker”, I had a down to earth teacher who told us that “Radiation is the stink. Radioactive material is the feces”. Truth be known, he was a sailor and did not say feces, but this is a family friendly site.)

    3. Becky,
      I confirm that not all people here are pro-nuclear.
      Check e.g. my last posts: https://atomicinsights.com/energiewende-planned-industry-government-without-customer-considerations/#comment-66102

      Agree, some here are so fanatic pro-nuclear that the even have points of view regarding radiation that contradict all scientific evidence. Somehow, they seem not to realize that that makes them unbelievable / suspicious to most other people.
      Hence ineffective.

      Others react rather emotional when they are confronted with points of view that contradict their own and they don’t have good arguments to refute it.
      But you can pick the rational elements in their statements and kindly show where they are wrong.

      And sometimes end in a productive exchange that improves your own view / knowledge.

      In general the moderator won’t stop you. I sometimes got the impression some of my posts were delayed/vanished, but that may also be due to technical reasons as that happened more with long posts (I post a lot here). Mostly I write the posts in Writer and then copy them in, so I can copy again easily if necessary.

      PS
      Realize that many here earn their living with nuclear (working at / developing nuclear power plants). So lowering radiation protection standards is really important for them, as those are one of the main factors that make (new) nuclear power plants uneconomic.

      Hence they also have these curious statements, such as that Japanese authorities were wrong ordering such large exclusion zone (as if they were not advised by their top scientists, neglecting that it is the country with most radiation experience / research thanks to Hiroshima & Nagasaki).

      1. Becky,

        Please also realize that some of us do not work for any company involved in Nuclear. That we have studied this area for many hundreds of hours and have become convinced that not only is Nuclear safe, in fact much safer than any other technology, but is absolutely necessary to help reduce poverty around the world.

        I know that Blas constantly says that the position of the author and many posters on this blog on radiation is un-scientific but I strongly disagree with him. I disagree because I have taken the time to understand the units being used and what is being claimed for the damage from those. Blas claims that amounts of radiation that are commonly experienced by many populations during normal life – such as in Denver CO, are causing excessive numbers of still births.

        I find that the conversation on this blog is the best I have found. Engaging and informative.

      2. Naoto Kan testified on oath that he deliberately ignored what the scientists were telling him.

        Apparently he believed they were idiots and ignorants, and that probably the SPEEDY nuclear fallout evaluation system wasn’t even as reliable as next day weather prediction, so he ordered a 20 km evacuation perimeter instead of the much smaller one that had been recommended, and he did nothing to evacuate the areas outside of the 20 km that the SPEEDY system had predicted would be impacted, notably the Iitate area.

        The unrequited evacuation wasn’t a safety measure, the panic, and haste resulted in several death amongst the people evacuated from places like hospitals.

        There’s a moral in that, the fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) relentlessly advocated by anti-nuclears directly results in uninformed and inadequate actions, and at the end more damage that should be, certainly not less.

        1. @jmdesp
          he ordered a 20 km evacuation perimeter instead of the much smaller one that had been recommended
          It looks the other way around.
          After disaster at 11 March was not (correct) informed by the nuclear operator. No good radiation info to decide on. Still they did a rather good job, gradually expanding the evacuation area which prevented panic and real traffic jam.

          15 March; Japanese government expanded the evacuation zone to 20km.
          16 March; US advised its citizens an evacuation zone of 80km at 16 March, which in the end proved to be the right decision!
          As 2 weeks later, unacceptable high-levels of radiation were detected >40km from Fukushima!

          Your SPEEDI started to deliver only some info after 22 March. Still no info on important ‘hot’ areas, such as those in Litate district. It was mostly a by hand filled database…

          Wikipedia has a good overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

          The fundamental problem for authorities was the lack of good radiation information, as well as the changing winds hence the changing radio-active fall-out.
          That prevented evacuation dependent on local radiation levels (hot spots, etc).

          Most because there is no good sensor network installed in a circle of ~100km around nuclear reactors, accessible for government and public. That deficiancy creates also lot of fear, as the public knows that authorities (utility, etc) conceal grim realities!

          That unacceptable fundamental design flaw, which we also have in NL regarding our Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), prevents the badly needed info regarding radiation levels at turbulent disaster time.

          It shows the lack of professionalism by concerned utilities and their governments.
          That amateurism & improvisation is also shown in the aftermath.

          1. “Aftermath” The fundamental problem is that a level of radiation that is far less than background radiation in the Ocean is being used as a cause for concern. That concern is politically motivated, NOT safety motivated.

            Again Blas, the levels of radiation you are concerned about are within the normal living levels of many people around the world. The world is radioactive.

            Also, let’s take your argument that the evacuation levels were correct given the uncertainty of the situation. OK. I will grant that for the sake of argument. Now – let’s see what happen when the information was given. Were the people whose houses and lands were NOT affected allowed to return immediately? No. They were forced to remain away for weeks and months even though the path of the radiation bloom was no where close to their homes. Why? For safety? NO for political and financial gain.

            October 30, 2013

            The Business of Being a Fukushima Refugee
            http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-commentary.html

          2. David,
            Your linked article assumes that people in the surroundings should absorb some damage by themselves. Thus supporting my position that NPP’s are, invisible until disaster, subsidized by citizens in their surrounding. Even in a most advanced, rich nation as Japan.

            … forced to remain away …. even though the path of the radiation bloom was no where close to their homes. Why? For safety? …for political and financial gain.
            Unsubstantiated accusation.
            People move around outside their house, children play in the fields, etc. So those have to be safe too. I think that authorities were not sure, whether it is safe. And articles showed that that doubt was correct (still hot spots while people don’t carry radiation measurement tool, etc).

            So these people can no longer move freely around in their surroundings without danger. I think that should be compensated too…

            Your linked article makes wild accusations. Such as:

            Compensation payments ($1000/month pp) would be luxurious:
            Last year I saw that the costs of living in USA are ~30% less than in NL. In the nineties I experienced that the costs of living in Japan were twice those in NL! So I estimate that those payments are enough for a nice living in US, but not in Japan!

            The <20mSv/a threshold for re-inhabitation is lowered to <1mSv/a:
            This recent CBC article (link below) tells different: Target 13mSv/a (third paragraph; 1.5microSv/hr = 15mSva).
            It implies innocent citizens have to absorb health damage without compensation. Especially the young who get children (~10 times more chance on Down syndrome, etc. as found in Bavaria after Chernobyl).

            For more accurate info, check Wikipedia (linked article in my post).
            The CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fukushima-residents-question-radiation-cleanup-effort-1.1856332

    4. Be nice if Becky and Bas quoted direct current research and findings from reputable internationally recognized health and scientific bodies and organizations that don’t have ideological axes to grind against nuclear like Greenpeace & Co. I doubt they will; unlike nuclear proponents and organizations, FUD-meisters are moving targets.

      James Greenidge
      Queens NY

  11. Can you tell me the original total number of megacuries of I-131 and Cs-137 in the reactor cores of the three reactors that experienced core damage?

    Many thanks,
    Herschel Specter

Comments are closed.