Search Results for: Fukushima deaths

|

Scientific American editors demand perfection from nuclear while letting competitors selling coal, gas, and oil off the hook

ByRod Adams

…uantify yet, and thinks this is a horrible situation, even if there are no deaths. It also dismisses the possibility that there could be any deaths from additional cancers. Just because no one has died yet, does not mean no one WILL DIE. I don’t know that anyone will: the experience we’ve had so far with Chernobyl indicates this may not result in many cancers at all, but at the same time, we don’t really know the outcome yet , and it will really t…

Arnie Gundersen tells tall tales to 1600 chiropractors

ByRod Adams

…at Fairewinds Associates (i.e. himself) say there will be a million cancer deaths due to Fukushima. Since when does a fringe opinion (Wing), a completely ridiculous conclusion (Yablokov) and a preposterous prognostication by Gundersen himself, have more value than The NRC, IAEA, UNSCEAR, WHO, and SARI? (Verdict – lie) Finally, beginning at 17:50, Gundersen says that luck was the only reason there were not 14 meltdowns along the Tohoku coast line a…

Performance of old nuclear plants in Japan demonstrates why much of current regulatory structure is overkill

ByRod Adams

…forms of energy producing methods, and there has only been one Chernobyl. Deaths from Fukushima will not exceed those caused by fire as a result of the earthquake/tsunami. Atomik Rabbit Is it the Kool-aid that causes you to not see that they have responded? It is YOU who have not answered my very reasonable request for clarification. So if a single dam failure (a disdaniel Okay. But they are evacuating *some of* the workers…which will make fixi…

| |

Fukushima media visit – USA Today slants positive news into source of worry

ByRod Adams

…have to misapply high dose rate data to a low dose rate scenario, and the deaths occur promptly, not theoretical deaths after 20-30 years. The fact that you would publish such a calculation tells us much more about you than about the effects of background radiation exposure. People in the media may do it in ignorance, thinking they are justified in their anti nuclear position. You help spread fear that suppresses the quality of life for 7 billion…

|

Does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission mission include enabling new reactor construction?

ByRod Adams

…hima, Japan can make a similar claim. They experience thousands of traffic deaths every year and still have not experienced any radiation related deaths from commercial nuclear power plants. Chairman Jaczko is also wrong in his assumption that there is something new and different in a “post Fukushima world”. Having spent nine years working in Washington from 2001-2010, I cringed when I heard him use that phrase. It still haunts me because it sound…

|

Mangano and Sherman have released another bogus study seeking to scare people about radiation

ByRod Adams

…the title of “scientist”. Related reading Atomic Power Review – Radiation deaths in US due to Fukushima Daiichi: Nope. Capacity Factor (June 2011) A curious case of cherry-picking data for the greater good (This is a detailed statistical debunking of the Mangano/Sherman summer 2011 effort to correlate Fukushima fallout with infant mortality in the United States.) MSNBC Vitals blog (December 21, 2011) – Experts discount claims of U.S. deaths from…

| | | | | |

Galen Winsor asks – Who owns the plutonium? How much is it worth?

ByRod Adams

…teach us about the minuscule health hazards from the materials released at Fukushima and any future, probably less severe accident. Here is a sample quote: In the 25 years since 1987 there has been no case of cancer due to radiation among those contaminated – none at all. This observation is compared with measurements from Fukushima and elsewhere in the Table below. As shown in the third column the lowest measured internal radioactivity for any ca…

| | | | |

Fear of Radiation is Killing People and Endangering the Planet Too

ByRod Adams

…of x-rays; Natural radiation background is claimed responsible for 650,000 deaths per year; Air travel supposedly causes 510 radiation deaths; and, most clearly absurd: If each person in the world ate one Brazil nut, its natural radioactivity would cause 250 deaths. Of course, we know this is not the case. In fact, persons living in naturally high radiation areas show no deleterious effects and in many cases are actually healthier. WHY LOW-LEVEL R…

| | | | | | | |

Open letter to Ralph Nader from Timothy Maloney – Atomic energy is much better than you think

ByGuest Author

…es. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Fukushima-Accident/#.UmDKKYWIdI0 Such a 30 mSv exposure would be less than half the annual exposure of the citizens of the Kerala region of India, mentioned above; and about 20% of the annual exposure of some citizens of the Ramsar region of northern Iran on the Caspian Sea. So the Fukushima evacuation is now seen to have been entirely gratuitous and irresponsible. It is my…

| | |

Responding properly to nuclear plant accidents involving radiation releases

ByRod Adams

…essage is that using LNT is not conservative; it results in more many more deaths than using modern radiobiology. We did not learn this lesson from Chernobyl and Fukushima. The public needs to be informed by “trusted people” what the real health effects of radiation are—not the LNT ideology of ALARA, but instead AHARS (as high as reasonably safe). Then it can understand what long-term management of used nuclear fuel is all about and be able to acc…

It’s too easy to permanently close a nuclear power plant in the United States

ByRod Adams

…nge between 8000 and 8million. Jim Hopf Bas, No, the relevant statistic is deaths per year from airlines vs. deaths per year from nuclear. That is, ~0 for nuclear and hundreds for the airline industry. Even more relevant is the deaths per year from nuclear vs. those allowed for other electricity sources. That is ~0/year for nuclear vs. several hundred thousand per year for fossil fueled power generation (worldwide). You suggestion that the nuclear…

| | | |

Nukes kill more birds than wind?

ByGuest Author

…Wyoming and ultimate electricity generated, he arrives at the number 0.45 deaths per GWh. In his 2009 report, he averages the result from Canon City (0.006/GWh) with the result from the Berkeley Mine (0.45/GWh) to arrive at a mining impact of 0.228 avian deaths per GWh. The 2012 report, however, excludes without explanation the result from Canon City and takes the result from the Berkeley Mine to be the bird kill impact for all uranium mining ope…

End of content

End of content