So, everyone remembers the Nuclear plant meltdown in Japan a couple years back? The worst nuclear disaster in such a heavily populated place, with radiation leakage on par with Chernyobl.
Here are some recent conclusions:
No Immediate Health Risks from Fukushima Nuclear Accident Says UN Expert Science Panelhttp://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pr ... nf475.htmlThyroid cancer found in 12 minors in Fukushima$1:
The prefecture’s thyroid screenings target 360,000 people who were aged 18 or younger when the March 2011 mega-quake and tsunami triggered the meltdown crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.
The initial-phase checks looked at lumps and other possible thyroid cancer symptoms and categorized possible cases into four groups depending on the degree of seriousness. Those in the two most serious groups were picked for secondary exams.
In fiscal 2011, after confirming test results from about 40,000 minors, the prefecture sent 205 for secondary testing. Of the 205, seven were diagnosed with thyroid cancer, four came out with suspected cases, and another had surgery but the tumor was found to be benign.
...
Among those aged 10 to 14 in Japan, thyroid cancer strikes about 1 to 2 in a million.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/0 ... cer-cases/Fukushima tuna study finds minuscule health riskshttp://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/us/fukushima-tuna/The nuclear debate shouldn't end with Fukushima fear.$1:
Heard much about Fukushima lately? You know, the disaster that spread deadly contamination across Japan and spelt the end for the nuclear industry.
You should have, because recent authoritative reports have reached a remarkable conclusion about a supposedly "deadly" disaster. No one died, nor is likely to die, according to the most comprehensive assessments since the Fukushima nuclear plant was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.
The accident competed for media space with the deaths of nearly 20,000 people in the magnitude 9.0 quake – 1000 times worse than the Christchurch quake – and tsunami, which wholly or partly destroyed more than a million buildings.
The nuclear workers were the living dead, we were told; hundreds of thousands would die if the plant exploded; even if that didn't happen, affected areas would be uninhabitable and residents' health would suffer for generations.
Advertisement
Instead, two independent international reports conclude that radiative material released from Fukushima's four damaged reactors, three of which melted down, has had negligible health impacts.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/japans ... 2nomz.htmlThe Fukushima Nuclear Disaster's Toll: How About Zero?$1:
This "perfect storm" hit a nuclear plant built to a 50-year-old design and no one died. Japan moved a few metres east during a three-minute quake and the local coastline subsided half a metre, but the 11 reactors operating in four nuclear power plants in the region all shut down automatically. None suffered significant damage. (The tsunami disabled Fukushima's cooling system.)
Yet such is the imbalance of dread to risk on matters nuclear that this accident was enough to turn public opinion and governments against nuclear power. Never mind that coal mining kills almost 6000 people a year, or that populations of coal-mining areas have death rates about 10 per cent higher than non-mining areas, or that coal emissions drive global warming.
$1:
A 2010 National Academy of Sciences study, The Hidden Costs of Energy, calculated that coal fired electricity generation produced $62 billion in non-climate damages annually in the U.S., of which 90 percent were associated with premature mortality. At the standard rate of $6 million per life, that implies about 10,000 excess deaths per year.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/05/the-f ... s-toll-howI think that pretty much lays to rest the fear that Nuclear Power is the most dangerous should an accident occur.
CKA Moderator 
CKA Uber 
CKA Moderator 
CKA Uber 
