More

Japan Nuclear Crisis Report Kept Secret

Japan Nuclear Crisis

MARI YAMAGUCHI and YURI KAGEYAMA   01/25/12 10:04 AM ET   AP

TOKYO — The Japanese government's worst-case scenario at the height of the nuclear crisis last year warned that tens of millions of people, including Tokyo residents, might need to leave their homes, according to a report obtained by The Associated Press. But fearing widespread panic, officials kept the report secret.

The recent emergence of the 15-page internal document may add to complaints in Japan that the government withheld too much information about the world's worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.

It also casts doubt about whether the government was sufficiently prepared to cope with what could have been an evacuation of unprecedented scale.

The report was submitted to then-Prime Minister Naoto Kan and his top advisers on March 25, two weeks after the earthquake and tsunami devastated the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, causing three reactors to melt down and generating hydrogen explosions that blew away protective structures.

Workers ultimately were able to bring the reactors under control, but at the time, it was unclear whether emergency measures would succeed. Kan commissioned the report, compiled by the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, to examine what options the government had if those efforts failed.

Authorities evacuated 59,000 residents within 20 kilometers (12 miles) of the Fukushima plant, with thousands more were evacuated from other towns later. The report said there was a chance far larger evacuations could be needed.

The report looked at several ways the crisis could escalate – explosions inside the reactors, complete meltdowns, and the structural failure of cooling pools used for spent nuclear fuel.

It said that each contingency was possible at the time it was written, and could force all workers to flee the vicinity, meaning the situation at the plant would unfold on its own, unmitigated.

Using matter-of-fact language, diagrams and charts, the report said that if meltdowns spiral out of control, radiation levels could soar.

In that case, it said evacuation orders should be issued for residents within and possibly beyond a 170-kilometer (105 mile) radius of the plant and "voluntary" evacuations should be offered for everyone living within 250 kilometers (155 miles) and even beyond that range.

That's an area that would have included Tokyo and its suburbs, with a population of 35 million people, and other major cities such as Sendai, with a million people, and Fukushima city with 290,000 people.

The report further warned that contaminated areas might not be safe for "several decades."

"We cannot rule out further developments that may lead to an unpredictable situation at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, where there has been an accident, and this report outlines a summary of that unpredictable situation," says the document, written by Shunsuke Kondo, head of the commission, which oversees nuclear policy.

After Kan received the report, he and other Japanese officials publicly insisted that there was no need to prepare for wider-scale evacuations.

Rumors of the document grew this month after media reports outlined its findings and an outside panel was created to investigate possible coverups. Kyodo News agency described the contents of the document in detail on Saturday.

The government continues to refuse to make the document public. The AP obtained it Wednesday through a government source, who insisted on anonymity because the document was still categorized as internal.

Goshi Hosono, the Cabinet minister in charge of the nuclear crisis, implicitly acknowledged the document's existence earlier this month, but said the government had felt no need to make it public.

"It was a scenario based on hypothesis, and even in the event of such a development, we were told that residents would have enough time to evacuate," Hosono said.

"We were concerned about the possibility of causing excessive and unnecessary worry if we went ahead and made it public," he said. "That's why we decided not to disclose it."

A Japanese government nuclear policy official, Masato Nakamura, said Wednesday that he stood behind Hosono's decisions on the document.

"It was all his decisions," he said. "We do not disclose all administrative documents."

Japanese authorities and regulators have been repeatedly criticized for how they have handled information amid the unfolding nuclear crisis. Officials initially denied that the reactors had melted down, and have been accused of playing down the health risks of exposure to radiation.

In another example, a radiation warning system known as SPEEDI had identified high-risk areas where thousands of people were continuing to live while the reactors were in critical condition. Officials did not use that data to order evacuations; they have since said it was not accurate enough.

The outside panel investigating the government response to the nuclear crisis has been critical, calling for more transparency in relaying information to the public.

"Risk communication during the disaster cannot be said to have been proper at all," it said in its interim report last month.

___

Follow Mari Yamaguchi on Twitter at and Yuri Kageyama at

Links:


Earlier on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

TOKYO — The Japanese government's worst-case scenario at the height of the nuclear crisis last year warned that tens of millions of people, including Tokyo residents, might need to leave their h...
TOKYO — The Japanese government's worst-case scenario at the height of the nuclear crisis last year warned that tens of millions of people, including Tokyo residents, might need to leave their h...
Filed by Ryan Craggs  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,381
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
05:24 AM on 02/05/2012
The main problem with nuclear power plants, fossil fuels, and geothermal is that they add too much thermal energy to the atmosphere. The Sun and volcanoes add all that is needed for calm weather. This heat pollution causes extreme weather that's destructive to our ecology with far reaching effects on climate. Solar cells, and windmills don't add heat to our atmosphere. Nuclear plants are ecologically destructive. Thousands of big bad LFTR's might cause swarms of whirlwinds, floods, snow storms, heat waves, cold waves. and droughts of unbelievable magnitude across the globe. Sweet little solar cells wont do this cuz they add no energy to the atmosphere.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
06:53 PM on 02/03/2012
There's no safe nuclear technology that can keep nuclear isotopes from getting onto our food chain. I wish that China and India would stop building their nuclear reactors cuz they give them an unfair energy advantage over us in terms of manufacturing as they place the entire world at long term risk. Is the short term gain worth it? Also LFTR's give India an unfair manufacturing advantage cuz they have most of the thorium on Earth. Would India's rise as the most powerful economic power on Earth be a good thing? If India and China build nukes, then that will force us to do the same in order to be energy competitive. The nuclear industry isn't playing fair by forcing us to build plants by pitting one Nation against another. The fact that we have a 2000 year supply of thorium is outrageous cuz who would want solar after LFTR's go on line?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nick Hatch
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
02:52 PM on 02/04/2012
"who would want solar after LFTR's go on line?"
Precisely what I'm expecting.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
07:11 PM on 02/04/2012
If a meteor, or a suitcase nuke would ever score a direct hit on the core of a reactor in India resulting in the deaths of 100 million people and the evacuation of most of India everyone would wish that they had stuck with solar. Do they feel lucky? Now I know how difficult it would have been to stop the Titanic from going on its maiden voyage. Iceberg, what iceberg?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nick Hatch
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
02:53 PM on 02/04/2012
Sorry, second reply: also look up potassium 40 in bananas.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
07:13 PM on 02/04/2012
If we want evern more of the same getting into everything else, then ditch solar for nukes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
10:07 PM on 01/30/2012
Fortunately it's been over 9 months since the tsunami and there haven't been any of the horrors which the anti-nuclear apologists predicted. Even the Fukushima 50 who they reported as only having weeks to live are still doing fine...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeMustDoBetter09
Midori Futabatei NO MORE NUKES!
07:09 AM on 01/31/2012
What do you think of this NEW news, ummmm??

Piping and support structures at the No. 5 reactor of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant did not have sufficient anti-quake strength under new government standards revised in 2006.
It is unusual for information to be released that shows the possibility of insufficient safety strength in equipment before reinforcement work has been completed.
http://enenews.com/asahi-on-unusual-govt-release-reactor-no-5-had-inadequate-quake-protection-nisa-to-conduct-thorough-investigation
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
10:15 AM on 01/31/2012
More "quake related" safety issues starting to be "released" by TEPCO, which are probably applicable Industry Wide...
Faved, already fanned!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
02:26 PM on 01/31/2012
Its from enespews. We know the koolaid coming from them,

A person close to our discussion was in the news recently.
outnow
Ban the bomb
09:13 AM on 01/31/2012
Do you believe for a second that a government that would conceal three meltdowns would release the results of mortality and morbidity so that epidemiological studies can be done when the illnesses take five to twenty-five years to manifest? Even if Japan wanted to release these figures, these illnesses and deaths have not even taken place. Nor would any scientist expect them to be. I'll bet you that infant mortality will be shown to have increased by now. The other illnesses and deaths will come later.

Unless you have performed the epidemiological studies, you are speculating based on what data the government is willing to release. Are you aware of a decrease in infant mortality and morbidity?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
04:43 PM on 01/31/2012
Do you believe for a second that a government could silence a tech savvy citizenship like the Japanese? If there were any incidences I'm sure the anti-nuclear activists and main stream media would be all over it, fear is what sells.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
10:02 PM on 01/30/2012
And still the bottom line is no one has died from radiation exposure about 20,000 died from the initiating events. Even in Fukushima the 40 year old nuclear plants did pretty well compared with the rest of the infrastructure, trains, bridges etc,
outnow
Ban the bomb
09:14 AM on 01/31/2012
Comparing trains to reactors?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
12:01 PM on 01/31/2012
Right no comparison, hundreds died because the trains weren't designed to handle the tsunami, no one has died because of the reactors.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
12:16 PM on 01/31/2012
You're right, there's no comparison, hundreds died because the trains were not designed to handle a tsunami of this magnitude, no one has died from the reactors.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
08:38 PM on 01/30/2012
Great comments and additional links here starting with comment page 765!
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200&page=765
Especially #12234 and newer!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
08:29 PM on 01/30/2012
The Japanese people and many of those of the rest of the World,
... wait in fear because of what TEPCO and the Japanese Gov't.
... are trying to make money instead of stopping this Eco-Disaster...

That is the bottom line and no amount of Nuclear Baloney (NB) type
... "reports or reviews or Nuclear theory" makes that any better.

Do any of US actually know what the situation is on the ground?

I sure don't, but I know that because TEPCO has lied, concealed data
... and played the Japanese People's SAFETY down, while trying to save
... TEPCO profits instead, we all have much to fear from THEM!

If someone told me 10 MONTHS ago that I would be sitting on the edge
... of my chair, and blogging to save the Japanese people from their Utility
... TEPCO & their Gov't. overseers I would have thought they were crazy!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
08:29 PM on 01/30/2012
It is obvious to me that the Japanese Gov't and TEPCO are trying to DELAY, any real action so that they can put the Japanese people back to sleep on this issue while saving shareholder value!

If the Japanese people really knew the true cost of Fukushima, the people would demand CHANGE and that is something that those in Government want to avoid at all cost!

What will determine the total cost of this "Trillion Dollar" Eco-Disast­er?

Please feel free to add your comments and or estimates to this list:
 Decommissi­oning costs
 Loss to all other radioactiv­e decontamin­ation caused by this Disaster.
 Loss of revenues by Tepco
 Loss to TEPCO's share holders caused by radioactiv­ity
 Loss of Japanese personal income caused by radioactiv­ity
 Loss to Japanese businesses caused by radioactiv­ity
 Loss of all Japanese health costs related to radioactiv­ity
 Loss due to unusable Japanese Land related to radioactiv­ity
 Loss due to Japanese housing caused by radioactiv­ity
 Loss of Japanese Property Values caused by radioactiv­ity
 Loss of fishing grounds caused by radioactiv­ity
 Loss of manufactur­ing caused by radioactiv­ity
 Loss to the value of the Yen caused by radioactiv­ity
 Loss to other Utilities caused by Fukushima'­s radioactiv­ity
 Loss to Japans credit rating caused by Fukushima'­s radioactiv­ity
 Loss to the Japanese peoples Lives because of radiation
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
02:24 PM on 01/31/2012
Those are all "Butterfly Effect" cost estimates and not factored into the Fukushima costs.

www.fukunukeblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/fukushima-event-cost-54b.html

The Butterfly Effect costs are indirect and can be applied to scenarios and anything left to the imagination.

For example: A fan interferes with a Chicago Cubs player making a catch that would certainly send the Cubs to a World Series. Instead the Cubs lose and dont go to the Series. Had the Cubs gone to the World Series, the CBOT would have been
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
08:02 PM on 02/01/2012
Ha Ha Ha
Remember Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365! Ask The Japanese!
04:21 AM on 02/07/2012
That's not what matters to Japan from the disaster.

The effects are still costs.

You could also discount the deaths you claim from Coal on the same basis.

Funny how secondary effects only get counted when they suit Nuclear's cause.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
08:14 PM on 01/30/2012
Impossible? Worst-case scenario prompted gov’t to send reinforcement to Fukushima plant — “We could not even announce the fact that we compiled such a simulation” -Top Official
http://enenews.com/?p=24884
snip
“If it had been made public at the time, it is likely that no one would have remained in Tokyo”
“It would have caused trouble regarding the government’s handling of the nuclear crisis”
The scenario was examined by only a few key lawmakers in and was not shared even with the Nuclear Safety Commission “because we wanted to prevent gossip from spreading”
“We could not even announce the fact that we compiled such a simulation”
[He] recommended that [Prime Minister Kan] “be prepared for the worst possible scenario, just in case”
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
08:11 PM on 01/30/2012
AP: Grim gov’t estimate says Japan population to shrink by 40 million in next 50 years (VIDEO)
http://enenews.com/?p=24917
snip
Japan’s population of 128 million will shrink by one-third and seniors will account for 40 percent of people by 2060, placing a greater burden on a smaller working-age population to support the social security and tax systems.

The grim estimate of how rapid aging will shrink Japan’s population was released Monday by the Health and Welfare Ministry.

In year 2060, Japan will have 87 million people. [...]
====

If TEPCO has it's way there will be be many fewer healthy people,
... That is for sure, because of RADIATION POLLUTION.
photo
Max Headroom
Your micro-bio is empty
02:37 AM on 01/31/2012
I'm guessing that if a census was taken today you would find Japan's population a lot lower than it was last year at this time. I've heard/seen numerous reports of people (especially young people) voluntarily evacuating if they could. Many high ranking officials have sent their families to Singapore and a new Tokyo city is being built in India for Japanese only. Please let me know if I am wrong about this ongoing mass exodus.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeMustDoBetter09
Midori Futabatei NO MORE NUKES!
09:06 AM on 01/30/2012
Mainichi: Abnormalities in offspring of mammals to get particular attention in Fukushima study by gov’t — Shrinking brain capacity, drop in population seen in Chernobyl wildlife
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120130p2a00m0na011000c.html
What effect will it have on PEOPLE? The same thing...the very same. Good grief.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
10:05 AM on 01/30/2012
hmm. A population goes and gets 2 CT scans a year. Will that change anything?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
10:32 AM on 01/30/2012
Depends on the effect on those that get the CT scan, if they are already very sick then yes they might very well be affected plus what if the CT scanner is out of adjustment?
outnow
Ban the bomb
10:49 AM on 01/30/2012
For spermatozoa, ova, developing feuses and young children, the answer is yes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeMustDoBetter09
Midori Futabatei NO MORE NUKES!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeMustDoBetter09
Midori Futabatei NO MORE NUKES!
07:38 AM on 01/30/2012
Another one very interesting. And the Pro-Nukes swear their Reactors have nothing to do with Global Warming?!?! Bul ls hi t!!!! Be sure to play the video. It tracks the warmest years from
1880 to Present:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/nasa-visualization-global-temperature-changes_n_1239137.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
08:21 AM on 01/30/2012
The "lack of reactors" has a lot to do with global warming.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
10:13 AM on 01/30/2012
Faved!
03:54 AM on 01/30/2012
However, the observed inheritable effects of radiation exposure by groups with histories of acute risk are considered minimal compared with the significant increase in thyroid cancer, leukemia and certain solid tumors that have developed within a decade or more after exposure. As studies of biological samples (including bone, thyroid glands and other tissues) have been undertaken, it has become increasingly clear that specific radionuclides in fallout are implicated in fallout-related cancers and other late effects.[5]

In 1980, People magazine revealed some consequences of continental nuclear testing for American citizens. The magazine disclosed that of some 220 cast and crew who filmed a 1956 film, The Conqueror, on location near St. George, Utah, ninety-one had come down with cancer, with an unheard of 41 per cent morbidity rate.[6



Under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990, downwinders who are able to show correlations between certain diseases and their personal exposure to nuclear fallout are eligible for $50,000 in compensation from the federal government.[15] Uranium miners are eligible for $100,000, and onsite participants are eligible for $75,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
10:06 AM on 01/30/2012
The Conqueror was John Wayne and Agnes Morehead - both passed away some 30+ years later. That was a nasty hot spot they were in. Many many times larger than Fukushima and Chernobyl.
05:42 PM on 01/30/2012
The great thing about cancer for the spin merchants of death is that it is not 1 exposure 1 death.

Because radiation is a bit hit and miss then you may be in a hot spot below a certain level and survive with no noticeable effects, whilst the guy next to you is getting terminal cancer from exactly the same level of radiation.

This sort of playing with 'I/he didn't die so it is safe' is exactly what the tobacco industry played with their spin. This enabled them to kill many, many more people before the truth was accepted.

When you say many times larger - what exactly do you mean? Larger area? Larger dose in the spot that John Wayne was standing?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
outnow
Ban the bomb
10:55 AM on 01/30/2012
I happened to be a patient at UCLA Hospital when the Duke died. As with asbestos, smokers fare worse after exposures to radioactive dust from ther uranium mines or atmospheric testing. Smoking deposits radioactive material in the bifurcation of the lungs. Prior exposures are very significant in carciniogenisis in a smoker.

I'm not a pulmonologist or an oncologist, but, if the Duke thought the prior exposure had something to do with his demise, he probably wasn't wrong since his comrades died also. Let's just say that it didn't help.
02:25 AM on 01/30/2012
Shall we take a look at actually permissible limits by NRC and EPA rules?
25 mrem per YEAR by all process for air
4 mrem per YEAR by all process for water
1 millirem= 0.01 millisv= 10microsv/year they are getting that per hour................

Sweet website- check sidebar for other links
http://www.pilgrimwatch.org/emissions2.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
10:15 AM on 01/30/2012
Cool
saved to disc
Faved, already fanned!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
11:36 AM on 01/30/2012
Permissible limit acknowledges that these regulatory bodies accept stochastic risk.

Assuming the 25 mrem, 4 mrem, 1 mrem follow LNT extrapolated to zero (which it doesnt). Here are the equivalent expected number of deaths (given a population of 3e8 people). Using the flawed "collective dose over a population" to determine excess cancers

EC = 0.5e-2/Sv * dose * 3e8 people

Assuming 5e-2/Sv added excess

25 mrem = 2.5e-4 Sv -> *5e-2/Sv = 1.25e-5 *3e8 = 3,750 excess cancers allowed by NRC/EPA EPA rules

4 mrem per year -> 600 excess cancers allowed by NRC/EPA

1 mrem per year -> 150 excess cancers allowed by NRC/EPA

NORMAL background -> 500 mrem per year -> 75,000

So you see how ludicrous using LNT for below 0.1 Sv would be.

Lets look at some other things -

Sleeping together - 2 mrem per night or 800 mrem/year -(100 million) - 40,000 excess cancers

Eating a single banana - 0.1 mrem or 15 cancers
05:54 PM on 01/30/2012
You say they accept stochastic risk, yet you tried above to claim stochatsic proved no connection was known.

At low dose levels, the stochastic nature does make it difficult to pick out the signal from the noise in the real world, this inability to filter easily has been used to disclaim deaths in the way you are attempting here.

This disclaiming is the basis for Japan's lack of care in selecting dose limits.

And here you are also showing that you know the death tables for low dose, that you seemed to think didn't exist in your post at the top.

In reality the risk is there from all of these doses, the issue is not that there are not other sources and dangers.

The other issue is that the dose models used are whole body exposure models.

The reality around a nuclear accident is that much of the radioactive material is particulate, not some x-ray source or a large body radiator like your sleeping partner.

The effects of a small source are much more concentrated, an absorbed small source being the worst case. The dose per unit area is much much higher.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patricia Ladas
Lives in Sacramento, CA; worked for US Govt in Sau
09:32 AM on 01/31/2012
Good morning A4P1

Fanned not because I understand all you're saying but because I find the conversation among you so interesting on a very important issue.

Please fan back if you are so inclined.

Pat
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
01:40 AM on 01/30/2012
Everyone knows that it is impossible to adequately evacuate huge cities in a reasonable time period, but yet that is used to justify accepting the risk of nuclear meltdown.  Meltdowns have occurred about every ten years, and at no time has the public ever been properly informed for their own safety. and beyond that, aging nuclear power plants are being licensed to continue long after their intended lifespans. This risk is unacceptable, unnecessary, and unwanted. We have plenty of other ways to make electricity that do not contain these huge risks, and in most cases even cost less when all costs are considered. In fact if one was to add the cost of the meltdowns that have occurred, the losses of land and resources, there is no more expensive power than nuclear power.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeMustDoBetter09
Midori Futabatei NO MORE NUKES!
07:04 AM on 01/30/2012
I totally agree ali. I dont want anymore of this form of Power.
FAVED
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
07:59 PM on 01/30/2012
Ditto
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
10:10 AM on 01/30/2012
I would offer that Chernobyl was an RBMK without a containment. Fukushima was a result of a 50 ft tidal wave, and TMI 1 operated for 35 years after TMI 2 with no increase in worker sickness right next door.

Risk = likelihood * consequence.

Nuclear is going to have to be the energy supply for a growing human population.

Many people believe the risk is acceptable when considering the Deaths/TW are lowest for nuclear all things considered.


nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.htmlCached
06:05 PM on 01/30/2012
You would offer that, I heard that spin from day 1 of Fukushima, the industry worked out the cover stories very quickly.

Fukushima was the result of an expected weather event.

Fukushima was actually quite fortunate, what could have happened would have been far worse.

You deny the consequence of Fukushima.

You have repeatedly miscalculated the risk, and the methdology and math you use is seriously flawed.

Nuclear is not necesary. Nuclear is not efficient.

Many people would consider the deaths of others acceptable for their profit.

What factors are there in people's lives besides death?

Nuclear spin merchants of death, like to talk about deaths only. They like to conveniently narrow the definition of what counts towards those deaths also.

Seems nuclear life is about death and how to deny it.

There are many disfigured and displaced in Europe as a result of Chernobyl.

There are also many dead in Europe as a result of Chernobyl.

There are 44 dead in Japan, that do not count in the figures, but I noted and keep reminiding you of.

There are tens of thousands of displaced Japanese, where are these on a graph of those affected per TW?

I don't care what you and those you wish to support think is acceptable - because those who are suffering are not your playthings.
01:23 AM on 01/30/2012
Something for Everybody,
I think fairly realistic arguements......

According to Sovacool's analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO2e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO2e/kWh. However, nuclear emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO2e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO2e/kWh. "A number in the 60s puts it well below natural gas, oil, coal and even clean-coal technologies. On the other hand, things like energy efficiency, and some of the cheaper renewables are a factor of six better. So for every dollar you spend on nuclear, you could have saved five or six times as much carbon with efficiency, or wind farms," Sovacool says. Add to that the high costs and long lead times for building a nuclear plant about $3 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, with planning, licensing and construction times of about 10 years and nuclear power is even less appealing.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.99.html

read the whole thing, it's worth the few minutes
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atoms4Peace1
Applying the atom peacefully since 1978
10:11 AM on 01/30/2012
Yet the Deaths per TW are lower for nuclear than solar or wind. Care to comment why?

www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.htmlCached
06:12 PM on 01/30/2012
Yeah - time to go solar dude.

BTW His numbers are wrong. There were 44 deaths in Fukushima as a result of the Nuclear Power Station. Plus another 2 dead in the basement.

That's just the easy missing numbers without doing the whole thing.

The other issue is that Nuclear is a long term problem, unlike solar.

We are at the beginning of several thousand years of deaths from the Nuclear power we have already used, so let's revisit his table when the stats are available and see where we are then.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
10:18 AM on 01/30/2012
Faved, already fanned!
snip
the greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power are still being debated. While it's understood that an operating nuclear power plant has near-zero carbon emissions (the only outputs are heat and radioactive waste), it's the other steps involved in the provision of nuclear energy that can increase its carbon footprint. Nuclear plants have to be constructed, uranium has to be mined, processed and transported, waste has to be stored, and eventually the plant has to be decommissioned. All these actions produce carbon emissions.