By Mike Smith
There is no question that the events in Japan are ongoing and serious. That said, I believe a lot of people are being misled by much of the news coverage. Take a look at these headlines from the Christian Science Monitor and from Channel News Asia, respectively,
and,
“Three Mile Island” and “Chernobyl” sounds scary, right?
Let me ask a couple of questions? How many were killed by the Three Mile Island incident?
100?
10,000?
100,000?
Answer here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Compare those figures with the deaths from renewables. in one incident alone over 170,000 died in China when the Banqiao hydroelectric dam failed. Greenpeace et al never ever mention this of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Reminds me of the bumber sticker seen in a US election campaign – “More people died at Chappaquiddick than 3 Mile Island”.
Worth asking the same of Chernobyl.
Wiki currently says:
“Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. Fifty deaths, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers, are directly attributed to the accident. It is estimated that there may ultimately be a total of 4,000 deaths attributable to the accident, due to increased cancer risk”
It’s actually not the number of people who were killed in past accidents, it’s all about one word; potential. There’s the potential for thousands of deaths from just one reactor – not just in an initial acient, but years and years later from cancer. It’s very simply too dangerous because of that potential. Not only that but a large section of land closed off for a thousand years in relatively small countries like Japan and England mean even less space for future populations. Then there’s the cost of building, running and dismantling – and used fuel storage costs and problems. It’s just not worth it when we could invest money in ‘hot rock’ geothermal and get clean inexhaustible heat back. Ironically, Japan has the necessary geographical position for such heat, and the technical know-how.
We should really take Japan’s lesson. No matter how clever you are, no matter how it’s designed, it still has POTENTIAL to fail.
Unless I am much mistaken, that is one question, not a couple.
This, via EU Referendum, has a very good article on how serious the nuclear situation is.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
A quote:
Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on top of the plants’ chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up smoking to return to your former life expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine isotopes were carried out to the sea and will never be seen again.
None died as a result of 3mile island, but Chernobyl is a different story.
Chernobyls Real Victims by Dr Roger Bate
http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/Docs/UN-Chernobyl/BateReUNDPChernobylStory.pdf
How many people are killed is irrelevant. Risk is the potential for damage, harm and injury. It is patently evident that the risk of further serious catastrophy with specific regard to the Nuclear power stations is present. The degree of risk is unkown, reflecting our lack of understanding of the current events. Without being able to quantify the risk it seens sensible and logical to assume extreme danger.
The previous two reactor events mentioned may not have been as serious as they clearly could have been. I think it might be fair to say that Chernobyl was pretty much on a knife edge of disaster and the lack of deaths (still many lost their lives!) is related to the extreme sacrifice and bravery exibited by some of the people who probably abandonded hope of personal survival in order to contain the situation, as well as the appropriately ruthless response by the government to evacuate the area, never to return.
If we still don’t understand the risks of present technology, then we better be vary careful with thorium. Lessons will be learnt, but this is an example of a problem that nobody considered (or considered possible), which pretty much sums up most disasters.
Let them prepare for the worst and hope for the best unencumbered.
Along with reliable sources such as the IAEA and WNN updates, there is an incredible amount of misinformation and hyperbole flying around the internet and media right now about the Fukushima situation. In the BNC post, a lot of technical detail is provided, as well as regular updates. But what about a layman’s summary? How do most people get a grasp on what is happening, why, and what the consequences will be? Read on mes braves!
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
Sorry but you are stuck in reality. How many could have died? How horrific could it have been? That’s what sells newspapers and the anti-nuclear gang – coal, solar, wind, algae, greenpeace – will be whipping this into a frenzy.
Worst example I have seen was actually more subtle – a photo used for the latest nuclear blast story which actually showed the glow of an oil refinery fire in the background with the tsunami destroyed wasteland in the foreground. Very apocalyptic but very misleading to put it mildly.
And CNN had Bill Nye the science guy on as their ‘expert.’ Hmmm.
Big Jim’s point is understood as “We should do nothing because there is a potential for someone to get hurt”.
The “Precautionary Principle” will send us back to the Stone Age. We don’t build nuclear power plants because of it, we don’t drill for new petroleum because of it, we divert water from the most productive farmland on Earth because of it, we don’t build new hydroelectric facilities because of it. You get the picture. We should do nothing because someone or something might get hurt. There is so much wrong with the Precautionary Principle that I can’t even begin.
I just had the most absurd comment directed at me in relation to this crisis. Essentially it went:
Other Person “Has the nuclear reactor blown yet?”
Me “No thankfully the core remains intact”.
Other Person “Ahh, I was hoping it was a full meltdown”
Me “Excuse me?”
Other Person “Well if it was a big explosion then it might convince everyone to stop using Nuclear because it is too dangerous”.
…
Suffice to say this comment just floored me.
Congratulations all 24 Hour Breaking News stations.
Hype to the hilt anything that requires the words Nuclear and Explosion. Even when experts say the radiation levels are measurable but not excessive. Why scare people by offering doom laden scenarios that are not actually existing anywhere in Japan at present?
Let’s have an end to all continuous News services as the presenters think they are “Stars” – Not! and continuos repetition needs to end and maybe historical docu items
used to ease the mundane presentation of news that we have to endure at present!
OK I can use the Off switch like anyone else!
Sarc off.
It’s worth quoting Wikipedia in depth here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining#Dangers_to_miners
“…In the U.S. alone, more than 100,000 coal miners were killed in accidents over the past century,[16] with more than 3,200 dying in 1907 alone….
…in lesser developed countries and some developing countries, many miners continue to die annually, either through direct accidents in coal mines or through adverse health consequences from working under poor conditions. China, in particular, has the highest number of coal mining related deaths in the world, with official statistic 6,027 deaths in 2004.”
Claiming 56 deaths for Chernobyl is total and utter BS. The total death toll from the incident is likely in the hundreds of thousands but it is lost in the “static” of the millions of deaths occurring yearly in the fallout area.
Linking an article claming 56 as the casualty number is the worst mistake I have seen in my years of reading this magnificient blog – Pretty much not even aggressive pro nuclear lobbyists will even try to push that kind of rubbish.
I really hope AW will see the problem and take this insult away.
“potential” oh right that ‘precautionary principle ‘ stuff ! so we should do things based on what we can make up in our own imaginations but not actual facts or reality?
So as there is a potential of a asteroid/techno lizard destroying all life, we should spend billions on those as well plus there is a risk that the satanic followers are right so we should prepare for Gabriel Byrne to pop up a old nick ??? .
So far this principle has/will cost billions fighting nasty warming dragons and now because of this incident which is still on going and fluid the greenish are getting their ‘principles ‘ in first before they get shot down by the truth again and banging on that we should dump a very useful source of power for another pipe dream of ‘limitless/free/safe /rabbit friendly energy ‘ strange I have heard that for years and still nowt! where is it? oh yes I forgot it’s only another billion$ away ? just like it has been for years !.
Zero lessons for the UK – we do not live in an earthquake zone!! However, California might be sleeping a bit worse.
I suppose, on reflection, there is a bit of a lesson for the UK – or will be once we see how difficult life is for Japanese individuals and industries now they are deprived of 20% of their electricity generating capacity – of course this is roughly where we will shortly be in the UK due to the Huhnatic’s anti-AGW policies.
Re: Sandy
If you look at that quote it has a small reference number by it (the number 5). If you then go to references section you will see that the source of that is the New York Times.
Perhaps you should have read a little further into article where you may have found this:
That quote is from UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation).
As for the thyroid cancer, part of the increase in incidence is due to the fact they looked for it. The survival rate for stage 1 thyroid cancer is 100% after 5 years.
(UNICEF) analysed health statistics in Belarus and showed increases between 1990 and 1994 of:
disorders of the nervous system 43 %
cardiovascular diseases 43 %
gastrointestinal diseases 28 %
disorders of bone, muscle and connective tissue 62 %
diabetes 28 %
None of the fatalities from the above list ever made it to a list of Chernobyl deaths. For every death threre has been an unimaginable amount of suffering caused by the deformations, miscarriages, stillborns and the rest of the long list.
Go ahead and make a google picture search of chernobyl. Notice how the children look in the pictures. Wonder how many of you still talk down the effects of that incident?
And BTWm I’m pro nuclear, just anti BS. Claiming Chernobyl was just 56 deaths and nothing more is mindbogglingly stupid.
On BBC World Service last night a reporter Said that “…fissile material had leaked from the plants…” Fear and scare, BBC at its best.
“Shades of Chernobyl and TMI” is classic conflation. Those are actually opposite poles of nuclear technology, but the media have spent 30 years insuring that we think of them together in one horrible blur.
Tony @ur momisugly 12:26am
Actually, Chernobyl was as bad as it could get. The containment vessel was breached, the moderator rods (carbon) burned and radioactivity from an open reactor was spread far and wide. On the scale of seriousness for radioactive events (0-7) Chernobyl was a 7. Three Mile Island was a 4. The estimate for the Fukushima reactors is a 3.
Nuclear fission reactors have an enviable safety record unmatched by the coal industry.
Here in Europe, the whole bunch of green extremists always ask for more trains, electric cars, etc. At the same time, they want to step out of nuclear power generation. They religiously believe, this will all work out with solar cells or “alternative” power generation. These morons do not hesitate here in Germany to politically capitalize on Japan’s quake and Tsunami (elections are coming), asking for Nuke stop, focalizing on themselves and ignoring the Japanese people pain. Well, may be we should stop atom plants here in Germany, then we’ll buy electricity in France, where more than 70% is nuke generated. Great…
Re: Volt Aire
Maybe you would like to direct your concerns on the 50 or so deaths being utter BS to the World Health Organisation – they authored the report back in 2005.
You seemed to have made the dreadful error of believing press releases from the green lobby. Millions of deaths as a result of Chernobyl is what they thought would happen – but not actually what happened. Subtle difference!
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
“Ian E says:
March 14, 2011 at 1:18 am”
True, but that does not mean quakes won’t happen in the UK. There have been many quakes in the UK in the past. Even in Australia, argualbly one of the most geologically stable lands on earth, suffers quakes. Newcastle, NSW, in 1989 for instance.