By Kelvin Kemm|
Science works on evidence, real evidence. Science truth is not an opinion or a majority vote. However, where some opinion can come into the process, to some degree, is right at the front end when a scientific hypothesis is proposed.
So let us look at an example. Some 120 years ago now, a young, unknown fellow named Albert Einstein came up with what seemed like some crazy ideas. One was that the fastest speed possible was the speed of light in a vacuum. Another was that the faster you travel, the more time slows down. And yet another was that light will be bent by gravity. These ideas sounded very far-fetched, and many people said to Einstein, “Listen Mr. Einstein, if you only use common sense, you will realize that…”
Anyway, Einstein’s ideas remained merely ideas until gravity was really observed to bend light. An experiment was carried out, when the opportunity arose. On May 29, 1919, there was a total eclipse of the Sun. Einstein, plus other scientists, travelled out into the ocean on a ship, to be positioned to see the eclipse perfectly. As the eclipse occurred, they were able to measure starlight from the Hyades star cluster, and they measured it bending slightly as it passed the darkened Sun. Overnight, Einstein moved from being a minor unknown scientist to being an international celebrity. One tiny bit of real proof indicated that the rest of his theory was probably correct.
So, what about the safety of nuclear power?
Let us start with the most well-known so-called nuclear “disaster,” Fukushima. Let us examine the incident as if it were a scientific ‘experiment.’ A huge wall of water, the tsunami, smacked into a nuclear reactor complex, jumping over the tidal wave barrier. So that was the first phase of our ‘experiment,’ to have a tsunami larger than the design specification.
Then, the next part was to badly position the primary electrical cooling pumps so that the water would flood them and knock them out. The reactor complex then did what it was supposed to do, and it switched to backup diesel pumps. But experimental phase three came into effect. Some of the diesel fuel supply had been stored in outside tanks, which were washed away. The pumps ran out of fuel. There were a number of other phases to the ‘experiment’, such as poor management systems and others. When all was told, one could not have designed a better ‘experiment’ to totally stress the nuclear safety of Fukushima.
Now we ask, “After all this drama, failures, and poor decisions, how many people were killed by nuclear radiation?” The answer is zero. So how many people were injured by nuclear radiation? Answer, zero. And how much private property was harmed by nuclear radiation? Answer, zero.
So, the final ‘experimental’ result was that the nuclear radiation did no harm.
We can conclude that Fukushima was not a nuclear disaster. It was a conventional industrial accident, which turned out to be a financial disaster for the nuclear company, plus a public relations disaster for the company and the Japanese government. But it was not a nuclear disaster.
If one had designed the whole Fukushima affair as a deliberate experiment to test nuclear safety, one could not have done better to clearly illustrate how safe nuclear was when a giant amount of power was smacked by a giant wall of water.
The same was true of the Three Mile Island nuclear power incident in the U.S. Nobody was killed or harmed by nuclear radiation.
OK, so what about Chernobyl? Yes, some people were killed by nuclear radiation. But fewer than 60, not thousands, as often claimed by some anti-nuclear activists. But Chernobyl had no radiation containment structure, had a bad reactor design, and had other faults. Yet only a few died including first responders who bravely rushed into burning radioactive debris to quell fires. So, yet another good ‘experiment’ to prove the safety of nuclear power.
Now add to the story that these three reactor complexes were all very old. Nuclear development has moved on, and modern reactors are far more sophisticated and much safer than their pioneering predecessors. The result is that modern reactors are extremely safe, as proven by real-world engineering results. But the anti-nuke crowd has continued to spread wild theoretical speculations about hundreds of thousands of people who could be killed if a nuclear reactor went wild. But the actual evidence disproves these theoretical speculations.
Let us now create our own theoretical speculation. Large Boeing aircraft fly over New York. So let us imagine a fully loaded Boeing 747 flying out toward Johannesburg. And another fully loaded Boeing 747 is flying in from London. The two of them collide head-on over Manhattan, and the two balls of flame fall into Broadway and Wall Street. They explode on impact.
Can you imagine the magnitude of the disaster?
Just because you can imagine that does not mean that flying should be banned. Of course not.
So why make such a drama about the safety of nuclear power merely because you can spin your imagination into a fanciful, disastrous outcome? The real evidence to date has clearly shown that nuclear power is far safer than anyone ever imagined.
Fantasy speculation is well and good, for stories, like Einstein did. But then you need real-world evidence to show whether the fantasy speculation is true or false.
I will argue the anti-nuclear movement hates nukes because they work. The revealing comment (by Paul Ehrlich) was that having cheap and unlimited power would be “like giving an idiot child a machine gun”.
The anti nuclear bomb movement hates nukes because they kill thousands upon thousands of people.
The nuclear movement wants to make nuclear power safer, and rightly tries to force nuclear companies to meet safety standards. If you don’t like that, thats a you problem
Let’s take your first sentence at face value. What is your position on Trump attempting to enforce a ban on nuclear proliferation?
Ruhaan,
rather an illogical view?
Two points, are you claiming that nuclear operators willfully try and evade safety standards, and are the standards fit for purpose?
It is proven that the linear no safety level of radiation is false, but used to regulate nuclear facilities. Maybe that has changed now, I don’t know.
Did you read the article?
“The anti nuclear bomb movement hates nukes because they kill thousands upon thousands of people.”
And “The Great Leap Forward” killed how many Hundreds of thousands ???
And the Holodomor killed millions of Ukranians.
BS.
In WWII, nuclear weapons saved 100’s of thousands of lives, including many Japanese lives.
There is such a thing as diminishing returns. Each additional unit of safety provides corresponding less and less extra safety.
Of course your average socialist doesn’t care how much it costs, so long as someone else is paying.
Another typical trope, whenever someone says that a particular safety measure is not warranted, the socialist will always scream, that you don’t want there to be any safety.
Your statement:
This is untrue in my experience: the anti-nuclear movement wants to shut down nuclear power period; safety is just the excuse they use, unsupported by any rational review of the facts.
I last looked into the data on radiation deaths in December 2025, so the numbers might have changed a bit, but in the history of nuclear reactors here are the deaths:
Military reactors: 30 confirmed deaths; no figure for estimated.
Military tests: 1 confirmed death; no additional estimated deaths
Military research: 2 confirmed deaths; no additional estimated deaths
Military other: 1 confirmed death; 33 additional estimated deaths
Civilian reactors: 61 confirmed deaths; 70 additional estimated deaths
Radiography/Radiotherapy: 89 confirmed deaths.
Total radiation deaths from civilian and nuclear reactors: 91
“Estimated” or “attributed” deaths include no actual dead bodies, but are estimated premature deaths due to radiation exposure. This is a theoretical calculation that is never verified in practice.
The military data is certainly incomplete; there are no reported deaths from China, North Korea or Iran. Deaths reported from the Soviet Union are likely understated. All except one of the military reactor deaths are from reactor malfunctions in three cold-war era Soviet submarines.
In civilian reactors 47 of the actual deaths and 15 of the estimated ones are from the single Chernobyl incident. All other civilian reactors worldwide are only responsible for 14 confirmed deaths in over 60 years.
The most common non-military radiation deaths come from radiography and radiotherapy machines, usually due to negligent disassembly of stolen or abandoned equipment.
By contrast, there were 3,242 US coal miner fatalities in 1907 alone, and quite a few years before 1930 with more than 2,000 coal miner deaths. The earliest reported nuclear radiation incidents were in 1957 totaling 0 actual deaths and 88 estimated ones. In the same year there were 448 deaths of US coal miners, which is more than four times the radiation deaths from all reactors, both civilian and military, since the dawn of nuclear power. See here.
Nuclear reactors have caused the confirmed deaths of less than 100 people, the vast majority from the Soviet Union.
Just how much safer do you think we can make them?
The fuel waste “problem” is caused by the government; they can be reused after reprocessing to use most of the remaining fuels.
I live near the Columbia Generating Station at Hanford Washington where it has operated for decades without any major problems.
LINK
I’m 60 miles NW of the Columbia Generating Station and can see the glow from my home. Just kidding. Sometimes I can hear the explosions from the Yakima Training Center, that area being closer. From the right spot, sometimes the flashes can be seen.
Many years ago I was at a cocktail party on the Front Range near Golden Colorado one evening when several people commented about the glow coming from the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Finally someone explained that it was just the new lights that had installed in the parking lot.
As France has demonstrated for decades.
In France all long-term waste left over after processing, is stored in one building.
That building is on a campus of buildings that reprocesses all nuclear waste.
The burn up of spent fuel is only a few percent, so most of fuel can be recovered, after fission isotopes are removed.
U239 is produced in fast breeder reactors to make bombs, and to produce more nuclear fuel.
The US, Russia, China, and the UK have similar set ups
Regarding Fukushima, when I saw the aerial photos at the time, I immediately noticed the plant should have been turned 180 degrees and built much higher up.
It would not have looked pretty from the highway, but there would have been no hasty nuclear shutdown. The vulnerable and emergency systems would have been protected. What were they thinking.
The regular or auxiliary core cooling pumps, diesel generator driven, would have kept the plant going to an orderly shutdown.
Jimmy Carter put the stop to repressing nuclear fuels from what I recall, and he was wrong to do so like so much of his presidency.
“Yet only a few died including first responders who bravely rushed into burning radioactive debris to quell fires. So, yet another good ‘experiment’ to prove the safety of nuclear power.”
Right.
The instantaneous AI answer to a simple question–Over 120 people die in auto accidents each day in the U.S. I’m going to guess that you drive a car regularly and consider it safe, and nobody will fault you for it.
I see you are another person where facts make no difference, you have been told what to believe and you won’t let reality get in the way.
“I see you are another person where facts make no difference”
Much like the fact about the definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Professor? But don’t let hypocrisy get in your way, when you have been told what to believe.
Just because you are incapable of understanding basic physics doesn’t make those who do hypocrites.
What “basic physics” would that be, exactly, Professor? I’m still waiting for your lesson on those “pages of dense math” that constitute the “real” Second Law. Please provide them now. Because otherwise it sounds like you are bluffing. And a hypocrite.
Simple, the 2nd law does not pertain to individual photons.
That has been explained to you dozens of times by multiple posters, but you choose not to believe it.
“Simple, the 2nd law does not pertain to individual photons”
We aren’t talking about individual photons, though, are we? That’s because the 2nd Law is a classical macroscopic statistical rule, and individual photons are quantum deterministic phenomena. These two realms operate according to different principles – not that you would know anything about that. The 2nd Law becomes relevant as soon as you try to make the transition from one realm to the other, by making a macroscopic observation.
You claimed that the 2nd law does not apply to EM radiation in general – not just individual photons. You further claimed that the version of the 2nd law in the physics textbooks and on Wikipedia is wrong, because it doesn’t say anything about an exception, and the real version is one that only you know about. You claimed that you know this because of “pages of dense math”. Where are those “pages of dense math”, please?
None of my physics professors told me that there was a “real” 2nd law that was different from the one everyone talks about – the one written down in the textbooks, and the one we verify with every single measurement we have ever made. I would like to finally learn the real version of the 2nd law. I would like you to teach it to me, since no one else can. Please do that now.
More crickets, Professor? If that’s all you’ve got, then that’s all you’ve got.
But worse than that, this statement is completely meaningless:
“the 2nd law does not pertain to individual photons.”
Since you have never told us what the 2nd law actually is. Only what it isn’t – which is, of course, what everyone else says it is.
I have told you dozens of times what it is.
You just refuse to accept any answer that doesn’t fit your distorted view of reality.
We can see that, as usual, when the Professor is asked to back up his bizarre claim, all we get is crickets.
Note that I didn’t call anyone who understands their basic physics a hypocrite, Professor. I called you a hypocrite.
Who taught you to behave like this? Was it your parents?
Poor little steve, I fail to respond to him in what he considers a timely manner, and he just freaks out.
Sad, but it’s a regular pattern.
“I fail to respond to him in what he considers a timely manner”
You’ve had months. Where are those “pages of dense math”, please?
“Sad, but it’s a regular pattern.”
The only “regular pattern” here is your ignorance and hypocrisy.
I replied at the time, but since you didn’t like the answer, you ignored it. Just as you are ignoring everything I say this time.
You are an idiot, convicted by your own comments
From the above fluff article:
“And how much private property was harmed by nuclear radiation? Answer, zero.
So, the final ‘experimental’ result was that the nuclear radiation did no harm.
We can conclude that Fukushima was not a nuclear disaster. It was a conventional industrial accident, . . . But it was not a nuclear disaster.”
Well, here is what Google’s AI bot has to say on this matter (with my bold emphasis added):
“Restricted radioactive zones still exist around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. While the original 20-kilometer (12.5-mile) exclusion zone has been largely lifted for humans, a smaller, designated territory called the “Difficult-to-Return Zone” (sometimes referred to as the red zone) remains strictly off-limits without special government authorization.These specific restricted zones currently cover about 2.2% to 2.7% of the Fukushima Prefecture, totaling roughly 371 km². Inside these perimeters, radiation levels are still considered too high for permanent habitation, and access is tightly controlled. Decontamination and reconstruction efforts are underway, but large swaths of forested areas and highly contaminated towns remain empty.”
I’m trying to think of a “conventional industrial accident”—that is, one not involving radioactive material—that has created restricted access zone(s) totalling hundreds of km^2 area that remain more than 15 years after the accident but . . . nope, I can’t come up with any.
Facts matter.
The fact that an idiot government restricts people shows nothing about the actual danger involved.
More to the point, TYS objects to nuclear power because it works and works well. It is by far the safest way to produce useful electricity. That’s why he/she/it hates it.
Naturally this doof is incapable of quantifying what the radiation levels near Fukushima are.
Naturally the doof doesn’t mention that thousands of homes all over Japan have been abandoned for decades, all for non-radiation safety reasons.
Naturally the doof doesn’t mention that the government has imposed restrictions on settlement in the Fukushima prefecture at radiation levels LOWER than natural background.
“Naturally . . . is incapable of quantifying what the radiation levels near Fukushima are.”
Because I so delight in proving lazy commenters to WUWT just plain wrong:
In the restricted “Difficult-to-Return” zones around Fukushima in 2025, indoor air dose rates reached as high as 0.3 μSv/h. This is roughly 5 to 10 times higher than pre-2011 background levels. The area exceeding the historical evacuation threshold of 3.8 μSv/h (33.3 mSv/yr) shrank from over 600 square kilometers in 2011 to roughly 7.4 square kilometers.
The exclusion zone, known in Japan as the “Difficult-to-Return” zone, represents about 2.2% of Fukushima Prefecture.
Key radiation details as of 2025:
—Indoor Dose Rates: Ambient doses in certain “Difficult-to-Return” residential areas average around 0.3 μSv/h.
—Outdoor & Heavily Contaminated Areas: More isolated or uncleared rural and forested sectors see higher doses, though exact measurements vary widely depending on elevation and proximity to specific hot spots.
— General Public Safety: In areas where evacuation orders have been fully lifted, ambient levels are generally 0.1 to 0.2 μSv/h
BTW, your remote armchair psychoanalysis is worth exactly what I paid to get it.
damn bros locked in.
None of those levels pose any risk to human health. And all you’ve demonstrated here is your ability to cut and paste without understanding the content.
He’s still fixated on the belief that because government acted, that proves there is a problem.
I’m guessing that he secretly believes that CO2 is going to kill us all, based on nothing more than so many governments trying to ban it.
And yet 0.3 μSv/h is considered safe. Even under the LNT model, being below the level of background radiation. If of course you want to dispute that show us your reference. 😉
The radiation risk model on which all this is based is incorrect. Please look at my post above with citations to peer-reviewed literature. Comments welcome.
There is a high-background region of India in which the most-exposed cohort received about 39 mSv annually for their entire lives with a cancer rate slightly below the control group, although the decrease was not statistically significant.
Sorry, but you—as well as cgh and leefor— apparently believe that I established the “safe radiation exposure limits” around Fukushima that were actually set by Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority in combination with the Japanese national government.
Please inform them of your expertise (and citations) in this subject matter.
However, they may not comment back to you.
If a government sets a standard, it must be correct and no one who doesn’t have multiple doctorates is allowed to question it.
With every post you are sounding more and more like a typical global warming fanatic.
Excuse me, but I do believe that you—among several other commenters here on WUWT—are being freely allowed to question Japan’s established limits for radiation exposure in the Fukushima prefecture.
So, to validate your sarcastic assertion, please list your “multiple doctorates”.
ROTFL
How despicable of me. I’m questioning the decision of a government.
It’s off to the guillotine for me.
Beyond that, sit back and take in the incredible hypocrisy you are showing.
How many doctorates in climatology do you have, but you routinely disagree with people with doctorates. Not only that you directly challenge the decisions that governments are making in order to protect their citizens from the horrors of CO2.
Indeed I do! Perhaps you think obtaining a PhD in a one or more fields means that person has a some better insight into truth than any other person?
This is not the case at all, and in fact those with the highest academic credentials are often those with the strongest-but-most erroneous “confirmation beliefs” . . . reference Thomas Kuhn’s classic “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.
BTW, there are NO “horrors of CO2” . . . you obviously have been following to too many people having doctorates that are employed by governments around the world.
Test all things; hold fast what is good”
— The Bible, 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Please get your “facts” correct.
The Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA; see https://www.nra.go.jp/english/ ) AND the Japanese national government established the restricted “red zones” (formally known as Difficult-to-Return Zones) around the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Your bona fides to assert they are “idiots” is . . . ?
You are missing the point entirely.
It is a very simple question . . . I’m sorry to see you’re having difficulty fielding it.
Oh well.
None of those levels pose any threat to human health.
The point is that you only listen to the experts who say what you want to believe and find ever more ludicrous reasons to not listen to the experts who disagree with your government experts.
My “government experts” reside in the USA, not in Japan.
Situational awareness 101.
Science doesn’t change based on borders.
But regulations for safety, including mathematical limit values, do.
As but one particularly relevant example:
the International Atomic Energy Agency and European Union guidelines set a limit of 20 mSv/yr for occupational workers in nuclear industries; but in contrast, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States permits an annual occupational limit of 50 mSv/yr.
LOL, just because an government makes a ruling on restricted zone, doesn’t mean there is actually a danger.
Just them covering their butt against scaremongers.
Have you gone there? I thought not. Would you eat fish caught off the coast of Fukushima in its first years? I thought not.
Yes.
People routinely eat fish, sparingly, contaminated with methyl mercury. As Paracelsus is known to have said, “It is the dose that makes the poison.”
yep…here in the Ozarks one can see itty-bitty mercury globules occasionally in the shallow creek beds-where they come from is a subject of some debate…and yes, I have seen some. Yes, I know it’s not the methyl variety-but the question remains-from where?
Are you aware of those BBD’s that routinely pass over the Ozarks, as reported by the locals? . . . you know, those Big Black Delta craft that can go from hovering over a forest to zipping to a pinpoint in the sky the blink of an eye?
Now you know.
Yeah, OK…uh huh, you bet. I feel sooo much better now.
So the space aliens are here to poison us with methy-mercury?
I didn’t know that.
(No, I refuse to go there.)
I bet you thought that was funny.
I doubt that what you are seeing is mercury. Mercury is so dense that it works its way to the bottom of the creek gravels. What you are probably seeing is small bubbles, most likely from photosynthetic algae.
Thank you for the feedback. That said, there was a big to-do about it some years back and the opine by everybody in authority was mercury-sure looked like it to me. Those in authority pointed to a very dirty-since destroyed-coal fired powerplant about 20 mi. away. Also, many of the small creeks down here actually have a very thin, small gravel layer sitting on top of flat layered and cracked bedrock; the mercury would collect in the cracks. Still, my mind is open; I would much prefer algae because I seek out and eat fresh caught crawdads, which are bottom feeders in those creeks.
Have you listened to any of the experts? Or just the ones who say what you want to believe? We already know that’s what you do regarding global warming.
I’ll offer that the Japanese people have the most practical experience with the long term health effects of nuclear radiation exposure as a direct result of WWII.
Thus, I would not dare to advise them as to where to set their own limits on what they consider to be “safe” nuclear radiation levels, especially from radionuclides that are not naturally occurring to any significant degree, such as Plutonium-239 and Cesium-137.
Ah yes, a government set a standard, therefore none my question it.
It’s amazing how expert people become when they are saying what you want to hear.
Ah, yes . . . would that be your conclusion from looking at a mirror?
And your arguments continue to get more pathetic.
Translation: Who cares what the science says.
Ah yes, if they work for the government, they are experts and nobody is allowed to question them.
The idiot government that actually cares about protecting lives over promoting a narrative that everything is safe and business-as-usual? we talking about the same people? the same government that found a sharp increase in radiation deaths and extremely toxic levels of radiation near the disaster?
Go live there for a few years and maybe you might get a bit more something in your brain.
The government found nothing of the kind.
really? they didn’t?
then this article must be imagining things:
https://www.who.int/news/item/28-02-2013-global-report-on-fukushima-nuclear-accident-details-health-risks
Read what you cite, and try to comprehend…
Guesstimated based on guesses…
… its is all just butt-covering
The article that starts up front with: “A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.“?
Are you sure you sent the right link? This one only talks about estimated risks, not actual, confirmed deaths.
Key word that you yourself overlooked: “anticipated”.
Models worked out so well for climate predictions.
These models are based on LNT which has been thoroughly disproven.
So, other than by using models, what is the mechanism(s) that health experts use to assess/predict the future health risks from exposure to the radionuclides released from nuclear reactor core meldowns that breach all containment safeguards?
Perhaps you imagine such results from laboratory experiments done on humans . . . shades of Mengele?
Since you agree with the models, they must be correct.
You can’t predict weather without models either, but I doubt you blindly accept their output.
“You can’t predict weather without models either . . .”
Cue Punxsutawney Phil for his answer here. /sarc
In reality I don’t use or consult weather models at all where I live. I predict that the weather tomorrow will be pretty much the same as it was today . . . and guess what, I’m right more often than I’m wrong.
What is your point? Are you suggesting that the experts that were quoted to support the concern are probably wrong? If they can’t be trusted, why cite them?
Not surprised that you’re having difficulty understand my points.
FYI, my key point (two-fold) covering all of my previous posts is that Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA; see https://www.nra.go.jp/english/ ) AND the Japanese national government (a) have every right to establish their own limits on what they deem to be “safe nuclear radiation” exposure for their citizens, and (b) that actual facts about the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, its three separate reactor core meldowns and containment breaches, and the amount of radioactive material released into the environment really do matter.
That is all.
Thank you for asking.
Your point boils down to a belief that as long as government officials are saying what you want to hear, nobody is allowed to question them.
Safe and effective 😉
So spending money that doesn’t need to be spent, means you care about people.
Protecting people from dangers that don’t exist, means you care about people.
We are all exposed to low level radiation, which is good for us, because it causes natural mutations.
The most over-exposed people are airline pilots.
Among the least exposed are nuclear plant workers. All carry a badge that accumulates exposure. If too much, you get reassigned.
There is a list you can google.
It has been discovered that low levels of radiation actually boost the immune system.
The Bhopal disaster affected 150 km^2. 40 years ago and still not fully remediated. Deaths estimated between 5,295 (Govt of India) and 22,000 (Amnesty). You want an example, there you have one. Yes its half the size of the Fukushima restricted zone, but it killed thousands of people and still isn’t fully remediated. Fukushima on the other hand will remediate itself in time, likely far less than 40 years. More deaths than all the nuclear accidents combined by orders of magnitude.
But that’s not the point here. The point is that Fukushima and Bhopal should never have happened. We don’t quit making things when disaster strikes, we learn from the mistakes and work to prevent them in the future. As time goes on, the things we build get safer. Car accidents cause over 1 million deaths per year. Should we stop driving cars? Or should we build better safety systems into the cars and better training for drivers? 300,000 people drawn each year, should we stop going swimming? Ban the swimming pools? Or do we teach people to swim, water safety, lifeguards, etc?
If we did not learn from our mistakes, our ancestors would have burned their fingers and decide fire was too dangerous to use. Instead they figured out how to control the fire and use it. If our ancestors had adopted your mind set, we’d all be huddling in caves and there’s be a lot less than 8 billion of us.
From a medical standpoint, there was never a need for an exclusion zone.
Yes. It was the government-enforced and unnecessary evacuation that caused deaths.
The pre-cautionary principle at play.
Better safe than sorry.
Of course no risk, no gain is tossed out in the process.
The Precautionary Principle is about taking actions in the absence of any scientific or empirical evidence. It is about acting because of fear, not fact or evidence. Safe has nothing to do with the Precautionary Principle. And no nuclear regulatory authority ever regulates in the absence of evidence.
Though in the United States, the idiot Greg Jaczko tried to, as did the equally inept Shirley Ann Jackson.
The problem is that there was risk. The stress put on people by forcing them out of their homes without any warning causes health impacts.
At worst they should have balanced the risks and let the people themselves decide.
I apologize for not including a sarcasm notation.
“300,000 people drawn each year, “
Bet its a lot more than that.. Artist are always doing it. 😉
Easily confirmed via the Web: there is no official exclusion zone or strictly enforced, uninhabited buffer area around the former Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India.
“Unremediated” is very different from “restricted access”.
Reading comprehension 101.
Also,
“If we did not learn from our mistakes, our ancestors would have burned their fingers and decide fire was too dangerous to use. Instead they figured out how to control the fire and use it.”
But to the best of my knowledge humans currently burn their fingers in and around fire in great numbers on a daily basis . . . have we learned nothing about controlling fire and using it? /sarc
There was never a need for an exclusion zone around Fukushima, that was a panicked political decision. No politician has the courage to reverse that decision because they don’t want to embarrass the politicians and political party that made that decision.
The reality is that the radiation did not damage anything. Whether you want to believe it or not.
Me? . . . I’m not an expert in radiation exposure risks from materials released into the environment from three separate nuclear reactor core meltdowns that might be, oh, 1 to 10 km or so distant from my house.
I tend to believe, first and foremost, the professional experts that have had training/experience in evaluating such things.
Even though I might like to believe the released radioactive material “did not damage anything”, I still would not eat any fish caught in offshore waters within 50 km or so of Fukushima within the first year following the nuclear accident there. You?
I wouldnt either. Hey MarkW. Glad to know you think radiation didn’t damage anything. You want to pay the hospital bills for cancer treatment? be my guest. You want to live there? Be my guest, but don’t come crying back here when you get poisoned by radiation.
If you two antinukes want to jerk each other off, go find a room.
go find a room with highly elevated levels of radiation and stay there. if it isn’t dangerous, then it shouldnt be a problem for you…
So what is the actual reading of the highly elevated levels of radiation. Numbers not emotions rule. 😉
Ahhhh, leefor . . . would you like those numbers from directly over each of the three nuclear reactor cores that melted down during the Fukushima disaster . . . from 100 m distance from each core meltdown . . . or from 3 km distant from the power plant, and from upwind or downwind? More directly, which of these numbers would “rule”, in your words? /sarc
And then there is this from https://thebulletin.org/2026/03/fukushima-at-15-living-with-radioactive-hot-spots-and-stigma/
(with my bold emphasis added):
“Fifteen years later, 4,000 workers struggle to control the ongoing disaster. The three melted reactors remain so radioactive that they destroy the robots sent to explore the damage. No one knows exactly where the melted fuel is located or how deep it has burrowed below the reactors’ concrete pedestals, possibly into the ground. The water used to cool the reactors is stored in more than 1,000 tanks that reached capacity in 2023. This cooling water, which Tepco initially claimed was clean and has been releasing into the Pacific Ocean since 2023, was found to be contaminated with 62 radionuclides, including cesium, strontium, and plutonium. Two fuel pools packed with spent nuclear fuel have yet to be emptied.”
Of course, ignoring or unaware of this, MarkW proclaimed previously, on July 5, 2026 5:20 pm, that “The reality is that the radiation did not damage anything.”
So no figures available then, merely postulation. 😉
No. You should have thought to have read up-thread.
See my previous post of July 5, 2026 5:28 pm where I provided the actual radiation rate readings around Fukushima as of end-2025 in direct response to the same question from cgh.
Again I see, you are pushing the belief that as long as radiation can be measured, it is harmful.
Please try to understand that it was commenter leefor (and prior to that commenter cgh) that asked for radiation levels.
leefor actually sought “readings”, “numbers” and “figures”, but was unable to reply to my ask for where the radiations levels he inquired about should have been taken . . . no surprise there.
And in my replies to both I made no judgement call to whether the values I provided are considered “harmful” or not.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/high-radon-levels-map-cornwall-9420076 Inhabitants of the English county of Cornwall are regularly exposed to Radon, as are parts of the English Midlands. Tin, an element mined extensively in Cornwall, has several radioactive isotopes and is also associated with Uranium 238, Thorium 232 and Potassium 40, all of which have long half lives. Granite contains potassium 40.
You appear to have some familiarity with what you propose.
Oh well.
And here we go with the others standard socialist trope.
I say that low levels of radiation aren’t harmful, the will full idiot replies that you think radiation isn’t harmful.
Only Chernobyl released any radiation.
Your fear of your shadow is causing you to see things that aren’t there.
The fact that your fear causes you to pass up things that are perfectly harmless is not evidence that your fears are justified.
MarkW, that statement marks a new low for you, IMHO.
This, from Google’s AI bot (and as can be confirmed by almost every other Web-searching AI bot and by experts that were personally involved in the Fukushima power plant disaster and it aftermath), with my bold emphasis added:
“Radiation was released from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant starting on March 11, 2011. An offshore magnitude 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami struck the facility, disabling its cooling systems. This led to core meltdowns in three reactors and subsequent explosions, which released massive quantities of radioactive material into the environment.The disaster released numerous radioactive isotopes, but the most significant were:
—Iodine-131: Released in large amounts at the beginning of the accident. It decays quickly but posed an immediate threat of thyroid cancer via inhalation and ingestion
—Cesium-137: Released in the largest quantities alongside Cesium-134. Because Cesium-137 has a half-life of roughly 30 years, it contaminated regional soil and remains the focus of ongoing long-term monitoring.
The radiation was dispersed both atmospherically and directly into the ocean:
—Atmosphere: Winds carried radioactive fallout across Japan, with the heaviest contamination settling in the northwest region of the Fukushima Prefecture. It was also carried globally in trace, non-hazardous amounts.
—Ocean: The sea water used to cool the failing reactors seeped into the ocean, resulting in the largest accidental release of radioactivity into the marine environment. Over time, millions of tons of accumulating radioactive wastewater have been stored in massive tanks. To manage capacity, Japan began piping treated and filtered water back into the Pacific Ocean.
Despite the large-scale release, no deaths or cases of acute radiation sickness have been officially attributed to radiation exposure from the plant. However, the initial threat prompted the preventative evacuation of over 100,000 residents from the surrounding area.”
Now, you were saying something about “things that aren’t there” . . . ?
Ohhhh, a google AI reference.
As everyone who knows nothing knows, AI’s always tell the truth. Especially when they are repeating what you want to hear.
That’s the best you got?
“Radiation exposure of those living in proximity to the accident site was estimated at 12–25 millisieverts (mSv) in the year following the accident. Residents of Fukushima City were estimated to have received 4 mSv in the same time period.”
Love Canal
Pitcher Oklahoma
Bhopal India
There is a mercury mining district south of the city of San Jose (Calif.) [From which the local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News, got its name.] where mercury sulfide (cinnabar) and metallic mercury is plentiful in the stream sediments. The metallic mercury is probably from retorting the cinnabar ore. There is a story that when the mine was shut down, the bricks were salvaged from the brick smoke stack. However, they were found to not bind with the mortar because of all the mercury in them. There was a move to build homes over the site of the mine(s). However, it was found that the concentration of mercury vapor was so high over the site on hot days that the city wouldn’t issue building permits for the construction. The city turned it into into a park for hikers.
Once while visiting, I observed some teenagers hauling out a couple of backpacks stuffed (overflowing!) with marijuana plants (probably with elevated mercury levels) that they had grown in the park. Stupidity seems to breed stupidity.
San Diego, California
Errrr . . . Poughkeepsie, New York
Maybe Centerville, Tennessee?
Since your creativity is suffering writer’s block, how about the crocidolite (blue asbestos) mining town in Australia? There are restrictions on travel in the Clear Creek BLM area near Coalinga (San Benito Co., Calif) because of the presence of ‘asbestos’ exposed by mining. Isn’t there an island off the coast of England that was used for some anthrax experiments that is still closed to the public? How about the area in China that the Rare Earths processing waste is dumped? And then there are issues with irrigation water evaporating in the Central Valley (Calif) with high levels of selenium that tends to be concentrated in Loco Weed. Those are off the top of my head, without asking AI for any help.
You should have asked for help . . . I specifically asked for a “conventional industrial accident”—that is, one not involving radioactive material—that has a restricted access zone(s) (meaning no human habitation allowed) totalling hundreds of km^2 area that remains more than 15 years after the accident.
What is your point? Are you suggesting that the sites I mentioned were contaminated on purpose? If not, then they were accidents.
Consider my words “that has a restricted access zone(s) (meaning no human habitation allowed) totalling hundreds of km^2 area that remains more than 15 years after the accident.”
I do believe they are pretty obvious in my previous post.
The proof that this exclusion zone was necessary, is the fact that it was created.
All hail government, incapable of being wrong.
A lot of that is based on the Lethal No Threshold (LNT) model. If a lot of radiation will kill you (and it will) then a little radiation will also kill you. I can’t find anywhere else that LNT is used except for ionizing radiation. The LNT model is unaware that people who live at high altitudes are exposed to a considerable amount of radiation from two sources: the rocks that are the foundation of those mountainous areas (and radiate), and the reduced protection that is the result of less atmosphere (only ~6% at my home (5700 ft altitude) compared to someone who lives at sea level. Surprisingly, we do not have a higher rate of cancer, though. In fact, data shows that people who live at higher elevations have a lower rate of cancer. Our dosage from cosmic radiation and rock related radiation is about 0.5 – 2 µSv/h vs. the area around Fukushima was 1.91 µSv/h and as of 2025 is about 1.10 µSv/h. By Rocky Mountain, Sierras, and other mountainous areas of the Western US, Fukushima wasn’t exactly a disaster except in the minds of the uneducated.
It has been shown that aviators have about twice the cancer rate of the general population, and that has been attributed to even less atmospheric protection. This may be misleading, as a Pentagon study (Military Pilots-Cancer Study | DocumentCloud) reports military pilots and their ground crews have the same cancer rate. This should indicate there is something else to consider that may raise the rate of cancer – such as exposure to jet fuel and cleaning solvents for sensors and other components.
My point being that relying on the LNT model results in over-cautious and unrealistic safeguards. The US government (via EPA) follows the LNT model, and I suspect the Japanese government does as well. Fortunately, no government that I’m aware of forbids members of their population from living at higher altitudes that may have a higher ambient radiation than the land around Fukushima.
Well, there you have it.
That’s rich, coming from someone whose entire argument boils down to a fear of things that might happen.
You are simply mistaken.
I focused on the radiation exposure limits that were established by Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority and the Japanese national government with respect to establishing the restricted “red zones” (formally known as Difficult-to-Return Zones) that exist even today around the destroyed Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
I never referenced “things that might happen”. An objective review of the comments posted under the above article would serve you well.
And once again, once a government has set a standard, none may challenge it.
When are you going to start demanding that the world get CO2 levels back under 300ppm.
Is 300ppm CO2 atmospheric concentration some sort of “government standard”? Who knew?????
Somebody forgot to tell the bears and wild boar that some of the areas near Fukushima were “Difficult-to-Return Zones.”
That’s probably factual.
Since you’ve raised this legitimate concern, I’ll be counting on you to monitor their health over the next, oh, 30 years or so and to get back to us with a report on whether or not either species developed increased rates of cancer.
Apparently dozens of studies showing that low levels of radiation aren’t harmful, aren’t enough.
Not when their are monsters under the bed that need to be vanquished.
You overlooked defining “low levels” of radiation and how their mathematical value varies from nation to nation.
And this too: there are studies, and then there is empirical evidence . . . and somebody has to take responsibility for assessing risk versus benefit in terms of setting limits.
Sorry, I focus on reality . . . not monsters under the bed.
Considering your fear of radiation levels that have been proven to be harmless, your claim to be focusing on reality fails.
I remember in the 1980s when Helen Caldicott came to our school and “proved” how dangerous nuclear power is by portraying the effects of dropping a nuclear bomb on a nuclear power station. Seriously.
If they are dropping nuclear weapons, a leaking nuclear plant would be the least of our worries.
Right. She could have shown the effects of dropping a nuclear bomb on a library and it would be essentially the same.
I remember Caldicott turning up in the early ’80s to give one of her harangues outside the Faculty of Engineering at Monash Uni.
The engies came out en masse and laughed at her, then went back into their cafeteria and the keg of beer they had laid on for the occasion.
The problem with 3G nuclear power is cost, not safety. How much of that cost is safety related is debatable.
At least in the US , I argued in essay ‘Going Nuclear’ in ebook Blowing Smoke that the ‘right’ answer was to install inexpensive (both capital and operating costs) CCGT to replace old coal as it is retired, because we have abundant fracked natgas.
Use the decades of operational life of that new CCGT to fully develop 4G nuclear from a technical perspective (there are several promising options), and then build one each of the two or three most promising and operate them for a decade to shake out any ‘bugs’. Then go full nuclear for grid generation with the ‘winner’, saving remaining natgas for its other valuable uses.
Correct. The false urgency of the so-called ”climate crisis” has created mass hysteria in the West. In the most logical progression, wind and solar power would at most be curiosities, relegated to specialized applications instead of the current case where they blanket and devastate vast areas of our natural landscapes. Tesla EVs would just be play things for the rich. America would be over $1 trillion richer by not wasting resources on this foolishness.
Anti-nuclear psychological factors are strong in many people. Spiders and snakes are similar, and kill a few USA people yearly. Others: heights, dogs, thunder, being enclosed, germs, flying [Mr. T in series the A-Team], blood, and public speaking.
Awright, somebody is bound to ask–when did thunder ever kill anybody?
I had bolts go by 100′ out (I was on a ledge near the top of Cathedral Peak YNP), the booms and blinding flashes were overwhelming. I think someone with a weak heart could have a problem with a close strike.
You’re talking about lightning.
Thunder is generated by the lightning!
He did say it was 100 feet away. He then talked about the “boom”. That’s thunder. The closer the lightning bolt, the louder the thunder.
A few years ago, lightning hit a tree 3m from the back veranda of my house.
Took out pole circuit breakers in all neighbouring houses, and destroy a lot of electronic equipment in my house. The modem on my computer literally exploded, and the DSL cable melted leaving scorch marks on the wall.
Tree literally shattered and a large branch fell on the veranda roof.
Thank goodness for insurance !
SES had to come and remove the tree next day in case more of it came down.
Left a 3ft stump which I turned into a bird bath stand. 🙂
I was in the study when it hit.. I can assure you.. was very much a WTF moment !!
When I lived in Atlanta, a lightning bolt hit the power pole in front of our house. Shorted out the transformer. The only immediate damage was the garage door opener.
A few months later our computer started acting strangely, but only when certain programs were being run. We had it checked out and according the technician, one of the math functions from the math co-processor had gone funky.
He guessed that the lightning strike had stressed that portion of the chip and it took a few months to give out completely.
Oh well, it was about time for a new computer anyway.
That depends on what gets dropped when the thunder startles people.
I know of no reports of a direct thunder related death.
However, thunder is a massive acoustic shock wave and that potentially can cause harm.
I have felt thunder shock waves. Fortunately none were closer than a few dozen feet.
I lived near the base when I lived in Huntsville, Alabama. They discovered some unexploded ordinance from WWII near the north gate. Which put it less than a mile from the apartment I was living in.
They decided to explode it in place. They built a berm around the bomb, in addition to the fact that it had been found several feet below ground level. They attached the triggering charge to it and backed off.
The next day in the news said that the bomb they found hadn’t degraded as much as they anticipated.
When the bomb went off, I swear, the sliding glass door bowed inwards at least an inch.
In Australia, you learn pretty early which snakes and spider to leave well alone.
Snakes.. avoid brown snakes, tiger snakes and red-belly blacks.
Reddies and funnel webs are the worst of the spiders, mainly because of the venom and prevalence, but if you have have a Huntsmen spider in your house, let them roam free. 🙂
I’ve been promoting this idea for decades. The universe is made of nuclear energy in one form or another; there is nothing here but mass and energy, even the human spirit is a combination. And Einstein also showed that the mass and energy are interchangeable. If man wants to understand and maybe one day travel the universe, maybe he should spend his time learning about it, not being scared of it.
And as an entertaining thought experiment, those who are devoutly religious might consider that upon arrival at The Pearly Gates your Dog (dyslexic) hands you an exam booklet of 1,000 questions about what He created which you must answer before you get let in—since you’re supposed to have spent your life studying it, not fearing it.
Have you heard about the agnostic, dyslexic amnesiac?
He lay awake at night wondering if there is a Dog.
Ouch! Puns hurt.
Particularly if they are good ones. That one was good enough that I think Mark wins the thread.
Yep…still hurts tho.
I blew it, but you all got it anyway.
Insomniac, not amnesiac.
“Einstein also showed that the mass and energy are interchangeable.”
That is not entirely accurate. Einstein postulated the energy equivalence of a mass travelling at the speed of light, essentially defining a boundary condition for Newton’s laws of motion involving kinetic energy and momentum.
I use the word postulated because at present time we cannot accelerate mass to the speed of light and as such we cannot subject the concept to a null hypothesis test.
Well–it just might be close enough to be accurate–this is the way I remember it from my university physics, but that was in the 1960’s. Bet it still holds though.
“Does Einstein’s formula of E=Mc^2 factor in deriving energy from nuclear fusion?
Yes. E=mc2 is the mass-energy relation behind nuclear fusion, because fusion releases energy when the fused nucleus has slightly less mass than the original nuclei, and that mass difference appears as energy. In practice, it’s the mass defect and binding energy change that matter; E=mc2 tells you how much energy corresponds to that lost mass.”
There are quanta of fundamental energy much below the level of the lowest “nuclear” binding energy or nucleons: commonly seen empirically as photons, neutrinos (leptons), quarks, gluons and the W and Z bosons. Each of these has been observed empirically.
Beyond this, according to current (“standard”) cosmological model, about 95% of the universe is composed of dark energy and dark matter, but without any current human understanding of what comprises either of these two domains.
I’m thinking not many of even those “devoutly religious” are going to pass the entrance exam of your thought experiment.
An enormous amount of cost and effort is invested in making nuclear materials “safe”. Is the author asserting it is all safe? It is only safe when contained. Asserting there are no injuries from nuclear accidents is quite naive. One can deny knowledge of injuries, but the fact is that many in the industry work very hard to make injuries and deaths deniable. I work with radiation, and I had friends who died of cancer that also worked with it. Can I prove it killed them? No. Can I prove it didn’t? No. I treat these materials with great caution. Propaganda on both sides of this make truth a very slippery thing.
The problem with nuclear power is the long term danger of storing tons of dangerous material , for thousands of years. Areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima will not be habitable, ever. Some would consider that a problem.
The only hope for true safety is to develop transmutation capability, reduce the radioactivity of the material. This is possible. There is a very large industry that has incentive to suppress this, nuclear waste storage facilities. Billion$. So if we want “safe” nuclear, we need to face the realities, which includes acknowledging danger, as well as possible mitigations.
You know it’s dangerous, even though you can’t prove it.
You are just the type of person the author was talking about.
Living a life dominated by fear of everything.
Im sorry I fear getting killed. That’s very irrational of me.
No one else in the world cares about your feelings. Particularly when they have no evidentiary basis.
Mate, we’re all going to die.
It’s just a case of how and when, not if.
And unless you’re planning to off yourself, you won’t have any say in the how & when.
So why be afraid of dying?
It’s a certainty of having a life.
So yes, it is irrational to be afeared of dying.
Mr. Pilani: Any troll born of man shall die, so your time will come even if you don’t fear it. Irrational, indeed!
Let us know when you load up another username.
We-all of us-have lifetime warrantees-but they end, some sooner ,some later. At 76 I’m more curious than afraid-who was it that said death is a great mystery or something like that?
Fear of death is rational, fear of things that aren’t dangerous is not.
Boogie-men under the bed….. Or an evil Santa 😉
The life expectancy of chemists and chemical engineers is (or was) lower than all other engineers. Most of the premature deaths were the result of cancers.
Don’t ask for a citation. I read it in the 1970s in an IEEE publication.
That was some 50 years ago. Is it still true?
Copilot says that it is no longer true.
At issue is a valid definition of safe.
Perfection is unobtainium.
People can get hit by a bolt of lightning or a meteor even when they are “safe.”
People also get cancer without smoking and without exposure to radon or any other form of radioactive materials.
Nuclear materials have known risks. That means they are unsafe at some level and should be handled with respect.
There is no “true safety.”
Reasonable efforts to achieve acceptable mitigation of risks is the best safety that can be achieved.
As far as it goes, we are facing the realities, not per your definitions however.
We acknowledge the level of dangers and have mitigations in place and are developing better technologies to further reduce risks.
Areas around Fukushima are currently habitable.
Areas around Chernobyl have animals in habitat.
Earth has been storing megatons of dangerous materials for billions of years.
It goes back to the valid definition of safe.
How safe is safe enough?
I am saddened by your coworkers and friends that died of cancer.
I understand this is real to you.
I believe the conversation you are attempting is one we should have and continue to have.
But it all goes back to the valid definition of safe.
Should you check back–I think your point view as stated here is a wise one, sorry so many took it the wrong way. A couple of things to consider:
Many animals have not heeded the Chernobyl exclusion zone, and seem to be surviving–and are thankful for the human exclusion. So not all may be as it seems.
I’m a geologist, familiar with about the last 1.8 billions years of this planet’s history (and realize that’s only 40% of the total history). ‘Ever’ can’t be an appropriate word, but I think I know what you mean. But it isn’t for ‘ever’.
I’ve worked as a geologist at an asbestos mine, with an office right beside a dryer exhaust that emitted 6 tons of asbestos dust per hour (shared the office with the Environmental Technologist who did the measurements). I’m fine 53 years after I left, while some state that ‘one fibre can kill you’. Maybe…it’s not the fibre? A few (very few, but it was chrysotile) that worked there have died of mesothelioma–I neither can prove that it was the asbestos that killed them or didn’t.
Humans evolved with a variable nuclear radiation background and tolerated it. I put a fair bit of faith in living in the conditions within which the various species on the planet evolved–including plants that evolved under a far higher atmospheric CO2 content than we have now.
Long term storage is an open subject; I suspect that reprocessing will become a world-changing factor in future. Even the asbestos mine tailings where I worked were later reprocessed for the magnesium.
All of the factors you present are valid, but hold uncertainties; I think you know that. If we benefit from the sun, my view is that it is obvious that we can benefit from nuclear fusion. Mastering fission is a step on that path. I agree with you that the steps on that path should be taken carefully, but possibly disagree on whether the steps should be taken at all. I think they should be.
I dispute this definition. Think of “science” as “natural philosophy”, its old name.
Humans made observations and did classification. Some observations suggested cause/effect relationship between events. It was a long time before numbers were involved, but it was discovered that counting sometimes helped.
What we call science is “the best explanation from the observations” which means that we need accurate and truthful observations to begin with and then deduce the meaning of them. It is always a work in progress.
Newton did a useful guess, Einstein did a more useful guess explaining more of the observations made since Newton. Quantum ideas have arisen from different conclusions being made about other observations.
The contradicting ideas have not been resolved. Science is NOT settled.
With eight billion mouths to feed across the globe, every means of doing work using energy from outside human muscle power involves risks as well as benefits. Lack of all such energy sources would mean mass starvation and wars across the globe.
All sources of harnessed energy have some dangers involved even down to getting wood for fires let alone using the fire itself, using cranky horses and mules and camels and bullocks got people killed. Wind harnessed by sails on ships also has fatality for sailors even if they did not have to row.
No need to talk about the road toll, air collisions and crashes.
So far, the nett benefit of harnessed energy sources has allowed vast numbers of people to live comfortable lives beyond the hunter/gatherer average of about 40 years.
We all have to take the dangers to get the benefits.
Another portion of the Fukushima “experiment” was that when the fire department arrived with pumper trucks to help with cooling the reactor, the connectors on the fire departments hoses did not fit the connectors on the reactor, and nobody had adapters on hand.
At least they had water they could use with the right equipment..
Unlike in the LA fires. !
When planning for emergencies, always realize that an emergency IS an emergency, and something will always be overlooked or forgotten. Forgetting to tell the evacuation bus drivers the plan before Katrina led to no drivers, and no evac. is a shining example.
It seemed strange to me, that some engineer had thought up and designed in, stand pipes so that fire trucks can put in water. Much as they do for highrise building.
After going through all that trouble, nobody thought to make sure that the fitting you put on the standpipe was compatible with fire fighting equiipment?
I rest my case…also why there are, or should be, drills and practice runs for any emergency. Even so, things will be forgotton or overlooked-it just happens. BTW, I was an Emergency Response team member in an industrial facility that had ammonia gas in use for as a coolant, and lots of other flammable materials around (yes, ammonia can burn, but you’re probably already dead before that). Let’s not forget electrical arcing events-they too are quite exciting. Train, train, drill-and it’s never enough, but if you don’t, people can die. So.
“Let us start with the most well-known so-called nuclear “disaster,” Fukushima.”
Fukushima is not the most well-known. Most people don’t even know about it. But they do know about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. And they almost certainly know nothing about them that is true.
I don’t trust a science writer who does not know the difference between special relativity and general relativity, and who ignores Madame Curie because she does not fit in his agenda.
At my age I have trouble remembering which one is ‘special’ and which one is ‘general.’ I usually look it up if it is actually important to the discussion.
If it isn’t important, I just write it off to being pedantic.
I thought that the area and number of people affected by radiation from the Fukushima accident was far more than Three Mile Island which was negligible.
As for Chernobyl, wasn’t the cause errant operators running an unauthorized stupidly dangerous experiment? Three Mile Island was caused by mechanical failures and operators slow to grasp what was happening. (As the article notes, the Chernobyl plant did not have the protective structure standard in most of the world.)
Interesting sidelight: there are creatures like bears and dogs living in the significantly contaminated area around Chernobyl, some mutation occurring but not radical, researches are looking into that.
BTW, after Three Mile Island a tailings pond of a uranium processing plant failed, it was known to be cracked. Tailings ponds can and do break, there are better ways to handle output.
There was no detectible, measurable radiation dose to any member of the public from either TMI or Fukushima. At Chernobyl, the test was approved by the Soviet so-called safety authority and designed by the Kurchatov Institute (the original designers of the RMBK reactor.) They did this despite the failure of a previous test to produce the desired result in another RBMK at Chernobyl in 1985.
Are you referring to the on-site cooling ponds or to an actual tailings pond?
There are and were no tailing ponds at TMI. That site is NOT a uranium mining site.
What Rational Keith said was, “… after Three Mile Island a tailings pond of a uranium processing plant failed, it was known to be cracked. Tailings ponds can and do break, there are better ways to handle output.”
I was trying to confirm that he understood the difference between the two types of ponds.
The test that was being run was one that was supposed to be run prior to the plant being given permission to go to full power. The manager at the time certified that the test had been run so that the plant could go operational on schedule, so that he could get his bonus.
About a year later they decided to run the test. The test was supposed to be run during the day, when the most experienced shift was working. Due to issues with another nuclear plant, the test was delayed until the overnight shift, when the least experienced crew was working.
Multiple problems. First off the test was being run after the plant had been fully operational for awhile, instead of when the fuel rods were brand new. This changes the contents of the rods as they start accumulating radioactive daughter products from the fission that produces power.
Because of this contamination, they had to pull the rods further out than planned to get the reactor in the region they needed for the test.
Another problem with how the control rods were designed, they were not the same material from top to bottom. As a result, when they are almost out and start getting pushed back in, the reaction briefly increases.
Another problem with the design, is that when the fuel rods get really hot, they start expanding and as a result of this expanding, the fuel rods were blocked from being fully reinserted.
As a result of all these mistakes, the reactor ran out of control.
Another unexpected problem was that when the reactor vessel got too hot and breached, it let oxygen into the reactor, and as you can expect, the very hot graphite control rods immediately got fire.
Very nice.
True, the very word ‘Nuclear’ has a sort of angst attached to it for many… technology has moved on apace…safety factors are much more robust…. but to say Fukushima was not a disaster because no one died is a bit …. I dunno… understating things? The amount of heavy water which went… and I believe is still going? into the ocean from that location will surely have a serious effect ….. on ecosystems …and ‘eventually’ humans. I’m no greenie… I believe Nuclear has a place in our power grids… and even given the three major incidents which you mention, are taken into account, given the amount of Nuclear facilities in the world, they have a pretty good track record of not blowing up and killing folks…… and once built, they deliver good bang for your buck… scuse the pun. 🙂
There was no heavy water at BWR reactors like Fukushima Daiichi. There was water contaminated with tritium. It poses no significant risk, because with a half-life of just over 12 years it has now largely decayed into non-radioactive isotopes of hydrogen.
Even at its peak a dozen years ago, its radiation dose was so trivial to the environment that it could be contained in storage tanks until it had decayed sufficiently and the water then released.
Two passenger 747’s colliding over Manhattan would have to be a Lufthansa arriving flight hitting a Lufthansa departing flight, highly unlikely since they only make one 747 flight per day to Newark, JFK, LAX, Miami, San Francisco, and Houston.
Aren’t the A380s bigger than 747s?
There’s nothing funny about nuclear safety… https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1hbaM5-FgYo
In May, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the NRC to reconsider its dependence on Linear No Threshold (LNT) theory and its corresponding As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) radiological control dogmas.
In predictable Deep State bureaucratic fashion, the NRC has produced a report which claims there is insufficient evidence to refute LNT — in spite of the large body of scientific evidence which does in fact refute LNT.
Reconsidering LNT: 3.0. The Autopsy — NRC reaffirms LNT (Jack DeVanney, Substack ‘Gordian Knot News’)
Here is a pdf containing the same autopsy of the NRC’s report:
https://gordianknotbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/essays_lnt_nrc_2026_v1.pdf
As it stands today, the only way that the NRC’s overly conservative LNT and ALARA requirements can be eliminated is for the president himself to issue an Executive Order directing their removal.
I agree. Any attempt to state “how safe is safe enough” is inherently a political decision which can only be made by government. Trump in this case is right. Bureaucracies exist to serve the public policy purposes of elected officials, not the reverse.
How about fully fueled aircraft being deliberately piloted into buildings?
Stop flying, of course. /s
Re Fukushima: “…how many people were killed … and how much private property was harmed by nuclear radiation? Answer, zero.”
Dr. Kemm, you are technically correct, but a bald statement like this will not convince anyone as is clear from the comments. You will not convince (for example) farmers whose topsoil was scraped off and buried at huge expense that there was no damage to private property.
What caused the damage and a substantial number of deaths due to the evacuations was fear, specifically fear of cancer. The official risk model, first proposed nearly 100 years ago before the structure of DNA was known, assumes any amount of radiation causes risk of cancer, and that the risk is cumulative over a lifetime. It is not correct. Mammals like us have the ability to repair damage to our DNA. That ability evolved to protect us from our own warm-blooded oxygen metabolism, which causes something like 50 double-strand breaks (complete separation of DNA into two pieces) each day in most of the cells in our bodies. (M. Vilenchik and A. Knudson, Endogenous double strand breaks: Production, fidelity of repair, and induction of cancer. PNAS, 100(22):1281-1286, October 2003.)
At low intensity over long periods, radiation is not dangerous. The best evidence for “not dangerous” comes from long-term studies of a region of India with (relatively) high background radiation, 14x the US average and nearly 8x the US EPA annual limit for the general public (5 mSv/year). The three highest-exposed cohorts numbered about 200,000 people and were followed for 19 years (but exposed at a constant level for their entire lives, of course). The cancer rates for all 3 groups were slightly below the control group, although the confidence limits overlapped. (J. Amma, R. Nair, R. Nair, and D. Hoel. Background radiation and cancer excluding leukemia in kerala, india: Karunagappally cohort study. Radiation Environment and Medicine, 10(2):74–81, 2021.)
In the town of Okuma, right next to the Fukushima nuclear plant, the emissions from the accident had decayed to the level of the highest-exposed Indian background group (19 years with no excess cancers) in about 2 months. The iodine isotope I-131 has a half-life of 8 days, meaning the radioactivity declines by half every 8 days. After 80 days, that’s a reduction by a factor of 1000. Yet nobody was allowed to return to Okuma for 8 years. Stress and despair from being evacuated can kill too: (Y. Oka, Risks and benefits of evacuation in TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol. 148 (2022) 104222). From the abstract: “The long-term evacuation of the TEPCO accident followed the dose rate recommended by ICRP, but is not justified.” ICRP = International Committee for Radiation Protection. The evacuation resulted in more long term deaths of despair than sheltering in place, even under the faulty cumulative-damage assumption. If DNA repair had been taken into account, the excess deaths from sheltering in place would have been statistically undetectable.
If you want to know how the cumulative-damage assumption became the default, search for the work of Edward Calabrese of UMass Amherst. There is a video series from the Health Physics Society entitled “The History Of The LNT” (LNT = Linear No-Threshold) risk model. Health Physics is the branch of medicine using radiation to treat disease, for cancer and several other conditions. It has good reason to want a more accurate risk model than what we have now.
The problem is ignorant, influential people- like Jane Fonda, who are probably useful idiots for the COMINTERN.
Let us start with the most well-known so-called nuclear “disaster,” Fukushima.
Um… you mean Chernobyl, right? It’s the most well-known nuclear disaster.
You make excellent points about the non-fatal Fukushima Daiichi meltdown and the safety of nuclear power, but Chernobyl is the nuclear disaster everyone knows. And it was caused by a cascade of stupid decisions from design to maintenance to operating and testing procedures. Despite the magnitude of the disaster, the 31 fatalities were less than half the 75 fatalities caused by the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric dam disaster in 2009 and a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands who perished when the Banqio Dam failed in China in 1975, all the result of famously bad Soviet engineering.
Kelvin, I’m not gonna get into the nuclear discussion, except to say I agree with you. I only know of one nuclear accident causing immediate fatalities. That was the SL-1 event at Hanford, 3 Jan 1961. Three people died. Their bodies, contaminated with long half-life isotopes, are buried extra-deep in lead-lined coffins, surrounded by concrete shielding. One is at Arlington National Cemetery. But I write this to point out your vision of a major mid-air over NYC actually came true on 16 Dec 1960. Dinosaur that I am, I remember the news coverage. A DC-8 and a Super Constellation went down, one onto Brooklyn; the other, Staten Island. 134 dead, 6 of whom were on the ground. One passenger, 11 year old Stephen Baltz, traveling unaccompanied, came down alive. He died the next day. The hospital has a memorial plaque to him. It includes the coins he had in his pocket. The event is easy to find on line, but you can see a bunch of pictures here:
https://www.nydailynews.com/2021/12/15/remembering-the-1960-park-slope-plane-crash/