Has Our Gov't Learned NOTHING from the Japanese Nuclear Disaster at Fukushima?

[Soggy in NOLA]

I know one cannot confirm cancer deaths due to increased radiation long term, but to be fair, we have to assume some people in the area had to have gotten a healthy dose due to the radioactive graphite smoke, as well as cancers in people in the response teams and the operating staff.

I know you cant 100% link it, but in Chernobyl's case I would give it a strong possibility.

Do We Know The Chernobyl Death Toll? | newmatilda.com

A number of studies apply that basic methodology — based on collective radiation doses and risk estimates — and come up with results varying from 9000 to 93,000 deaths. While that tenfold difference seems significant, it is explained by the differing approaches and assumptions used in the various studies. For example, whether or not they consider radiation exposure across Europe or just in the most heavily contaminated countries of Eastern Europe. (And of course that tenfold difference is peanuts compared to the many orders of magnitude separating Monbiot’s 43 and Caldicott’s 985,000.)

Monbiot says he asked Helen Caldicott for sources about the Chernobyl death toll. Here are some of the most important studies which he didn’t mention in his article. Firstly, reports by the UN Chernobyl Forum (pdf) and the World Health Organisation in 2005-06 estimated up to 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations and an additional 5,000 deaths among populations exposed to lower doses in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

A study by Elizabeth Cardis and her colleagues published in 2006 in the International Journal of Cancer estimates 16,000 deaths. Research published in 2006 by UK radiation scientists Ian Fairlie and David Sumner estimated 30,000 to 60,000 deaths. And finally, a 2006 report commissioned by Greenpeace estimates a death toll of about 93,000.

So where do Monbiot and Caldicott fit in the context of these scientific studies of the Chernobyl death toll? They don’t fit anywhere at all. Caldicott relies on a Russian report titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Suffice it here to note that the study uses a loose methodology to arrive at an unlikely conclusion.

Monbiot sides with the marginal scientists in arguing that low-level radiation is harmless. He cites a report from the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) to claim that the "official death toll" from Chernobyl is 43. But the UNSCEAR report made no effort to assess the effects of widespread low-level radiation exposure. Specifically, the report states:

"The Committee has decided not to use models to project absolute numbers of effects in populations exposed to low radiation doses from the Chernobyl accident, because of unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions. It should be stressed that the approach outlined in no way contradicts the application of the LNT model for the purposes of radiation protection, where a cautious approach is conventionally and consciously applied."

Did you seriously waste your time typing All that speculative Nonsense? What a sad boring life you must have. Id give you bad rep but im not as bored as you.

I thought these guys were the "science first" crowd? And then they post paragraph after paragraph of speculative nonsense.

 

[Avatar4321]

You expect the government to learn something? Yeah right...

 

[percysunshine]

I am glad my name is not 'Shima'.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, they are still chasing after the debunked theory of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[Charles_Main]

It looks like this has been going on for years and years. The Japanese learned the hard way about being overconfident in their safety measures. Why do we have to tempt fate in light of what we now know AND after 3 well-publicized major nuclear disasters in the last 30 years?

If our gov't is not going to decommision these nuclear plants and shut them down, they should at least require the utility companies to modernize the plants in order to minimize the chances of any nuclear accident.

Safety rules loosened for aging nuclear reactors

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. — Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.
The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety — and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.
Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of reactors.

Industry and government officials defend their actions, and insist that no chances are being taken. But the AP investigation found that with billions of dollars and 19 percent of America's electricity supply at stake, a cozy relationship prevails between the industry and its regulator, the NRC.

Records show a recurring pattern: Reactor parts or systems fall out of compliance with the rules. Studies are conducted by the industry and government, and all agree that existing standards are "unnecessarily conservative."

Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance.
"That's what they say for everything, whether that's the case or not," said Demetrios Basdekas, an engineer retired from the NRC. "Every time you turn around, they say 'We have all this built-in conservatism.'"

The ongoing crisis at the stricken, decades-old Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility in Japan has focused attention on the safety of plants elsewhere in the world; it prompted the NRC to look at U.S. reactors, and a report is due in July.

But the factor of aging goes far beyond the issues posed by the disaster at Fukushima.

Commercial nuclear reactors in the United States were designed and licensed for 40 years. When the first ones were being built in the 1960s and 1970s, it was expected that they would be replaced with improved models long before those licenses expired.

Aging nuclear reactors get safety passes - US news - Environment - msnbc.com

The Issues with the Cooling pools is the most important thing, and I believe I heard the Ones in the US are no longer using the cooling pools located above the reactors, which is a good thing. That was an asinine design. As far as everything else. What went wrong in Japan was not really because of a design flaw in the plants. It was about location, and underestimating the height of potential Tsunamis. Had the back up Diesel Generators been Better protected from Tsunami the incident would never have happened. The plants themselves actually came through both the quake and the Tsunami Intact, and performed exactly as they should shutting down. It all came down to some Diesel Generators being washed out that caused the whole problem.

So while I agree that they should make sure they are safe, I think there is a bit of an over reaction here. The Plants in Japan where not only located in a major Quake and Tsunami Region, but there were also 4 of them at one facility. The US plants do not face the same level of Threat from Natural Disaster as the ones in Japan, and Considering the ones in Japan actually survived a Quake much larger than specifications even called for, and were only messed up by the poor placement of Generators and poor planning with the sea wall. I think it is a bit of an over reaction to simply call for the US versions to be shut down all together.

 

[bripat9643]

After the first plane crash, the government should have outlawed air travel.

Really fucking dumb! The potential for harm that a full meltdown carries is far beyond that of a plane crash. And the harm extends for generations.

The empirical evidence doesn't support your claim.

 

[bripat9643]

The allowable dose is 250 mSv, so 100mSv is well within safety limits. Two of the workers were killed by the tsunami, not radiation. Your article lists only 5 workers who were actually exposed to above normal doses of radiation, and the worst consequence that any of them suffered was a "beta burn," whatever that is. The seriousness of the condition is not discussed.

How are you in the position to make judgements when you are this ignorant?

How ignorant is "this ignorant?" Do you have some evidence that what I said is wrong, or do you imagine your insults are sufficient proof? Most of what I said was stated in the post I responded to.