Article:
Unfortunately, decontamination and cleaning are not enough to revive the city.
Residents are needed, but they do not want to come back. They remain suspicious of the actions of the government, which assures them that radiation levels have fallen to safe levels.
They remember how, just a few years ago, this same government unilaterally raised them. Additionally, the newly opened cities still lack infrastructure — shops, hospitals and restaurants. And, chiefly, neighbors.
As a result, both cities remain practically empty. Eight years after the disaster and two after their opening, only about 5% of residents have returned. The vehicles and people seen on the streets only create the appearance of an inhabited city. The majority are cars belonging to construction companies and workers here to clean the area and demolish buildings.
I am honestly surprised even 5% of the people came back. I personally would not trust a word the government says now considering they were the ones who caused the whole disaster.
The "whole disaster" was actually a tsunami caused by an earthquake under the sea, and problems around the nuclear plant are just a tiny side-issue compared to the devastation caused by the tsunami.
Perhaps the government - many successive governments - could have changed zoning, building code etc so that the disaster would have been smaller, but the nuclear element of the "whole disaster" is just a minor component.
This is giving too much credit to the government who handled almost every aspect the worst way possible:
- the plant had designs flaws and shortcuts taken that worsened the effect of the tsunami
- government media (NHK) heavily downplayed the issue while the reactor was melting, independent journalists got shutdown, actual information only leaked through anonymous sources
- even after the anonymous info was proven true, there were still active campaigns to downplay the events and just put a seal on any further information leak
- contaminated soil and debris got shipped around the country with vibrant "solidarity above all" chants to shutdown critics
- media campaign were launched to eat Fukushima fruits and vegetable
- yakuza got involved in sourcing the contractors that do the cleanup
- health damage is/was massively downplayed to remove any institutional responsibility
I know a lot of that is just "business as usual", but if we're asking if former residents of Fukushima are wrong to distrust the government, I think there's a lot to take into account.
> - government media (NHK) heavily downplayed the issue while the reactor was melting, independent journalists got shutdown, actual information only leaked through anonymous sources
I'm just going to pick this one thing because I was in Japan at the time and watched the NHK broadcasts. The thing I have always found frustrating is that I believe the information reported by the western media was wrong.
At the time NHK (and every channel, actually) literally turned their entire schedule into detailed descriptions of what was going on at Fukushima. In fact, advertising on the commercial channels was dominated by AC Japan [1] because it was considered unseemly to advertise during these presentations.
Specifically I remember seeing models showing how the reactors worked and I remember TEPCO officials saying, "The data is consistent with a meltdown, but we can not confirm that at this time". This was somehow, incredibly, reported as "There has not been a meltdown" by the western media.
I kept telling expats in the area that the information they were getting in Western media was wrong, but nobody would listen to me. Everyone I spoke to in Japanese understood extremely well what the situation was. Everyone I spoke to in English was panicking because the information they were getting was absolutely wonky.
I eventually looked into it and almost all of the reports for the western media was coming from a group of reporters working for Reuters. I do not believe they are Reuters staff, but were working on contract. These reports were picked up by everybody and published without changes.
I wish I'd made better notes because now so long after the fact, it's hard to show what happened. However, if you go into the old revisions on Wikipedia, you can see for yourself. At the time, the page was being updated several times a day with links to new articles being written. Check the bylines on those articles and you will see that they are all written by the same people.
The IAEA used to have a page with all of the statements from TEPCO (in Japanese). You could, at the time, cross reference those with the news releases out of Reuters and show that the Reuters news releases were incorrect. I have not been able to find that page for about 5 years now, which is really frustrating.
It will probably seem incredibly implausible to you, as I know you are very confident of what you are saying. However, I think if you actually talk to most Japanese people, they do not doubt the government with respect to the way Fukushima was handled the way you say they do. Or at least that is my experience.
Now there was a lot of reporting, and I wouldn't be surprised if some Tepco employees would be more frank and bring more information. I followed the official news only for the first week or two, and switched to different sources afterward so it might have been another tone as well after that.
PS: about the oversee reporting, the most I was hearing of were France and US news, and they were so clearly biased, some to extreme alarmism, and some were completely damage controlling the impact on their internal nuclear policy. I am with you on the general impression that the info was of very low quality all over the board internationally, while Japanese research groups had very clear and explicit reports day by day, week by week on what is going on and where.
That article is accurate to what I remember. I specifically remember that they did not say one way or the other until they had proof, which was about 2 months later. I wish I remember exactly the Japanese phrase that they were using. I should have written it down.
> the nuclear element of the "whole disaster" is just a minor component.
If you consider the tsunami "the whole disaster", yes; but if we restrict the issue to the nuclear accident, the Japanese government carries a lot of responsibility. Fukushima, iirc, was an aging and creaking reactor in a somewhat dangerous location, which should have been decommissioned a long time ago. When disaster struck, official reactions were very opaque to begin with - not as bad as the Soviet ones in Chernobyl but definitely not as open as they should have been. Raising radiation thresholds, as mentioned in the article, was particularly egregious; regardless of whether it may or may not be scientifically correct, it's not the right thing to do after something like this, because the optics are (rightly) damning.
So yeah, if the Japanese government had done the right thing by closing down Fukushima 10 years before the tsunami, the city would not have died as it did. That is "the whole disaster" for the area.
> Raising radiation thresholds, as mentioned in the article, was particularly egregious; regardless of whether it may or may not be scientifically correct ...
I might be reading this too literally, but if it is scientifically justifiable to raise the radiation thresholds, why not do it?
"The government should make decisions based on science" is a little controversial in some less-reputable quarters, but generally speaking it is a good idea. "Optics" do not take precedence when there is a risk of people are being kicked out of their homes or suffering economic losses for unscientific reasons.
> "Optics" do not take precedence when there is a risk of people are being kicked out
The duty of care should follow clear priorities: health first, property second. If your priority is really to care for people's health, it's better to be on the safer side, and follow the stricter approach you have on the table. By all means raise thresholds 10 years later "because studies", but not shortly after the accident - regardless of scientific truth, it smacks of interested carelessness while handling people's health. IIRC, people had already been mostly evacuated by that point anyway, it just felt like an attempt to save money and troubles by pushing them back in their homes.
Besides, by ignoring optics, they achieved the opposite effect: people distrusted the advice and are still not going back, years after. The government likely lost their trust for ever.
> By all means raise thresholds 10 years later "because studies", but not shortly after the accident
I don't speak Japanese, so there are obviously some assumptions I'm making, but ...
If there are thresholds then those thresholds are being used to stop people selling products or as guidance for things like the evacuation and exclusion zones. If they are not in line with the current best knowledge, then people will be losing their livelihoods and being ejected from their homes and barred from returning for no reason. That is a crisis and should certainly prompt immediate action.
Your complaint seems to be that they should have toughed it out with inappropriate regulation because that would instill a sense of confidence in government.
(1) That is unfair to the people they displaced.
(2) I have no way of checking how the Japanese feel about their government, but at some point we can't be that pessimistic about the public's ability to deal with reality. The truth has intrinsic value and should be supported by regulation.
If a law, regulation or standard is inappropriate the government should change it promptly. If the population are being superstitious, maybe work on improving the education system. Spread some knowledge.
> Your complaint seems to be that they should have toughed it out with inappropriate regulation
That regulation had in been in place for quite some time, clearly for a reason. To suddenly relax it in the middle of a crisis where such regulation could save lives at the expense of property, it's just not the right thing to do.
> (1) That is unfair to the people they displaced.
Are you being provocative on purpose? People had already been displaced and did not go back when they raised thresholds. The change was, in all likelihood, an attempt at making "little people" go about their lives so as to reduce the inconvenience on central government. After all, the worse it could happen was that cancer rates would go up in a few years, which someone else could deal with. That is unfair.
> At some point we can't be that pessimistic about the public's ability to deal with reality.
As proven by facts, you'll be optimistic at your peril. Good leadership (and hence government) is about empathy as much as it is about truth. This goes double if you've only just attempted to minimize and downplay a catastrophe, as TEPCO and Japanese authorities did right after the tsunami. How can you ask people to trust you in matters that advantage you more than them, when you've only just lied to them?
> If the population are being superstitious
Detecting corruption is not "superstition". This comment is downright callous towards people who lost their livelihood because of greed and incompetence by TEPCO and the Japanese government.
No, the disaster was caused by people who had ample evidence of tsunami activity in the area and didn't design the plant to cover that eventuality. Turkey Point near Miami is prone to hurricanes and has several of the same design problems.
Wasn't it the size of the tsunami that was the problem? It was designed for a smaller scale tsunami, but that's not what happened, thus the main power backup was destroyed.
That said, if memory serves me correct, they should have ensured proper backup power a long time before the tsunami, so a timely shutdown and following cooldown could happen without problems.
It was designed for a smaller tsunami, yes, but extensive studies of the area published before construction began suggested that a tsunami of the 2011 kind was possible, and the design was inadequate. The sea wall, for example, should have been twice as tall. TEPCO ignored the studies. They also took General Electric at their word that they should install all the electrical switchgear in the reactor basements (except unit 6), despite this being the lowest point of the plant, and despite previous warnings about flooding risks (and actual flooding occurring during heavy storms predicting exactly what eventually happened). The government oversight was woefully inadequate and basically rubber-stamped whatever TEPCO said was 'acceptable'. For a country so dependent on nuclear energy, the lack of regulation and deferring to the for-profit company has led to such a backlash that all Japan's nuclear plants were shut down and remain so. By ignoring warnings, experts and everything else in the pursuit of profit, TEPCO single-handedly killed the entire Japanese nuclear industry.
I'm sure for all the people developing cancer because of this 'minor component' it ain't a 'minor' component.
You can rebuild houses, you can re-grow crop, but you can't clean up nuclear waste effectively. (3 Miles Island took 14 years and $1b, there are radioactive boars roaming the forests of Bavaria, hundreds of miles away from Chernobyl)
And when some of my countrymen fled Fukushima area because of radioactivity, they came back home to Finland, where we have a higher natural background radiation level than the elevated radioactivity from which they fled.
When doing so, they took an airplane, where the radiation levels are even higher (though of course only for just a few hours, but certainly everyone who flies is exposed to the risk of cancer, and for those who get a cancer, it's also not a minor component).
Risks of radioactivity are blown out of all proportion when dicsussing application of nuclear power.
Risks have been carefully measured and assessed for most incidents. You can read up on the numbers elsewhere.
Doesn't mean you want to be living next to a nuclear power plant.
And it gives no comfort to people who have their health significantly affected because of the actions or inactions of nuclear power plant operators and governments.
And you are speculating on reasons of your countrymen you probably have no clue about. Did you talk to any of them ?
AFAIK there haven't been any cases of cancer linked to fukoshima, I may be wrong though - this article suggests there's no significant changes in thyroid cancer or birth defects[1]
Bear in mind over 15000 people died from the earthquake and tsunami
Yeah, and we were told the Chernobyl cloud never crossed the French border.
Until years later, oh wait, it did.
Governments everywhere have a long track record at taking action to mitigate their responsibility, not to actually take care of the population. When your life is on the line, it's sane to doubt.
This is conspiracy theory logic. If you assume the government is enacting a bad faith cover up, literally any position of ignorance can be justified.
If there was evidence that radiation from Chernobyl was causing a problem at a scale beyond what you'd expect of any large industrial project someone would have spotted it by now. Instead the numbers seem to be being revised downwards and the damage turns out to be mitigatable as more evidence comes in.
Also I've now read enough history to have a good overview on how people in charge deal with crisis. They are human, they have an agenda, and most of the time, the agenda is not the in favor of the ones they are ruling.
No you were no told that, you are just repeating mindlessly a false information. All the press and people that put that into the mouth of Dr Pellerin lost their trial in libel.
Locally yes, except you move, and you may not want to live your life carrying a Geiger counter, fearing for you life, for the next 10 years. Plus there is food, and water, and those are in flux. And then there are the things we don't know.
Is the radiation that scary? My understanding it that it is comparable to living in an area with lead in the water or eating a high-mercury diet of fish.
You can just do random spot checks and get plenty of data. One walk in a 10x background radiation park isn't going to do you any harm.
So far it seems that only one person of those who tried to rescue the nuclear plant, exposed to high radiations, has contracted cancer and we are not certain it is related.
The disaster caused by the Tsunami killed 15 000 people. Yeah, by all accounts you should be a lot more worried by the sea than nuclear.
If anyone's curious about why this is set up for a ceremony and was left like this (that is, why the timing was so coincidental), it's because the earthquake occurred on the afternoon of March 11, which was a public school graduation day around Japan.
Graduations occur in the morning, with students leaving soon after, so no ceremony would have been interrupted. In the afternoon, teachers generally start unwinding and slowly cleaning up the gym, so the earthquake would have taken place then and that explains why the graduation ceremony decorations and a few chairs/tarps are still out.
Another fearmongering article. EDIT: Google Images finds photos from James Galbraith who took them in early 2018 or earlier, not "8 years on" in the same locations. At first I thought the OP author just took his images and put them on the site with his watermark, but now I think he just took the same tour of exclusion zone and was shown the same carefully preserved locations. Either way it's unfair to characterise the entire "Fukushima" by a few locations specifically preserved to show tsunami/earthquake damage.
The photographs are stolen and uncredited from James Galbraith who took them in early 2018 or earlier, not "8 years on".
That's a very serious claim to make especially considering the author is a professional photographer. I don't see any indication these are stolen, it's just the same subject matter[1]. Maybe you shouldn't run around slandering people without offering proof?
I was curious so I tried to match the two photos. They're clearly taken at the same location, but from slightly different angles. The shadow is different too.
I remembered seeing the same images a year ago, so I used Google Images to find what I assumed to be the same images. I didn't know the OP is a photographer, I assumed it was just another clickbait blog, as is common these days. I updated my original post to remove the accusation.
Photo Stealer Police
16 maja, 2019 at 12:04 pm
These photos are stolen and uncredited from James Galbraith who took them in early 2018, if not earlier.
Did you write this on the photographer's web site?
In your link there is a photo of what looks to me like a school hall that could very easily be a cropped and color changed version of a photo included in the OP (/vice-versa).
It is amazing that both photographers took the same photos from almost the same location... but if you look closely the photo in the "photo essay" was actually taken from a slightly higher position. For example, you can see that the upper corners of the retracted basketball board overlap with the girders in one photo, but not in the other.
Ugh... shame on you. Where is the fearmongering? And no, the photos were not stolen.
The photographer has visited Fukushima on several occasions, you can see that on the rest of his site, and he appears himself on some of the earlier pictures.
The fearmongering is in the choice of the photos. The locations in the photos are not open to the public, you can only see them on a special tour of exclusion zone. They're preserved for posterity to show earthquake damage. The photographer is implying that it's how the life is now in the affected areas. He's not showing photos of the rebuilt Tomioka station, newly built J-Village station and reconstructed J-Village, the newly built hospital, school, kindergarten (opened this year), Sakura Mall Tomioka or anything that actually has to do with the life of people in this town. And I also visited this area in 2017 and have a bunch of pictures of destroyed buildings, but I'm not going around pretending that's all there is to look at.
"The efforts of thousands of workers and billions of dollars spent on decontaminating the contaminated areas are beginning to bear fruit."
This is hardly fearmongering.
Also from the article:
"That is why it’s important to document the consequences of a nuclear disaster. Many of the devastated, abandoned and contaminated buildings and interiors I have photographed no longer exist. They have been cleaned and restored or demolished. This is obviously right and necessary. My task, however, is different. I want to preserve as many testaments to the nuclear disaster and human tragedy as possible. Despite eight years having passed, there is still a huge number here, particularly in the red zones — the most radioactive ones that are still closed and where residents are not allowed to return. Although I could be wrong, there is no indication they ever will. Let them serve as a warning to future generation so they do not forget what the careless handling of nuclear energy can lead to."
This seems very right and proper. The author does not criticize nuclear energy as such. His aim was to "document the consequences", he has done so diligently and without "fearmongering". I am actually pro nuclear energy, but if you object to this - you are unreasonably complacent.
I myself downvoted it, a thing that I very rarely do on this website (at most twice a year, and I've been in here for quite some time). I hope others do the same.
Thanks for this.
For those interested in radioactive wastelands, the current TV series ‘Chernobyl’ seems very good, and so is the book ‘Chernobyl: The History of a Nuclear Catastrophe’ by Serhii Plokhy
There's a reason it sounds crazy. Several 'inherently safe' reactors overheated, cores melted, they exploded and spread 'inherently safe' radiation over large populated areas. That radiation caused the government to forbid people living there, and to spend tens of billions to try to clean up that widespread radiation. The hundred of billions in decommissioning costs of those reactors could have created liberating renewable energy and storage. Instead they're being wasted on fixing 'inherent safety'.
Had the exposed 100s of tons of stored-in-the-air waste fuel rods lost their cooling water, they might have melted into huge blobs of uncontrollable, unquenchable masses, throwing uncountable curies of radiation into the atmosphere. We all were very -lucky- that they didn't. And it was nothing but luck. Luck is not inherent.
The problem is when these dice are rolled, every living organism on the planet has to live with the outcome. Some call that an acceptable risk. Sounds crazy to me.
The reason is because humans don't think very well at the large scale, and tend to obsess over the small.
In this case, there are massive positives to nuclear and people focus in very hard on the literally-happened-twice-with-pre-CAD-designs accidents. These accidents are bad, but pale into insignificance compared to the good that these nuclear plants have done. And Fukushima was in the context of a disaster that was outside design spec, so it arguably does represent a significant improvement over Chernobyl. The design specs for nuclear plants have been continuously tightened, so I doubt it would have been possible with a modern design.
Everything about the Fukushima disaster suggests that the response has been a bit paranoid. Objectively speaking, the evacuation was overzealous and according to the comments here today the Japanese government decided that the standards around what was acceptable background radiation were too unreasonable so wound them back.
Compare Fukushima to global warming (which I am occasionally assured is an civilization level threat). The civilisation level threat is business as usual, the nuclear solution is a Fukushima-city level threat. Governments routinely sign up for risks that are more likely and more expensive than Fukushima; albeit more spread out in time. Given what the environmentalists are saying about Global Warming it is clearly the case that everyone who could should have switched to nuclear power back in the 90s.
Even now, when it is starting to look more obvious that solar is the path we will choose, it is still a pretty reasonable suggestion that the environmental costs of mining, producing and installing the solar panels will outweigh the damage done by a nuclear disaster, just in a less concentrated fashion. Given that the Chinese have demonstrated how quickly a new city can be built the argument in favor of solar is - ironically - mainly economic rather than environmental.
Michael Shellenberger is obviously pro-nuclear lobbyist, just look at the list of his articles, they're 100% all pushing the same narrative. That, on it's own, wouldn't be a huge problem, other energy options certainly have their share of equally zealous lobbyist - but I have a serious problem with his style of cherry-picking proofs and presenting them as conclusive and indisputable. You can't debunk an official position of a big organization like WHO just by quoting a single scientist who disagrees, scientists disagree all the time. And another big problem I have with his texts is his seemingly complete lack of any empathy for victims of these accidents. He's pushing this "well, shit happens, people die all the time" idea, treating it all like statistics, but completely ignores the fact that just because some firefighters die on duty here and there, doesn't mean it's OK to sacrifice 28 peoples' lives like Soviets did. Also not all deaths are the same, so you can't really compare it like that. Don't know about you, but I'd certainly rather die in a car crash, than die an agonizing death of radiation poisoning or cancer. It's one of the ugliest deaths IMHO. Even if you want to be purely pragmatic, again, these deaths take longer and cost much more so you can't just sum them all up like it all has the same impact on the society. Not to mention statements like "it is an easy cancer to treat, only 1% dies", like it's nothing to be diagnosed a freaking cancer, undergo radiation and chem therapy and all that shit. He's totally ignoring all the fear and uncertainty and emotional pain it brings, and then the actual pain from treatments, and how much it all costs and what this does to the whole family of the patient. Cancers are one of the most destructive diseases from the social perspective. This is what freaks people out about radiation, as well as the fact that effects are so long lasting and hard to fix. I'm personally not against nuclear power, I think it's very smart option worth considering, but IMO this is a wrong way to push for it. We need less propaganda and politics bullshit and more serious scientists dialog...
Yes, it sounds crazy, and it really is: how on earth can someone spin an uncontained failure like Chernobyl into a story about how "inherently safe" nuclear energy is?! It "only" killed 200 people (probably according to nuclear-friendly researchers, although no sources are quoted) so it must be safe!
"Safe" is a relative term. Chernobyl is the worst disaster in nuclear history by a huge margin and killed between 200 (the uncontroversial short term deaths) and 4000 (according to the most pessimistic cancer attribution methodologies you can find in the recent medical literature) people. Compared to the worst disasters in coal, gas or hydro, that is far from the worst outcome out there.
In addition, there are two major aspects one must take into account. First, some power generation methods kill people during normal operation (coal pollution kills millions as a matter of course), no disasters required. Second, the already improbable sequence of events that led to the meltdown of the RBMK reactor at Chernobyl is simply not possible in current nuclear power plants (even in the few remaining RBMK reactors still operating upgrades have fixed the issue).
Whatever you think of nuclear energy, the fact of the matter is we need power generation facilities and there is no such thing as perfect safety. Nuclear power should be evaluated in the context of the options we realistically have, not against some unattainable ideal of perfect, infallible safety. There are reasonable economic and technical arguments against nuclear power. Chernobyl isn't one of them.
I'm not saying the arguments in the article are wrong per se, but I did stumble over the one paragraph where I looked at the referenced source:
In fact, residents of Colorado, where radiation is higher because of high concentrations of uranium in the ground, enjoy some of the lowest cancer rates in the U.S.
It links to https://coloradosun.com/2019/02/04/colorado-skin-cancer-rate... titled Colorado has the highest per-capita rate of skin cancer, thanks to sunshine and high elevation, which does not mention Uranium at all. The article does mention a low percentage of people diagnosed with cancer, and a death rate declining faster than average. However, this gets attributed to factors like low obesity and smoking rates and above-average health care coverage. If that's accurate, the article doesn't really allow us to come to any conclusions regarding background radiation effects on cancer rates except that they are less impactful than smoking...
I'm happy to see you already got an answer :) Edit: Oh, it's gone now? It was a comment disputing the Colorado reference. There are more comments above.
For what it's worth, I smelled what's up right when he talked about chernobyl right below the The Shocking Truth subheadline. The way the deaths are calculated is highly disputed, and he does not reflect that properly, instead presenting the pro-nuclear viewpoint as truth.
I (temporarily) removed it because I claimed the referenced article only talked about cancer death rates instead of cancer rates. That was a mistake on my part.
The grandparent isn't claiming there are false statements in the article; they're pointing out how the article's author has a pro-nuclear agenda and may only explain the disasters in a positive light to further a goal.
It's too black and white to see a controversial debate in "true" vs "false" statements. I mean "vaccines may have serious side effects" is not a false statement, however if it's the only statement it omits other also true statements such as "measles may cause serious complications" and the numbers / statistics comparing the two.
The argument is never that the disasters are a positive, they are disasters.
The argument is that the disasters typically demonstrate that even when things go horribly wrong nuclear is still better than business as usual (once considered in an appropariate global context). Business as usual is basically a disaster every year, when compared to nuclear.
The economic costs of mining coal/petroleum alone are catastrophic if there was a way to avoid it (eg, by mining uranium instead, which requires a fraction of the effort). Extraction is a huge waste of time and resources assuming that there is a way to avoid doing it. All the personpower and capital could be deployed to doing other things if it wasn't being used to dig big holes.
Because it is on his interest to present the facts (that can be checked) the support nuclear power. Just like an anti nuclear article will present facts ( that can be checked) against it.
By reading these two sources I can get both sides of the story and see the arguments for and against.
It's admittedly how show debates work, taking two extreme viewpoints and pitting them against each other. But in questions like this it's not a good way - clear propaganda does not present facts, it manipulates them. This only confuses and makes it impossible to get the proper arguments. It's better to work with sources that have no inherent motivation to lie.
A tangent, but this mindset of "there are always two valid sides at the extremes and we need to present both" is said to be a huge burden on the reporting about politics in the US, it makes the most extreme viewpoints visible and supported the rise of the fascists in the GOP. I agree.
There's no argument for the safety of nuclear to be had. With an unacceptable failure rate for existing plants, very costly new "safe" designs and lower and lower cost for reneweables, nuclear is quickly becoming obsolete.
It shocks me that so many (loud) proponents of nuclear power plants are still around - especially on HN. I wish you all would have lived in Europe at the time of Chernobyl.
Yet all data available on long term safety of energy production contradicts vehemently your point of view. Nuclear is by far safer than everything else, even when we include Chernobyl. Look at stats.
"Electricity produced from natural gas has the lowest risk of the 11 technologies (five
conventional, six non-conventional) It is a factor of about two lower than the next highest,
nuclear power Third is a non-conventional system, ocean thermal, which can convert the
temperature differences of ocean layers into electricity. Most other non-conventional systems
have far higher risk. However, the highest of all are coal and oil, with risk about 400 times
that of natural gas."
> How can unconventional technologies like wind or solar thermal (the "power tower" concept)have substantial public risk? The answer is simple. The production of the metals needed in many unconventional technologies requires that coal is burned
I get the feeling that this study from the 70s doesn't have all the facts that are relevant today.
For some reason its the ones with all the expensive equipment that get me. The MRI machine, rows of motorcycles - all presumably instant scrap. Obviously the human loss is greater, but that's not really the focus of these photos.
Great comments in this thread. Let's also not forget Fukushima is still pouring radiation into the ocean, and that the melted core is unreachable for cleanup.
