Japan's Abe govt,ministry and agency insist "Safe of Fukushima crops"
but They themselves avoid to eat it.
and They treat Unrest against radiation as "prejudice".
not only nuclear policy,
Japanese authorities are " Corporations First" historically.
it have caused innumerable pollution disease and nuclear disaster.
but They have learned nothing from past failure.
but They themselves avoid to eat it.
and They treat Unrest against radiation as "prejudice".
not only nuclear policy,
Japanese authorities are " Corporations First" historically.
it have caused innumerable pollution disease and nuclear disaster.
but They have learned nothing from past failure.
Nuclear Policy of Japan that is full of evasion of responsibility,
it is 'banality of the evil' itself.
it is 'banality of the evil' itself.
1
Problematic reconstruction policy and doubtful nuclear safety
by Abe government who worship pre-war fascism regime "Great Japan Empire".
They understate cost,contamination or risk of nuclear disaster from now on,
and overstate safety.
Damage by nuclear disaster in western Japan will beyond Fukushima disaster.
Japanese Judges who suspended restart of Nuclear plants were demoted.
Lack of Safety First,
Revival of Safety Myth,
Japan's Nuclear Policy is one of symbols of Japanese Totalitarianism.
by Abe government who worship pre-war fascism regime "Great Japan Empire".
They understate cost,contamination or risk of nuclear disaster from now on,
and overstate safety.
Damage by nuclear disaster in western Japan will beyond Fukushima disaster.
Japanese Judges who suspended restart of Nuclear plants were demoted.
Lack of Safety First,
Revival of Safety Myth,
Japan's Nuclear Policy is one of symbols of Japanese Totalitarianism.
Nuclear disaster and Abe government's politics have divided sufferers,suffering area and Japanase social.
Almost Upper executives of Present Japanese Nuclear Regulation Agency are former economical-industrial ministry that thrust Nuclear Power Stations.
Independency is nowhere in nuclear regulation of Japan.
this is same situation as before Fukushima Disaster.
Independency is nowhere in nuclear regulation of Japan.
this is same situation as before Fukushima Disaster.
1
"Scientific facts" in Japan had been distorted by Authorities' "Profit First" historically.
Japan seems to be used for "PR" that as if "nuclear disaster is not dangerous".
Japan seems to be used for "PR" that as if "nuclear disaster is not dangerous".
1
Japanese government has ignored recommendation from UN human rights Council about Radioactivity at Fukushima.
2
This article clearly shows how all the precautions taken, and other decisions and actions, have served to *increase* fears of nuclear (the author being an example).
The industry and govt. know how afraid the public is of nuclear, so they respond by taking more and more precautions against radiation exposure (tightening dose limits even further, excessive precautions like having everyone walk around in isolation suits, etc...). And yet, it is clear that these actions have the exact opposite effect. When people see all these precautions and actions being taken, they conclude that all of it must be extremely dangerous, i.e., that "radiation" is uniquely dangerous; qualitatively more so than any other form of pollution.
All this despite the statistics and known facts, i.e., that coal plants regulatory cause thousands of deaths, whereas even nuclear meltdowns cause few if any. If they toured a coal plant, would they also be taking similar precautions, and wearing such suits, etc... If not, why not?
The industry and govt. know how afraid the public is of nuclear, so they respond by taking more and more precautions against radiation exposure (tightening dose limits even further, excessive precautions like having everyone walk around in isolation suits, etc...). And yet, it is clear that these actions have the exact opposite effect. When people see all these precautions and actions being taken, they conclude that all of it must be extremely dangerous, i.e., that "radiation" is uniquely dangerous; qualitatively more so than any other form of pollution.
All this despite the statistics and known facts, i.e., that coal plants regulatory cause thousands of deaths, whereas even nuclear meltdowns cause few if any. If they toured a coal plant, would they also be taking similar precautions, and wearing such suits, etc... If not, why not?
1
If this is a an article about Fukushima, it is about an accident that occured many years ago and in a reactor that was built in a danger zone. Newer reactors would not be constructed nor have the shorcomings of the Fukushima plant-the main one of which was that it was built in what was known-two hundred years ago- in Japan-to be a flood danger zone , subject to sudden inundation, tsunami & earthquake. Stone signs with careful instructions concerning where NOT to build, were placed in the affected areas subject to floods . The Japanese, disregarding their own history, still decided to build entire cities and a nuclear plant in what was known to be an historically severe danger zone. As if single family housing had been constructed atop a rail line in the USA. There might not be a train for months or a year but, eventually, a train would come crashing through unprotected houses in it's way. The residents would be infuriated,(those who lived), that anyone could be so foolish as to build a house right on a railroad track.
This is effectively what Japan did and now that the Nuclear plant has "melted down" are trying to shift blame for it's very presence on the "inherent riskiness of all nuclear energy". In fact, atomic power is the safest, cleanest and most dependable form of industrial energy production extant. Japanese government and construction technique of the 60's are the actual culprits responsible for placing so much construction in harms way.
This is effectively what Japan did and now that the Nuclear plant has "melted down" are trying to shift blame for it's very presence on the "inherent riskiness of all nuclear energy". In fact, atomic power is the safest, cleanest and most dependable form of industrial energy production extant. Japanese government and construction technique of the 60's are the actual culprits responsible for placing so much construction in harms way.
2
It is incredibly difficult to get hard data on radiation dosage danger, because people panic, and panic itself can be a problem. However, lies and obfuscation are, in my opinion, worse.
The author here states that 260 uSievert/hour, if you stood outside for 16 days would increase your chance of cancer. Actually, I think the model is that all radiation increases your chance of cancer. I don't know at what point it becomes statistically significant, but an abdominal CT scan is 7mSievert, and you would get the equivalent of one of those every day. There is risk there.
For infants, the risk of radiation is much higher, and I found a journal article stating that one head CT scan for infants (a lower dosage by the way since they are smaller) increases lifetime risk of cancer by 0.1%. That's obviously much higher than for an adult, but note that the Japanese government was saying it was safe to stay in towns where the dosage was 25 microSievert/hour, where every few days, an infant could be getting the equivalent dosage.
I would like to know the basis for any statements you are making as a reporter, who told you what is "safe". If I were a reporter, I would start with absolute dosages and risks from medical studies. Then I would ask a radiologist to evaluate my increased risk of cancer from being there.
The author here states that 260 uSievert/hour, if you stood outside for 16 days would increase your chance of cancer. Actually, I think the model is that all radiation increases your chance of cancer. I don't know at what point it becomes statistically significant, but an abdominal CT scan is 7mSievert, and you would get the equivalent of one of those every day. There is risk there.
For infants, the risk of radiation is much higher, and I found a journal article stating that one head CT scan for infants (a lower dosage by the way since they are smaller) increases lifetime risk of cancer by 0.1%. That's obviously much higher than for an adult, but note that the Japanese government was saying it was safe to stay in towns where the dosage was 25 microSievert/hour, where every few days, an infant could be getting the equivalent dosage.
I would like to know the basis for any statements you are making as a reporter, who told you what is "safe". If I were a reporter, I would start with absolute dosages and risks from medical studies. Then I would ask a radiologist to evaluate my increased risk of cancer from being there.
3
But Dov, the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model, while useful to set safety goals, is quit false in reality. I am pleased to say that the "Times" got it right in this article. To date, there is no supportable data that shows any added cancer risk from short term exposures under about 100mSv.
To learn more:
http://radiationeffects.org
Then read the Journal at:
http://dose-response.org
To learn more:
http://radiationeffects.org
Then read the Journal at:
http://dose-response.org
2
According to the conservative, pessimistic LNT model, which (at a minimum) gives an upper-bond answer, the risk of cancer from 16 straight days at 260 uSv/hr would equate to a cancer risk of 0.4%. However, as Dolf points out, many if not most scientists would dispute the accuracy of that number, and would say the effect is more likely to be zero. And again, we're talking about literally standing there for 16 straight days (an unrealistic assumption). That is, nobody, even workers, would be getting anything like that.
Finally, not only do most scientists disagree with the linear model, or the even more misleading characterization of "no safe dose", but you could ask the same questions about how "safe" other sources of exposure are. Is driving a car "safe" (due to car pollution, let alone crash risks). Given the presence of coal pollution, is living *anywhere* in the US "safe"? Given EPA statistics showing almost 10,000 ANNUAL deaths in the US alone from coal pollution (vs. ~zero from US nuclear, and ~zero even from Fukushima??).
Is the same old stuff. Profound prejudices and double standards against anything nuclear, and giving much larger risks from other sources (other industries and endeavors) a pass, pretty much.
Finally, not only do most scientists disagree with the linear model, or the even more misleading characterization of "no safe dose", but you could ask the same questions about how "safe" other sources of exposure are. Is driving a car "safe" (due to car pollution, let alone crash risks). Given the presence of coal pollution, is living *anywhere* in the US "safe"? Given EPA statistics showing almost 10,000 ANNUAL deaths in the US alone from coal pollution (vs. ~zero from US nuclear, and ~zero even from Fukushima??).
Is the same old stuff. Profound prejudices and double standards against anything nuclear, and giving much larger risks from other sources (other industries and endeavors) a pass, pretty much.
attitudes by Japanese authorities against sufferers is evasion of the responsibility as same as deception against past pollution disease.
They choose pro-government expert and deny relation between industries and disease.
Sufferers can do nothing but expensive longterm Trial.
Inconvenient facts to Japanese Nuclear Industries are often concealed in Japan.
They choose pro-government expert and deny relation between industries and disease.
Sufferers can do nothing but expensive longterm Trial.
Inconvenient facts to Japanese Nuclear Industries are often concealed in Japan.
1
Since the JapGov created most of the sufferers, perhaps you are right.
"Inconvenient facts"... But inconvenient lies about non-existant effects are spread far and wide.
"Inconvenient facts"... But inconvenient lies about non-existant effects are spread far and wide.
Yeah, how about the thousands-of-times larger real tangible effects from all that coal generation that Japan has decided to use instead of nuclear. Dolf is right. Not the accident itself, but the actions taken in response to it (by govt. and others) have victimized these people.
2
"After about five hours touring the plant, all four of us had absorbed 30 microsieverts or less of radiation, about .06 percent of the annual allowable dose for workers."
Here, the "annual allowable dose for workers" is assumed to be 50 mSv, which is the allowed does for specially trained nuclear energy workers (NEWs). It should be noted that not every worker on-site are nuclear energy workers, and for general public and workers that are not specially trained, the annual limit is only 1 mSv - making the percentage 3% instead of 0.06%. It is a bit misleading to use the NEW limit.
Here, the "annual allowable dose for workers" is assumed to be 50 mSv, which is the allowed does for specially trained nuclear energy workers (NEWs). It should be noted that not every worker on-site are nuclear energy workers, and for general public and workers that are not specially trained, the annual limit is only 1 mSv - making the percentage 3% instead of 0.06%. It is a bit misleading to use the NEW limit.
1
Not misleading at all. The general public is not a whit more susceptible to the effects of radiation than "specially trained nuclear energy workers", and the natural background radiation to which residents of Denver, CO are exposed is twelve times that of your arbitrary "general public" limit (12.4 mSv):
http://isis-online.org/risk/tab7
Please stop this nonsense.
http://isis-online.org/risk/tab7
Please stop this nonsense.
2
She is probably referring to occupational radiation dosage limit per year for the 50 mSv and 1 mSv values.
Actually, Daisy, there are differences between limits and goals. The difference is more which direction you are coming from and whether you have agreed to partake. The 1mSv/y goal is where clean-up efforts stop. And it is ridiculously strict. The basic internationaly recommended goal for clean-up is actually 20mSv/y provided the source of food and beverage also meet certain goals.
In this case, the reporter chose to attend and ply her trade in the area so she is subject to the LIMIT discussed.
In this case, the reporter chose to attend and ply her trade in the area so she is subject to the LIMIT discussed.
Though huge natural disaster is increasing in Japan,Earthquake-proof designed Nuclear Plants is nowhere in Present Japan.
Power supply in Japan is enough without Nuclear energy.
Though whole of Fukushima disaster is not clear yet,
Problematic Safety standard had been made,and have been used.
its safety standard is far inferior to US' standard.
Japan's nuclear regulation without independency let power company themselves investigate Defect of reactor part or facilities.
Power supply in Japan is enough without Nuclear energy.
Though whole of Fukushima disaster is not clear yet,
Problematic Safety standard had been made,and have been used.
its safety standard is far inferior to US' standard.
Japan's nuclear regulation without independency let power company themselves investigate Defect of reactor part or facilities.
Nuclear power plants in Japan are already earthquake proof. The Fukushima Dai-Ichi reactors all shut down as designed during the earthquake and things were going just fine until the tsunami shorted out the Emergency Deisel Generating System. If the EDGS had been waterproofed as will as it had been quake proofed, none of that ould have happened. Indeed, Onagwa, which saw greater quaking and a higher tsunami WAS tsunami proofed as well as it was quake proofed and rode out the event with no problems.
Sure, the power supply can keep the lights on. Using fossil fuels, which are thousands of times worse. Perhaps THE main lesson of Fukushima is that the consequences of even a worst-case meltdown are orders of magnitude less than we thought. What had always been billed as the ultimate disaster humanity can face cause, what, zero deaths?? (Few if any, with any increase in disease rates being far too small to measure.) Frankly I'm surprised that people aren't outraged about being lied to.
So, the only significant release of pollution in nuclear power's history, outside the old Soviet Union, caused few if any deaths. Nuclear also has negligible global warming impact. By contrast, fossil power generation (worldwide) has caused on the order of 10 million deaths over the ~50 years nuclear has been around (from pollution), and is a leading cause of global warming. As I said, thousands of times worse. And yet, Japan has decided to use fossil fuels, even coal, in place of nuclear. Utterly indefensible.
So, the only significant release of pollution in nuclear power's history, outside the old Soviet Union, caused few if any deaths. Nuclear also has negligible global warming impact. By contrast, fossil power generation (worldwide) has caused on the order of 10 million deaths over the ~50 years nuclear has been around (from pollution), and is a leading cause of global warming. As I said, thousands of times worse. And yet, Japan has decided to use fossil fuels, even coal, in place of nuclear. Utterly indefensible.
Sorry Kuze, but you are quite wrong. Every reactor in Japan is quake proof as proven by the fact that NO reactor in Japan had a problem due to the worst case quake ever recorded in Japan. It was the tsunami that was the issue and Onagawa, which saw a higher tsunami than Fukushima Dai-Ichi, came through it just fine.
The power supply in Jpan is driving Japan into great debt. It is a bad situation that can be made well by returning the nuclear power that was closed due to thoughtless fear.
The long term effects of Fukushima are quite well understood. The effects from radiation have been and will continue to be negligable. The effects of fearmongering have been and will also continue to be, significant.
Your knowledge of Japanese nuclear regulation is dated. The NRA has become like the US NRC and is an independant REGULATORY agency, unlike the advisory agency its predecessor had been.
The power supply in Jpan is driving Japan into great debt. It is a bad situation that can be made well by returning the nuclear power that was closed due to thoughtless fear.
The long term effects of Fukushima are quite well understood. The effects from radiation have been and will continue to be negligable. The effects of fearmongering have been and will also continue to be, significant.
Your knowledge of Japanese nuclear regulation is dated. The NRA has become like the US NRC and is an independant REGULATORY agency, unlike the advisory agency its predecessor had been.
I am grateful that this NY Times article shows the depth of trouble, and the horror of the content of Tepco's Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Facility. If one were to look for a definition of "Ungodly Mess", no doubt the definition would be: "Fukushima". I applaud your Journalists who went there to cover this story.
How many thousands of gallons of ground water, seeping through the broken structure, across nuclear fuel rods, and directly into the Pacific Ocean - on a daily, ongoing basis - how many does it take before someone "in charge" can say; "Nuclear Power is NOT safe"? How can anyone be crazy enough to believe that they can store/protect Plutonium (highly toxic nuclear waste) for it's poisonous capacity of 250 to 500 Thousand years? That is beyond fantasy. That is greed, personified.
Like so many medicines, and scientific "achievements" of the 1940'2 and 50's, too many of those "medicines" turned out to have terrible, cancerous side effects - and too many scientific "marvels" became Earth-raping monsters.
If photographs of child-birth defects from the families in Hiroshima don't open your eyes, I don't know what will.
Nuclear Power is dangerous beyond belief - too dangerous to be allowed to use, at all.
How many thousands of gallons of ground water, seeping through the broken structure, across nuclear fuel rods, and directly into the Pacific Ocean - on a daily, ongoing basis - how many does it take before someone "in charge" can say; "Nuclear Power is NOT safe"? How can anyone be crazy enough to believe that they can store/protect Plutonium (highly toxic nuclear waste) for it's poisonous capacity of 250 to 500 Thousand years? That is beyond fantasy. That is greed, personified.
Like so many medicines, and scientific "achievements" of the 1940'2 and 50's, too many of those "medicines" turned out to have terrible, cancerous side effects - and too many scientific "marvels" became Earth-raping monsters.
If photographs of child-birth defects from the families in Hiroshima don't open your eyes, I don't know what will.
Nuclear Power is dangerous beyond belief - too dangerous to be allowed to use, at all.
1
The answer to "how many gallons"... is "effectively ZERO" since they completed the seaside wall last year. Now they pump up the ground water, clean it of all dissolved radioisotopes and after testing by three independant labs and approval by the fisheries representative, dump the deionized (i.e., cleaner than distilled) water into the ocean.
2
What would it take? Actual statistics showing that nuclear is dangerous, as opposed to being the safest of all sources. You know, like evidence that Fukushima, a worst-case meltdown of three large reactors (and non-Soviet nuclear's only release of pollution, ever) will result in more loss of like than that inflicted DAILY by fossil fueled power generation (it kills on the order of 1000 people every single day, worldwide).
2
Instead of consulting your "security" advisor regarding the concerns of radiation exposure at Fukushima (or even Grand Central Terminal in New York City), you should consult an expert in radiation - a Certified Health Physicist. Health Physicists are experts in radiation and radiation safety. Security consultants presumably are experts in security about which the radiation photons know little.
3
Experts in ionizing radiation do not lump together photons with beta particles and neutrons, about which Health Physicists apparently know little.
Fukushima Lessons to be Learned (LTBL)
What were the lessons to be learned (LTBL) from Fukushima?
Is there a list somewhere? Who has it?
Lesson to be Learned #1 (LTBL1): An event that can happen to one unit at a site can happen to all of the units at the site, especially when the causation is common.
(Previously it was assumed that an event would only happen at one unit.)
Lesson to be Learned #2 (LTBL2): A natural event that happened before can happen again.
(Evidence of a previous tsunami above the elevation of vital equipment was ignored.)
Lesson to be Learned #3 (LTBL3): A natural event is accompanied by other natural events and phenomena.
(The Fukushima units were designed for a certain severity of earthquake, but not for the tsunamis that were known to be concomitant with it. The Fukushima design was based on a 1960 Chilean tsunami, not on the knowable effects of a design basis earthquake .)
Lesson to be Learned #4 (LTBL4): Ground water and surface water pick up contamination when their flows encounter it . Most, if not all, nuclear power plant situations are like Fukushima Daiichi in this regard. This issue is not yet addressed.
(The Fukushima plants were not designed for the groundwater and/or surface water situation. This resulted in the infamous “Ice Wall” and in radioactive water flowing into the ocean.)
What are the other lessons to be learned (LTBL)?
What were the lessons to be learned (LTBL) from Fukushima?
Is there a list somewhere? Who has it?
Lesson to be Learned #1 (LTBL1): An event that can happen to one unit at a site can happen to all of the units at the site, especially when the causation is common.
(Previously it was assumed that an event would only happen at one unit.)
Lesson to be Learned #2 (LTBL2): A natural event that happened before can happen again.
(Evidence of a previous tsunami above the elevation of vital equipment was ignored.)
Lesson to be Learned #3 (LTBL3): A natural event is accompanied by other natural events and phenomena.
(The Fukushima units were designed for a certain severity of earthquake, but not for the tsunamis that were known to be concomitant with it. The Fukushima design was based on a 1960 Chilean tsunami, not on the knowable effects of a design basis earthquake .)
Lesson to be Learned #4 (LTBL4): Ground water and surface water pick up contamination when their flows encounter it . Most, if not all, nuclear power plant situations are like Fukushima Daiichi in this regard. This issue is not yet addressed.
(The Fukushima plants were not designed for the groundwater and/or surface water situation. This resulted in the infamous “Ice Wall” and in radioactive water flowing into the ocean.)
What are the other lessons to be learned (LTBL)?
5
Lesson to be Learned #5(LTBL5): An accident at one nuclear power plant can reveal unacceptable weaknesses at all nuclear power plants.
(After the Fukushima event, most, if not all, commercial nuclear power plants worldwide made mandatory and/or voluntary upgrades to correct weaknesses that pre-existed the Fukushima event.)
Lesson to be Learned #6 (LTBL6): The absence of concerns by corporate, industry, national, and international oversight and regulatory bodies is not evidence of competence, integrity, compliance, or transparency.
(Before the earthquake and tsunami oversight and regulatory bodies were silent or approving of the TEPCO situation.)
Lesson to be Learned #7 (LTBL7): An accident at one nuclear power plant results in revelations that many nuclear power plants are not in compliance with pre-existing regulatory requirements.
(After the Fukushima event many nuclear power plants were found to have nonconforming flood barriers. One egregious case is Arkansas Nuclear One, at which nonconforming flood barriers were found even after they had been checked pursuant to post-Fukushima requirements.)
(After the Fukushima event, most, if not all, commercial nuclear power plants worldwide made mandatory and/or voluntary upgrades to correct weaknesses that pre-existed the Fukushima event.)
Lesson to be Learned #6 (LTBL6): The absence of concerns by corporate, industry, national, and international oversight and regulatory bodies is not evidence of competence, integrity, compliance, or transparency.
(Before the earthquake and tsunami oversight and regulatory bodies were silent or approving of the TEPCO situation.)
Lesson to be Learned #7 (LTBL7): An accident at one nuclear power plant results in revelations that many nuclear power plants are not in compliance with pre-existing regulatory requirements.
(After the Fukushima event many nuclear power plants were found to have nonconforming flood barriers. One egregious case is Arkansas Nuclear One, at which nonconforming flood barriers were found even after they had been checked pursuant to post-Fukushima requirements.)
1
Lesson to be Learned #5 (LTBL5): not one death due to radiation has been confirmed as a result of the second worst nuclear accident in history, confirming nuclear energy as the safest method of generating non-intermittent electricity.
Ordered by priority, this should be LTBL1.
Ordered by priority, this should be LTBL1.
2
1. Put your emergency generators on the roof.
2. Have a real plan for station blackout not just some neglected batteries in the basement.
3. Make sure the pumps and switchgear you need to deliver coolimg water from the ocean are waterproof/submersible.
4. Develop reactor technology that works on an automatic passive shutdown basis.
5. Have a strong and I independent regulatory regime. Regulatory "capture" can not be tolerated. Work to instill a safety culture throughout Industry and organizations.
6. Keep safety concerns regarding radiation and nuclear power I. perspective. Their have been zero deaths and no cases of radiation poisoning as a result of the incident. Contrast that with the number of people killed by coal power emissions or even the number of people who die while installing rooftop solar systems.
2. Have a real plan for station blackout not just some neglected batteries in the basement.
3. Make sure the pumps and switchgear you need to deliver coolimg water from the ocean are waterproof/submersible.
4. Develop reactor technology that works on an automatic passive shutdown basis.
5. Have a strong and I independent regulatory regime. Regulatory "capture" can not be tolerated. Work to instill a safety culture throughout Industry and organizations.
6. Keep safety concerns regarding radiation and nuclear power I. perspective. Their have been zero deaths and no cases of radiation poisoning as a result of the incident. Contrast that with the number of people killed by coal power emissions or even the number of people who die while installing rooftop solar systems.
5
Japanese mainstream media emphasize "Threat of Natural disaster",
but They avoid to mention "Threat of Nuclear disaster".
Japanese authorities ignore warning from Seismologists,Volcanologists or Geophysicists who oppose restart of Nuclear Plants.
moreover,They ignore wind direction or actual state of contamination,
and spread lie that "outside of 30km from Broken Nuclear Plant is safe".
Japanese Nuclear policy already restarted 2 Nuclear Power Stations near immense active fault belt,
and intend to restart Superannuated Nucleaer Plants "Genkai" that is located on windward of Large city where over 2 millions people live.
but Reliability of evacuation plans are never investigated to lower "hurdle" of restart of Nuclear Plants.
Japan's Major Power Companies are given grace period about safety measure from Nuclear Regulation Agency.
They ignore risk that huge natural disaster occur before finish of safety measure.
there is no independency and neutrality.
Nuclear regulation of Japan is loosened year by year.
Abe Government says "restart Nuclear plants that safety was authenticated".
but Japan Nuclear Regulation Commitee repeat that "We do not guarantee Safe" "We do not judge Safe".
Japam's Nuclear policy is still full of deception,excuse and evasion of responsibility,
and divert their eyes from Worst Case scinario as before.
but They avoid to mention "Threat of Nuclear disaster".
Japanese authorities ignore warning from Seismologists,Volcanologists or Geophysicists who oppose restart of Nuclear Plants.
moreover,They ignore wind direction or actual state of contamination,
and spread lie that "outside of 30km from Broken Nuclear Plant is safe".
Japanese Nuclear policy already restarted 2 Nuclear Power Stations near immense active fault belt,
and intend to restart Superannuated Nucleaer Plants "Genkai" that is located on windward of Large city where over 2 millions people live.
but Reliability of evacuation plans are never investigated to lower "hurdle" of restart of Nuclear Plants.
Japan's Major Power Companies are given grace period about safety measure from Nuclear Regulation Agency.
They ignore risk that huge natural disaster occur before finish of safety measure.
there is no independency and neutrality.
Nuclear regulation of Japan is loosened year by year.
Abe Government says "restart Nuclear plants that safety was authenticated".
but Japan Nuclear Regulation Commitee repeat that "We do not guarantee Safe" "We do not judge Safe".
Japam's Nuclear policy is still full of deception,excuse and evasion of responsibility,
and divert their eyes from Worst Case scinario as before.
4
How many additional deaths have already resulted from the plants being shut down? It's more then 0.
1
Please check out hiroshimasyndrome.com for accurate information regarding radiation, nuclear power, and specificially about the situation at Fukushima.
1
It's probably thousands. Also, a massive CO2 increase (not like global warming is a serious problem or anything), and a huge amount of money spent on expensive imported fossil fuels (about equal to the total projected cost of the accident itself).
1
to defend Nuclear industries,
Japan's Abe government still understate Radioactive contamination,and deny existence of Radiation disease at genaral public.
but Thyroid cancer is increasing in eastern japan.
Responsible people about Fukushima disaster do not take responsibility yet.
Nobody are banished,
Nobody are punished,
Japan's nuclear policy is still optimistic as same as before Fukushima disaster.
Japan's Abe government still understate Radioactive contamination,and deny existence of Radiation disease at genaral public.
but Thyroid cancer is increasing in eastern japan.
Responsible people about Fukushima disaster do not take responsibility yet.
Nobody are banished,
Nobody are punished,
Japan's nuclear policy is still optimistic as same as before Fukushima disaster.
5
kuze, the radiation level at Miramisoma Park, 9 miles north of Fukushima-Daiichi and home to 56,000 (2016), is exactly the same as my kitchen in Los Angeles, CA this morning (.2 microsieverts/hour).
You have only to be afraid of your own imagination.
You have only to be afraid of your own imagination.
4
Yep..."safe nuclear energy..."
Not!
Not!
4
Despite the accidents, nuclear power is the safEST energy source around. Heck, WIND power has already killed more civilians than nuclear power while not providing near as much energy let lone RELIABLE energy.
1
They are not "face masks." In the photo of MsRich and Hisako, and the photo of Ms. Shastry, you are wearing paper surgical masks. You will notice in the photo of Ms. Shastry there is a gap between the shop of her nose and the skin of her face. That is an entry point to the lungs of any ionizing radiation in the atmosphere, including that entrapped on any particulate.
In the photos showing the pre-entry to the spent-fuel rod storage area, the visitors are wearing half-mask respirators. But were the visitors tested to make sure that the respirators sealed with the skin of their faces to ensure that zero radioactive particulate entered their respiratory systems?
As an industrial hygienist certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene, I'd like to suggest that NYT correspondents do a better job of preparation to protect their own health and safety, and also to learn the proper lingo of health and safety before presenting an article like this to the public.
In the photos showing the pre-entry to the spent-fuel rod storage area, the visitors are wearing half-mask respirators. But were the visitors tested to make sure that the respirators sealed with the skin of their faces to ensure that zero radioactive particulate entered their respiratory systems?
As an industrial hygienist certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene, I'd like to suggest that NYT correspondents do a better job of preparation to protect their own health and safety, and also to learn the proper lingo of health and safety before presenting an article like this to the public.
7
All the lax approach to safety as you point out suggests to me that no one was really worried about safety, leaving me wondering if they realized there was nothing to fear; that it was merely a demonstration to hype radiophobia FUD.
I can't imagine being forced to flee my home and all its contents....then knowing it is standing but unable to return.
Great report.
Great report.
1
As it turns out, approximately 1,600 residents of Fukushima Prefecture (mostly elderly) died as a result of being forced to flee their homes. Exactly zero deaths have been attributed to radiation released by the plant.
Panic - and ignorance - are the real culprits, and the Times performs no service by feeding it.
Panic - and ignorance - are the real culprits, and the Times performs no service by feeding it.
2
it is criticized, but They will ignore criticism.