The Panic Over Fukushima

"It is remarkable that so much attention has been given to the radioactive release from Fukushima, considering that the direct death and destruction from the tsunami was enormously greater. Perhaps the reason for the focus on the reactor meltdown is that it is a solvable problem; in contrast, there is no plausible way to protect Japan from 50-foot tsunamis."

It's amazing to be able to take such an arrogant attitude. The outrage regarding the Fukushima disaster is exactly that there would have been no fallout if not for several human errors leading up to the disaster -- and the lies and misinformation following the disaster. There is a complete and justified lack of trust in the government and the industry -- and no indication that there will be no further accidents -- whether induced by natural disasters or just poor maintenance.

So yes, over engineering does indeed work -- and is a necessary measure when dealing with potential radioactive fallout -- but even then accidents do happen. I've seen people claim that the fact that human error is behind this and other accidents "proves" that nuclear power is safe -- this is of course rubbish. Human error will always be a big risk factor in any engineering project.

The author also ignores the fact that Japan has done an unprecedented job of mitigating the damage tsunamis can do -- but that the effort had been scaled towards what was assumed to be the likely threat -- a tsunami smaller than the one associated with this earthquake. He implies that this effort was for nothing -- which isn't true. It simply wasn't effective along large parts of the coast as it should (could) have been.

Consciously allowing a potentially huge risk -- the long time destruction of farmland and populated areas by radioactive contamination -- versus not mitigating all possible natural disasters and risks of war -- is a false dichotomy.

The problem with nuclear power isn't that a lot of people might die from cancer -- it's that generations might be affected by a single accident -- and will be burdened with containing spent fuel for longer than human civilization have existed.

Finally, if it turns out that geothermal power is a viable alternative -- then it should be possible to fulfil Japan's energy need without any risk of nuclear fallout.

> I can't see what test Fukushima passed

They had a disaster much bigger than was planned for, multiple failures, both human and machine and even so nobody died from it. At worst, some might eventually succumb to cancer someday.

But it's radiation, so people are still more scared of it than the tsunami that killed everyone. I mean, nobody is talking about how to make sure that we're better prepared for the tsuanmis that kill thousands of people and utterly devastate so much land.

That first point is referenced in this story, actually. It's about half-way down.

That still confuses radiation with radio-isotopes which are sources of radiation. If you consumed a highly radioactive isotope you would likely get more radiation not different radiation.

If a single bioloogically consumed radio-isotope molecule put out the same amount of radiation as the annular insolation in Denver, then you would likely get more localized damage from the ionizing radiation at its point of binding. If it were multiple molecules (measured in parts per billion) and they in aggregate summed to the annual insolation in Denver, then its no more dangerous than the annual insolation in Denver.

Alpha particles and energetically ejected electrons and positrons are ionizing radiation just like gamma rays, and its the amount and concentration, not the source, that matters.

Plutonium-239, the kind used in bombs, is not actually that radioactive, and most of it would go through your system pretty quickly.