Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Panic Over Fukushima

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 116 posts

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#61

Post by yk »

davidcuddeback wrote: post #27
dmoy wrote: post #2

I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship described here "If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"

That's about where the author lost me. Up to that point, he seemed to be pulling numbers from research, but then he makes a transition to pulling numbers and formulas out of his ass. For example, I'm not convinced that "if spread out over 1,000 people, so that everyone received 2.5 rem on average" is a valid deduction. He then goes on to explain how "to know how many excess cancers there will be." I listened to an in…

The spreading out effect is a direct consequence of the linear no threshold model. If you have a total dose D spread over N people, then everyone receives a dose D/N. With some constant k converting individual dose to cancer rates, you end up with an expected number of k D/N * N cases of cancer. ( So it is almost certainly wrong, however it is not understood how wrong it is.)

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#62

Post by alanfalcon »

Handy radiation dose effect chart provided by Randall of XKCD (note: 1 microsievert = 0.0001 rem)

http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/

Perhaps an interesting meta-discussion is the phenomenon of how choice of units affects the framing of a discussion. 0.1 rem doesn't sound nearly as dangerous as 1,000 μSv, though of course both numbers are completely meaningless to most lay people.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#63

Post by nacker »

Natsu wrote: post #54
nacker wrote: post #46

The conclusion of the WSJ was: "The great tragedy of the Fukushima accident is that Japan shut down all its nuclear reactors. Even though officials have now turned two back on, the hardships and economic disruptions induced by this policy will be enormous and will dwarf any danger from the reactors themselves." The conclusion of The Corbett Report was: "Along with the tragic loss of life, the destruction of homes, fa…

I question that conclusion. The power shortages have been quite troubling. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/03/12030... http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18468685

I read your links. I know the audio is almost an hour, so I don't expect you to have listened before you posted.

According to Mr. Corbett, who lives in Japan, the predicted shortages did not in fact materialize this summer, and in fact, a SURPLUS of power was reported. He doesn't assert that without the 50 plants currently offline there will be no power shortfall. Most of the report is about alternatives such as solar, geothermal, thorium, and wave power.

The point is that Japan has gone over a year now with almost NO nuclear power, and the sky has not fallen. There are alternatives. There are also large corporate/governmental interests who PREFER the present nuclear policy, and that policy is now opposed by a large number of the Japanese people.

Did you personally suffer any consequences? Are you perhaps suspicious of TEPCO, or the WSJ's motives?

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#64

Post by tokenadult »

The author of the submitted article, Richard Muller, is the developer of a Physics for Future Presidents course at UC Berkeley, author of a book with the same title as the course, and author of a new book Physics and Technology for Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html

that is well worth a read. In other words, Muller has been thinking about how to apply the facts of nature to the contentious issues of public policy for a long time, and has a good sense of economic and political trade-offs in policy- making. The article submitted here is a great example of clear thinking on a scary issue, and I endorse it as well worth reading and thinking about.

P.S. I have just been to Colorado Springs, Colorado, transiting the Denver, Colorado airport to get there, and I am not worried about increasing my cancer risk by returning to the Front Range each year for the business that brought me there.

http://www.epsiloncamp.org/

I checked some of the statements made in other comments in this thread since posting this, and I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country.

P.P.S. I live in one of the states of the United States in which an exceptionally large percentage of electricity is generated at nuclear power plants. Both plants are located along the Mississippi River, as is most of Minnesota's population centers. Electricity is unusually inexpensive here, and health statistics are unusually good here, compared to other parts of the United States.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#65

Post by pheon »

nacker wrote: post #46

The conclusion of the WSJ was: "The great tragedy of the Fukushima accident is that Japan shut down all its nuclear reactors. Even though officials have now turned two back on, the hardships and economic disruptions induced by this policy will be enormous and will dwarf any danger from the reactors themselves." The conclusion of The Corbett Report was: "Along with the tragic loss of life, the destruction of homes, fa…

"that the myth of the necessity of nuclear power in Japan is just that. A myth"

This is just wrong. Japan is importing natural gas at prices x2-x5 higher than before. Causing Japans Trade balance (positive for nearly 30 years) to swing negative which is going to cause un-known and negative consequences for economy if this continues.

Energy both in availability and price is the economic engine that drives developed nations... we just replaced our Toyota to a expensive but nice BMW - somethings going to give.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#66

Post by Someone »

ScotterC wrote: post #32
davvid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Are you serious? BTW, there's a big difference between "background radiation" and ingested radiation (either through air, food, water, etc.) The scientific consensus is that there is no amount of radiation that is safe to ingest. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1 Do you really want to test your theory?

I'd happily ingest as much plutonium as you would caffeine.

Are you sure?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Flammability, to me, indicates that it may not be a wise idea to drop the stuff in the acid inside your stomach, even if it is only, say, a gram a day.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#67

Post by rbanffy »

justincormack wrote: post #20

The opposition into Japan is not about the exact number of cancers or deaths. It is about trust. To quote the official report [1]: ...the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response. Ho…

> If your government and industry had failed you like that would you trust them to continue with nuclear power without fixing the underlying problems?

And yet, the hottest spots seem to be healthier places to live than Denver... Is that a really big problem?

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#69

Post by justatdotin »

tikhonj wrote: post #58
sgoranson wrote: post #52

Lately I've been reevaluating my predictable sci/techy pro-nuclear stance. I still roll my eyes at folks who don't really know what radiation is but think it's inherently bad, and I still think nuclear power is probably a lesser evil than fossil fuels. But two things I learned this week gave me pause: First, that Fukushima was not as benign as I believed if butterflys are mutating http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/1208…

The low-background steel seems to be a factor of nuclear weapon testing rather than nuclear reactors. Even the most ardent of nuclear power supporters don't argue for detonating more nuclear weapons! Besides, essentially everything people do at any scale has altered the planet in permanent or semi-permanent ways. It is an issue, but it is not an issue unique to nuclear power.

I am convinced that the nuclear power industry remains not only inextricably linked to nuclear WMD programs, but its expansion is in fact driven by the desire for the materials, technology and capability to develop nuclear weapons

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#70

Post by justatdotin »

archgoon wrote: post #9
dmoy wrote: post #2

I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship described here "If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"

Unfortunately, we don't have the data. Yep, it's non linear, but all of our data is basically on two ends of the spectrum. Low amounts of radiation on one end, accumulated from natural sources or working at nuclear plants, and high amounts of radiation on the other, accumulated from survivors of Hiroshima, Cherynobyl, and some nuclear accidents. So, given those data points, with clusters on two ends of this spectrum…

probably worth noting that it's LNT, which implies No Safe Dose, that forms the basis for international radiation protection standards
Post reply on HN