one point that start to emerge from the toll of fukushima (that will be zero, because population have been protected, and lover that 100mSv/y have no effect), and chernobyl (mainly dozens of neutron carbonized firemen send to death , and few kids who died of thyroid cancer that shoul have been threated)... the theorical cancer or linera law did not happens...
anyway in the two place, the main toll have been (for chernibyl) and start to be (in fukushima) the cost of FEAR and EVACUATION. in japan there are dicussion to allow people to go back home, abandonnin the ALARA rule (as low as reasonably acceptale) of 1mSv, to apply a conservative law of 25mSv, and more for elderly (fow whom avec stron irradiation won't decrease life expectancy by cancer).. to be precise the big problem in Chernobyl have been the mental disease linked to evacuation, like fear, depression, anxiety, leading to acoolism, family violence, depression, and many suicides and murders. beside the clear kid thyroid cancer fro the most irradiated, the clear statistic message is that evacuation kills many people, thousands of suicides and more about indirect mental problems. in japan, beside the manipulators and the noise that western environmentalist loves, some thert to moan on the few avoidable suicides of erderly. there is a mediatic war by the wat tsumani are awful, in banda acheh, one third of the population died, and the 21000-28000 japaneses dead will be hard to compare with neven the suicides and economic loses of fukushima. especially if to separate the cost of the nuclear accident and the cost of the delirious fear of radioactivity. beside that look at George Monbiot (The Guardian Environmentalist croniker) article that explain how he have been manipulated by environmentalist abot the pretented high danger of radioactivity. when you realise that even for high deadly irradiation, the impact in term of cancer is not so huge compared to usual behaviors (tobacco, alcool..) http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/ I remind that being exposed to 1000mSv increase you cancer probability from about 35% to few % more (+3%about), known from a big population of 1000mSv irradiated victims in Hiroshima/nagasaki... not se different from usual behaviors (lasiness, alcool, tobacco) Anyway our human brain is not rational enough to manage invisible low probability threat. that is a problem with LENR since it could forbid the diffusion of Hyperion-like devise at home, because of negible , danger less, radiation... leading to concentration of the lenr power plants in only big corps. 2012/4/1 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > I agree Jed. The Fukushima accident was extrodinarily bad. It also > should make us understand that we are not capable of anticipating the worst > event that can occur. I suspect that there are scenarios much worse than > what actually happened and thank God that they did not appear. > > Energy sources other than nuclear will not have such devastating > consequences, particularly ones that last for many decades. Once I was a > proponent of nuclear energy, but now I would not want to live anywhere > close to one due to the dangers that seem to come out of nowhere. > > The promise of LENR keeps me looking forward to a better future for my > children. I just wish we could speed up the progress! > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2012 11:19 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster > > Jarold McWilliams <oldja...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them. >> > > Evidently not. The Fukushima accident proved it is not safe. Just > because it did not kill people right away that does not make it safe. It > will likely kill many workers in the years to come. It caused tremendous > havoc and cost ~$600 billion. Taking that much money out of the economy and > throwing it down a black hole will surely cost many lives. > > A source of energy that can bankrupt the largest power company in the > world in one day is not "safe." No sane business executive would select it. > If anyone had known this might happen, no country would have built nuclear > reactors. > > People do not seem to grasp the magnitude of this event. This is $600 > billion in damage and 90,000 people's lives and livelihoods destroyed. No > industrial accident in history was even remotely as destructive, except > Chernoblyl, of course. > > - Jed > >
