Fukushima's toxic legacy: Ignorance and fear

[keristor]

I can't do better than quote the title of the actual article from The Register. Oh, and its subtitle:
Hysteria rages unchecked as minor incident winds down

I see that the media are still pushing the "Oh, panic, there's radiation" scare stories. Yes, there is -- and if you eat a few bananas then you'll get about as much as you would get in a day

Comments

[rinioth]

I understand that even more people have been hurt or killed by hydro power systems, even if you exclude those killed by acts of war against such installations (cue Dam-busters theme music).

[keristor]

So I've heard. They also often share with nuclear power the atttribute that accidents are rare but when they do happen they are disasters affecting thousands, and so Big News.

Although not all hydro systems will have that, I suspect that tidal ones and water-mills don't do too much damage when they go wrong.

[rinioth]

I suspect that tidal ones and water-mills don't do too much damage when they go wrong

Mostly a danger to incompetent mariners in small(ish) craft.

[armb]

Though the environmental impact of a tidal barrage that doesn't go wrong might be comparable in effect on local wildlife to a really serious accident from some other systems. It still might be worthwhile in terms of carbon footprint (though tidal lagoons would probably be less disruptive (and easier to introduce on a smaller scale and build up than an all-or-nothing barrage)).

[cmcmck]

Although, as you know, I've always taken an anti-nuclear stance, THIS, absolutely!

And the media with its pandering to mass hysteria is the guiltiest party of all in all this!

[keristor]

Out of interest, why do you have an anti-nuclear stance? I'm sure you have a rational reason, not the "I don't understand it so I don't like it" which I've seen far too many times in the last few weeks (and which, as far as I'm concerned, should mean that the person saying that should go back to living in a cave and not even using fire, since I doubt any of them can really 'understand' fire).

[cmcmck]

Nuclear energy leads to sources of fuel for nuclear weapons and as you know, I'm a pacifist.

And I'd still like to know what we do with the spent fuel and yes, I know that re utulisation has come on, but we are still left with that little but...........and the 'experts' have a habit of becoming very cagey around that question. I hate the thought that we leave future generations (I won't be having any kids as I can't, but even so) with a whole heap of mess to clear up.

Finally, in the end, the sources of fuel for nuclear energy are finite, like all other chemical fuel sources so we have to continue to consider other possibilities.

People go on about wind and wave but we have that almost untapped giant nuclear generator blazing away up there in the sky, after all (especially today down here in deepest Kent:o)

[keristor]

Well, mining leads to people making swords...

Seriously, I can't think of any technology which doesn't have some use in weaponry or fighting of some kind. At least nuclear weapons really have been seen as "too terrible to use again", unlike almost everything else they really do scare people because they are too powerful.

Yes, certainly we need to look at other possibilities (like reducing the amount we use by reducing the population - starting with the politicians, of course). But in the near to medium term (until we really get to use solar or other fusion power directly) nuclear looks like the best bet.

As for that 40 Yottawatt fusion reactor only 500 lightseconds away, that's an obvious breach of H&S. Look at how many people get skin cancers every year from it. We'd be a lot safer if they'd just turn it off *g*...

[madfilkentist]

This post on the XKCD blag provides some excellent perspective on radiation risks. (What is a "blag," anyway?)

[keristor]

I can't get the chart to work here (some combination of Firefox, NoScript, lack of Flash, or our firewall), I'll have a look from home, but the text seems sensible.

World English Dictionary
blag (blæɡ)

-n 1. a robbery, esp with violence

-vb , blags, blagging, blagged
2. to obtain by wheedling or cadging: she blagged free tickets from her mate
3. to snatch (wages, someone's handbag, etc); steal
4. to rob (esp a bank or post office)

[C19: of unknown origin]

Sense #2 is the one I recognise. But I suspect that they think it's a variant of 'blog'.

[madfilkentist]

There's nothing fancy in the way of JavaScript or Flash, but it is a PNG file.

A search turns up nothing informative about "blag." There's one other blog that uses it; it's about an Attorney General and hence is a blAG.

[keristor]

Odd, Firefox 3 (even an early version, 3.0.x) shouldn't have any trouble with PNG files. It may be the firewall, then.

'Ouch' on the blAG (I suppose one about the price of silver could be a blAg)...

[rdmaughan]

Coal mining kills between two and three thousand people a year in China alone.

[cmcmck]

Yup!

It killed both my grandfathers (the slow way via pneumoconiosis)
:o(