Hey, chemotherapy included in your rent!
Author notes that one year after the Fukushima accident, there have been ZERO fatalities or adverse health effects from radiation exposure at Fukushima.
All damages thus far have been as a result of suicide, depression, despair among 100,000 people what have been evacuated from their homes with a 12 mile radius.
Some people have even shunned them in their new locales under the bizazre supposition that they constitute a radioactive danger.
I read recently (don’t recall where, but I will look) that the amount of people killed during construction of windmills world-wide has far exceeded the amount of deaths attributed to nuclear accidents from operating plants.
There is a fancy term for it (begins with H) but there is a scientific viewpoint that low doses of radiation are beneficial. Low doses can stop cancers from forming. There was one expert who was hounded out of the public spotlight for making such a claim within the past 5 years. It appears to be true, but very politically incorrect to claim that radiation is a health tonic in low doses.
Do the indications that there might be some beneficial effects from exposure to low levels of radiation differentiate between the type of radiation, the length of exposure, etc?
Anybody that might think such a stunt was an “accident” should lay off the wild wood weed for a while.