Nuclear Power Is Extremely Safe -- That's the Truth About What We Learned From Japan

FoxNews ^ | July 23, 2011 | Alex Epstein

[hamboy]

In the midst of a still struggling and fragile global economy, Germany has announced that it will shut down seven nuclear plants by the end of the year--which means that Germans will be left to run their factories, heat their homes, and power their economy with 10% less electrical generating capacity. Nine more plants will be shut down over the next decade and tens of billions of dollars in investment will be lost.

The grounds for this move, and similar proposals in Switzerland, Italy, and other countries, is safety. As the Swiss energy minister put it, “Fukushima showed that the risk of nuclear power is too high.”

In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite. How’s that? Well for starters, ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero.

[calex59]

Yes, but the greenies won't listen and the MSM will continue to hype how dangerous nukes are and continue to brainwash the already brain dead masses.

Enviros, at least the leaders, do not want cheap power, they want people living back in the dark ages, except for themselves of course, and they will find fault with any form of energy that is cheap and safe and delivers the goods. He**, they even find fault with their wind and solar crap(and rightly so), for the wrong reasons but still they bitch about them.

Communist simply do not want us to be well off, they can't control people who are self sufficient and earn enough wealth to live comfortably.

[Captain Beyond]

bflr

[arrogantsob]

While it maybe low today what will the total number of radiation-caused deaths be in ten years that can be associated with the event. It may still be low or not.

One must look at more than just today to make accurate statements about the death toll.

By the by does anyone know what the death toll for the tsunami is?

[Domandred]

In just the three years leading up to Three Mile Island, Beckmann observed, “dam disasters have killed thousands of people (at least 2,000 in India in August 1979)

That's nothing. About 170,000 people died to the Banqiao dam failure in China in 1975.

[Domandred]

does anyone know what the death toll for the tsunami is?

You mean there was a tsunami? I thought it was just a nuclear meltdown that happened in Japan.

(/sarc caused by media hype of Fukushima)

[volunbeer]

The problem with nuclear power is not the concept.... it’s the fact that we seem to be stuck on materials that are better suited to weapons than energy. Thorium reactors would be the better choice for safety and they are just as effective.

[MediaMole]

At least four people have died at Fukushima. Granted, they didn’t die from radiation poisoning, but they did die.

[calex59]

At least four people have died at Fukushima. Granted, they didn’t die from radiation poisoning, but they did die.

Since the article deals with deaths caused by the radistion leak and not the tsunami or other causes, your statement is completely irrelevant.

[ASOC]

Hard to say really, the Japanese have been lying through their teeth from the beginning.

Reminds me of the way the old Soviet tied to hide that little 'accident' outside of Kiev. Except in the Internet age, some stuff gets out no matter haw hard TEP or their Govt enablers try to hide facts.

BTW, Japanese tea is now off my diet unless from Thailand...

[RussP]

Excellent article. I was a Beckmann “fan” way back, and his book (The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear) is a classic.

Just a couple of months ago, I learned about the amazing potential of Thorium-based nuclear power. Imagine a source of nuclear power that

— produces less than 1% of the waste of current nuclear plants

— cannot melt down

— cannot contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation

— is simpler and safer because it operates at low pressure, hence does not need a massive pressure vessel

— can actually “burn up” existing nuclear waste.

Sound too good to be true? Check out

http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/portal.html

[Mike Darancette]

Reactors damaged by a 1,000 year event and 0 loss of life.

[SuziQ]

In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite. How’s that? Well for starters, ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero.

The fact that there wasn't a catastrophic meltdown that poisoned the surrounding area for decades speaks to the relative safety of the plants. Even in the face of the worst earthquake and tsunami in recent Japanese history, and even with all three of the back-up safety plans going awry, those plants still haven't ruined the country.

[SuziQ]

Thorium reactors would be the better choice for safety and they are just as effective.

Maybe the bright side to this will be more research in different methods of nuclear energy.

[SuziQ]

Is this the LFTR design? Our son has been reading a lot about it, and is fascinated with the technology.

[MediaMole]

Nothing in the article says that radiation was the only issue. They just say the death toll was zero. That is not true.

“ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero.”

[packrat35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

[Razzz42]

The only reasons that nuclear power exists is because of military needs and because of government mandates (only governments can afford the costs involved). Other than that it is far too expensive to operate a nuclear plant even when insurance companies cap the payouts on losses and governments foot the bill for cleanup from disasters. If politicians weren’t paid off (via lobbyists), there wouldn’t be any nuke plants except on military installations. Even wall street investors know better than to throw money into a black hole...Germany understands now thanks to Fukushima, better late than never.

Pro nuke people need better talking points for brainwashing in light of recent events.

[Spaulding]

Even wall street investors know better than to throw money into a black hole...Germany understands now thanks to Fukushima, better late than never.

Haven't heard those old lines for almost twenty years. The original claim by the thread's sponsor is, of course, perfectly true. The only reason the Germans are proposing to turn back nuclear power for electrical generation is to cater to The Greens; Germany knows it can buy it from France, which generates over 90% of its electricity from nuclear, and has the cleanest air in Europe.

What is remarkable is the effectiveness of a thoroughly controlled media in presumably keeping the public ignorant ("presumably" becuase with the state of the press today one should presume that any assertion has a political objective). Not only has no one ever been hurt by the radioactive attributes of nuclear power used in a commercial reactor, even Chernobyl, built as a weapons grade plutonium generator around a graphite core with absolutely no containment was a benefit to the health of the Ukrainians who lived nearby. It's coal replacement has caused many more deaths, about 200/year, than the two killed and 16 to 20 who contracted leukemia over the next two years from the Chernobyl meltdown.

Remember, thousands have fallen off of roofs installing or repairing solar installations, and hundreds from accidents with wind turbines, and thousands when dams have collapsed, but no one - ever - has died or been sickened from commercial nuclear power. That is simply because the fuel has such a high energy density, and we know its characteristics so well, that it has been proved possible to isolate both the public and operators from the core.

Of course the Chinese, have no intention of slowing their planned construction of 132 nuclear electric plants over the next twenty years, and have begun with four plants since their announcement of the program in 2007, all four of which will be at full power this year, about a fourth the time it used to take the US to bring a plant from licensing to power testing.

One of the more remarkable bits of data about exposure to much more radiation than Fukushima workers were exposed to came from the accidental introduction of Cobalt 60 into steel used to build apartments in Taiwan about twenty years ago. About ten thousand residents were exposed to an average of 40 mSvt/year from the Cobalt, which compares to the natural background of about 3 mSvrts/year.

After analysis by health physicists all over the world the effect upon the residents of the complex was a remarkable, 20 to 30 to 1 reduction in different kinds of cancer when compared to various control groups. Similar health data were assumed an anomaly when residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, followed closely for decades, and exposed to much higher background doses by short half life isotopes for several decades also showed lower than average cancer incidence than residents industrial cities in Japan.

Like most science, the reason behind apparent health benefits of higher exposure to radiation are not claimed to be understood, and so at odds with our federally funded science programs that studies have been few and far between. Still, the data are unequivocal. Taiwan was very embarrassed to have permitted so many of its citizens to be exposed, and law suits were anticipated. Instead, the most beneficial exposure appears to be in the 100 mSv/year range. But few are likely to receive the health benefits of radiation exposure given our voracious environmental law industry and the impact upon job opportunities for health physicists who benefit from the fear of radiation most people have.

Unfortunately, radiation emitted from coal plants, while higher than emmisions from nuclear plants, are not sufficient to serve as a cancer inhibitor, or to mitigate the health effects of the other waste products of coal burning. Coal puts a variety of other contaminints known to cause repiratory illness, and generates enormous ammounts of ash and slag which must be disposed of.

It is sad, but inevitable, to see our tax dollars being spent on marketing for solar electric technology which could not survive without subsides stolen from our private sector. Our presidential science adviser John Holdren and his mentors, Paul Ehrlich, E.F.Shumacher,and Harrison Brown, have, for decades, made lots of money, received many awards, and much acclaim by proclaiming that we cannot sustain our present population and need to reduce it by about two thirds. Holdren and Obama may suceed in reducing our population while China and India grow, assume manufacturing and economic leadership, and our society follows England and Cuba into irrelevancy. The recession will only enhance the damage to our economy from the lies about “renewable” energy, while increasing our dependence upon countries who produce alternives to nuclear, which we must purchase in spite of the abundance within our own borders, to keep a few of our industries alive and cars on the road. The statists not only don't care how many they hurt with their deception, that is their goal, the necessary path to a socialist Utopia.

Nuclear power is a target precisely because it has been proved, over 60 years of use, to be the cleanest and safest source of energy, as well as, without the burden of the environmental bar, the lest expensive source of electricity when including the cost of the full fuel cycle. Coal is cheaper today, but every 1000 Megawatt electric coal powered plant generates about 100 freight cars full of slag and ash which must be disposed of each day. Nuclear waste is recyclable, and only waste if we don't reprocess. And the scare tactics are complete nonsense. We are learning the controlled exposure to background radiation may be beneficial, and need to study the issue for its potential to extend the lives and minimize the suffering of billions who suffer from cancer.

[driftdiver]

“If politicians weren’t paid off (via lobbyists), there wouldn’t be any nuke plants except on military installations”

Yes, because of irrational people like you.

Nuclear energy is cheap & clean. The only reason 40 year old plants with outdated designs are still being used is because of you dark earthers.