Low risk from major accident consequences

[FBaggins]

A severe accident at a US nuclear power plant would not be likely to cause any immediate deaths, while the risks of fatal cancers caused by such an accident would be millions of times lower than the general risks of dying of cancer, a long-running research study has found.

A severe accident at a US nuclear power plant would not be likely to cause any immediate deaths, while the risks of fatal cancers caused by such an accident would be millions of times lower than the general risks of dying of cancer, a long-running research study has found.

...snip...

According to the report, the studies have shown that existing resources and procedures can stop an accident, slow it down or reduce its impact before it can affect the public, but even if accidents proceed without such mitigation they take much longer to happen and release much less radioactive material than earlier analyses suggested. Moreover, the analysed accidents would cause "essentially zero immediate deaths and only a very, very small increase in the risk of long-term cancer deaths". Latent cancer fatality risk from the selected specific scenarios was found to be thousands of times lower than the NRC's own so-called Safety Goal and millions of times lower than the general cancer fatality risk in the United States from all causes, even when employing the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model, which assumes that health risk is directly proportional to radiation exposure and that even the smallest radiation exposure carries some risk.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Low_risk_from_major_accident_consequences-0202127.html

Interesting that this work was almost final just before Fukushima proved it to be entirely accurate.

[Generic Other]

1. And we all can be reasonably sure there are no future consequences of Fukushima

to worry about because a study from 2007 says it's so. Yes , even as they have yet to contain the mess, we can just close the books on that catastrophe and go along our merry way breaking ground for new nuclear sites because there is nothing to be learned from current problems. We certainly shouldn't question the veracity of the report put out by our own Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the Cheney years.

"According to the report, the studies have shown that existing resources and procedures can stop an accident, slow it down or reduce its impact before it can affect the public..." Hell why bother to revisit foregone conclusions. Fukushima? Bah. A brief mention in the appendix is sufficient.

What a load of glowing green horse manure.

[FBaggins]

2. Nope

We can be reasonably sure that the future consequences are approximated by the estimates in this study because we have decades of experience with radiation exposure and lots of data on the general magnitude of the exposure in Japan. So far there has been zero reason to believe that the estimate is anything but entirely accurate. Essentially zero immediate deaths (from radiation exposure), and every reason to expect a very very small increase in long-term cancer fatalities.

We certainly shouldn't question the veracity of the report put out by our own Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the Cheney years.

Cheyney has been out of office for over three years. The report was just released in draft form.

[kristopher]

3. How should we deal with the risk

"How should we deal with the risk that nuclear power might cause our country to perish? This question is what led me to propose the creation of a society free from dependence on nuclear power."

-Naoto Kan Sept 2011
Prime Minister of Japan During Fukushima Multiple Meltdowns

The only thing that saved Japan was the fact that the winds were out of the west instead of the northeast. If they had been required to abandon Tokyo and the Kanto Plains...

[FBaggins]

4. Extreme hyperbole not based in any science.

The only thing that saved Japan

The thing that saved Japan was exactly what the scientists said would be the case prior to the accident. An actual containment.

The prevailing winds no doubt saved thousands of cancers and perhaps hundreds of lives... they didn't save Tokyo, let alone Japan.

[Generic Other]

5. You make it sound like the danger has passed

all based on a prediction from a 2007 study meant to draw the foregone conclusion that nukes are good and anyone who doesn't buy it is just obstructing some glowing idyllic future. A study they intended to release when Fukushima messed up their plan. A study created to assuage fears and sell us all a bill of goods. In 2007, Cheney was promoting the building of 30 more nuke plants in the US. Those plans are on hold. These folks want to try and get the momentum moving forward again.

I read about sick people, contaminated land, dead nuke workers every day. The Japanese continue to suffer. People near Chernobyl continue to suffer. This study isn't worth the paper it is printed on. I'd get more info about the future consequences of nuclear accidents from a tarot card reader.

[TheWraith]

6. Sorry, but I trust actual science over fearmongering and falsehoods.

"I read about sick people, contaminated land, dead nuke workers every day."

Then you're reading propaganda, because the only Fukushima workers to die are two guys from heart attacks. I trust actual science over unsupported fearmongering propagated by people with an agenda to push.

[PamW]

8. HEAR! HEAR!

That's what I've been espousing here for as long as I've been here:

Trust in Actual Science!!

PamW

[Generic Other]

9. 573 deaths certified as nuclear-crisis-related in Japan

"TOKYO -- A total of 573 deaths in Japan have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey.

This number could rise..."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318800#ixzz1l9jvtcqm

Now the dead are liars too.

[wtmusic]

7. Of course we can't.

We need to continue to nurse unsupported and unrealistic fears because it's obvious that thousands have died and TEPCO is using nuclear-powered bulldozers to plow them under the Japanese countryside.

You won't see that on CNN, will you? Wonder why...

[Generic Other]

10. Is this how you respect the dead?

by mocking them?