Slashdot Mirror


Little Health Risk Seen From Fukushima's Radioactivity

gbrumfiel writes "Two independent reports show that the public and most workers received only low doses of radiation following last year's meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. Nature reports that the risks presented by the doses are small, even though some are above guidelines and limits set by the Japanese government. Few people will develop cancer as a result of the accident, and those that do may never be able to conclusively link their illness to the meltdowns. The greatest risk lies with the workers who struggled in the early days to bring the reactors under control. So far no ill-effects have been detected. At Chernobyl, by contrast, the highest exposed workers died quickly from radiation sickness."

6 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Spent fuel pools still a risk by bhlowe · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Mainchi reported on Monday: The storage pool in the No. 4 reactor building has a total of 1,535 fuel rods, or 460 tons of nuclear fuel, in it. The 7-story building itself has suffered great damage, with the storage pool barely intact on the building’s third and fourth floors. The roof has been blown away. If the storage pool breaks and runs dry, the nuclear fuel inside will overheat and explode, causing a massive amount of radioactive substances to spread over a wide area. Both the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and French nuclear energy company Areva have warned about this risk."

  2. Re:Chernobyl... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who said Chernobyl was over? There are still radioactive sheep in the UK for heavens sake!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#25_years_after_the_catastrophe

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  3. XKCD by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...already covered this

    Nice to see others have finally figured the same thing out.

  4. Re:I'm having trouble believing anything they say by peragrin · · Score: 3, Informative

    true but if the majority of radiation was alpha it is easily blocked unless ingested.

    Since what got carried away in the explosions and water was alpha and beta, The danger is less. most of that has become heavily diluted in the ocean.

    Radiation has many different effects depending on type. a high dose of one has a different short term, and then long term effect.

    Gamma goes through everything but doesn't stick around as much.
    Alpha can stick around in an environment for decades continuously poisoning and re-poisoning those who come in contact with it.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  5. Re:Chernobyl... by Nova77 · · Score: 3, Informative

    We are still not a net importer

    Is that perhaps because you're extending the life of extremely polluting coal plants?

  6. No. by Grog6 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nuclear tech saves many lives every day(Cancer treatment and detection), as well as powering the most likely long term energy solution.

    The Japanese did not use graphite moderated reactors for very well known reasons, Chernobyl being the best example of those reasons... (Negative steam void reactivity coefficient, was a major one, iirc.)

    The reactors at Chernobyl were pretty much updated versions of the ones we built during WWII to make plutonium, also iirc.

    Idiocy=Bad.

    Any tech is only as bad or good as what you use it for, and how you use it is your problem to explain.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani