Slashdot Mirror
Living In Nuclear Disaster Fallout Zone Would Be No Worse Than Living In London, Research Suggests (bristol.ac.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from University of Bristol, England: New research suggests that few people, if any, should be asked to leave their homes after a big nuclear accident, which is what happened in March 2011 following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Professor Thomas's team used the Judgement or J-value to balance the cost of a safety measure against the increase in life expectancy it achieves. The J-value is a new method pioneered by Professor Thomas that assesses how much should be spent to protect human life and the environment. The researchers found that it was difficult to justify relocating anyone from Fukushima Daiichi, where four and a half years after the accident around 85,000 of the 111,000 people who were moved out by the Japanese government had still not returned. After the world's worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986, in what was then part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union (USSR), the J-value method supported relocation when nine months' or more life expectancy would be lost due to radiation exposure by remaining. Using the J-value method, 31,000 people would have needed to be moved, with the number rising to 72,000 if the whole community was evacuated when five per cent of its residents were calculated to lose nine months of life or more.
Philip Thomas, Professor of Risk Management in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Bristol, said: "Mass relocation is expensive and disruptive. But it is in danger of becoming established as the prime policy choice after a big nuclear accident. It should not be. Remediation should be the watchword for the decision maker, not relocation." For comparison, the average Londoner loses four and a half months to air pollution, while the average resident of Manchester lives 3.3 years less than his/her counterpart in Harrow, North London. Meanwhile, boys born in Blackpool lose 8.6 years of life on average compared with those born in London's borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The results are published in a special issue of Process Safety and Environmental Protection, a journal from the Institution of Chemical Engineers.
Philip Thomas, Professor of Risk Management in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Bristol, said: "Mass relocation is expensive and disruptive. But it is in danger of becoming established as the prime policy choice after a big nuclear accident. It should not be. Remediation should be the watchword for the decision maker, not relocation." For comparison, the average Londoner loses four and a half months to air pollution, while the average resident of Manchester lives 3.3 years less than his/her counterpart in Harrow, North London. Meanwhile, boys born in Blackpool lose 8.6 years of life on average compared with those born in London's borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The results are published in a special issue of Process Safety and Environmental Protection, a journal from the Institution of Chemical Engineers.
Does it account for the spike in sudden infant death syndrome in the areas of Japan after 2011?
http://saveie6.com/
J-value method supported relocation when nine months' or more life expectancy would be lost due to radiation exposure by remaining
The Life Expectancy is a statistical quantity. Reducing the average life expectancy by 8 months doesn't mean there won't be data outliers, or individuals affected with undue severity, E.G. Individuals whom will die much earlier because of the incident.
This is the problem with using life expectancy or other statistical summary averages ---- SOME people still die, and nobody wants that person to be themselves or one of their friends or loved ones; that might be 1 death out of 1000, but it STILL MATTERS to that person and to their community.
fission is not only a pointlessly dangerous scam, it's an entirely unnecessary one.
Citation needed. Here's mine that says you're full of shit.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
Nuclear fission is the safest energy source we have available today. It's also cheaper than solar, hydro, and offshore wind.
https://www.instituteforenergy...
Nuclear also has a lower carbon footprint than solar.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/u...
If there is an energy scam out there then it's solar. Onshore wind and hydro aren't too bad but they are limited in utility by geography, nuclear energy is not. About the rest of your claims, I think you have your aluminum foil helmet on too tight.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
My experience is that "wife" is used by women to denote ownership of their husband.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
$5000 could have saved billions in Japan. The fuel tank and generator were on the ground level. If they had put them on the roof, there wouldn't have been a meltdown. seawall, millions. Designing a safer reactor billions. Putting the generator on the roof of an earthquake hardened building? Cheap. It was a full on case of stupid, it wasn't an issue of money, it was a case of hubris. The design has a 100% chance of meltdown in a flood. That wasn't cost. That was pure stupid.
You completely misunderstand the fundamentals of nuclear safety. Having elevated tanks would NOT have guaranteed safety. Patches are not acceptable in nuclear.
The plant should never have been located where it could be hit by a tsunami as it was never designed to withstand a tsunami. Not placing it in that location would have guaranteed safety.
Capacity factors are very important, that is why the industry uses them and will continue to use them. I know you want to wish them away because of the lower numbers associated with wind and solar. But you can't just decide on your own and dictate they are not important.
There is no rule a plant must be run at its full CF, I agree, and many are not. But CF signifies not only full capability, but also the availability of that resource, and availability is of utmost importance to grid reliability and management.
Its nice you brought up France, who has essentially proven that nuclear is a central element to low CO2 emissions. They kick Germany's ass every day, and have been doing so for quite some time. France is the leader in large industrialized countries when it comes to clean air electrical production. They also displace claims that nuclear cannot vary output.
Nothing about it was "unavoidable", who to evacuate when, for how long, was all judgement calls based on both safety and PR.
It is fascinating how some slashdotters know for certain that every single thing that happened was well known at the time. That all future events went exactly to plan.
Wind direction. What exactly caused plant 1 to explode? Then plant 4. What credibility should be placed on where you get your information? You have the double whammy of a huge amount of destruction caused by the tsunami.
Then you are an official who makes the decision. You know that if you make the decision to shelter in place, and the situation gets worse and many people die because if your decision, you may end up having the rest of your life completely destroyed, if not end up in prison, or in some countries, you are executed.
Unlike random people on Slashdot, most officials in these matters have to make decisions based upon a whole lot less situational awareness than they would like. So you make a decision based on what you do know. Unfortunately, they are not know it alls.
So pissing off bean counters is a lot less of a price to pay.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.