Fukushima -- as usual it was an overreaction

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don't get cute with me. I raised possible issues that were each well above the level of ridiculous to happen. Quakes happen after quakes all the time. It is possible that they couldn't remediate the temperature of the rods. These are two well above the bar possibilities that could have happened.

What fear? I'm talking about risk and what level of acceptable risk there are. There was a notable nuclear issue. It's stability was not a certain thing. A couple of natural events could have occurred to make things worse. Then there is always the social component.

The clean up which can't occur for how long, will cost what, billions? It isn't armageddon, but it sure the heck is above the blip called an incident. Three Mile Island is still in operation!

So what is going to happen if they can't clean for years or even decades?

My statement was clear, this was more than a blip.

Of course this event cannot be ignored. But the end result is: they could have save 1600 lives by not evacuating the hospitals.

Could they? The ones that died, were they fail and sick to begin with? Would they have been more susceptible to radiation?

 

[SimpleDon]

Of course this event cannot be ignored. But the end result is: they could have save 1600 lives by not evacuating the hospitals.

They traded the certain risk involved in the evacuation, for what to them was the unknown risks of staying. Something close to the definition of panic, acting irrationally out of fear.

The question that must be asked is was there anyone who recommended that the risks of evacuating were greater than the risks of staying at the time? My somewhat limited experience with the rather famous Japanese method of consensus decision making is that alternative possibilities aren't often considered or often aren't even presented.

 

[Juma]

Don't get cute with me. I raised possible issues that were each well above the level of ridiculous to happen. Quakes happen after quakes all the time. It is possible that they couldn't remediate the temperature of the rods. These are two well above the bar possibilities that could have happened.

What fear? I'm talking about risk and what level of acceptable risk there are. There was a notable nuclear issue. It's stability was not a certain thing. A couple of natural events could have occurred to make things worse. Then there is always the social component.

The clean up which can't occur for how long, will cost what, billions? It isn't armageddon, but it sure the heck is above the blip called an incident. Three Mile Island is still in operation!

So what is going to happen if they can't clean for years or even decades?

My statement was clear, this was more than a blip.

Of course this event cannot be ignored. But the end result is: they could have save 1600 lives by not evacuating the hospitals.

Could they? The ones that died, were they fail and sick to begin with? Would they have been more susceptible to radiation?

Why dont you read the link in the op?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don't get cute with me. I raised possible issues that were each well above the level of ridiculous to happen. Quakes happen after quakes all the time. It is possible that they couldn't remediate the temperature of the rods. These are two well above the bar possibilities that could have happened.

What fear? I'm talking about risk and what level of acceptable risk there are. There was a notable nuclear issue. It's stability was not a certain thing. A couple of natural events could have occurred to make things worse. Then there is always the social component.

The clean up which can't occur for how long, will cost what, billions? It isn't armageddon, but it sure the heck is above the blip called an incident. Three Mile Island is still in operation!

So what is going to happen if they can't clean for years or even decades?

My statement was clear, this was more than a blip.

Of course this event cannot be ignored. But the end result is: they could have save 1600 lives by not evacuating the hospitals.

Could they? The ones that died, were they fail and sick to begin with? Would they have been more susceptible to radiation?

Why dont you read the link in the op?

The article didn't address my question.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm just old enough to remember the disaster at Three Mile Island in which there were no deaths and no injuries. And no meltdown. And no exposure.

There was a tiny bit of exposure--they had to vent some radiokrypton to relieve pressure.

It was more dangerous to cross the street once than to not evacuate.

 

[bilby]

I'm just old enough to remember the disaster at Three Mile Island in which there were no deaths and no injuries. And no meltdown. And no exposure.

There was a tiny bit of exposure--they had to vent some radiokrypton to relieve pressure.

It was more dangerous to cross the street once than to not evacuate.

Which highlights a big part of the problem - it is so easy to detect even minuscule amounts of radiation, that the press go crazy with 'Radiation was detected!!!' stories. No thought is given to whether the radiation is able to do anything of the slightest significance other than triggering a detector.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course this event cannot be ignored. But the end result is: they could have save 1600 lives by not evacuating the hospitals.

Could they? The ones that died, were they fail and sick to begin with? Would they have been more susceptible to radiation?

Already being sick would be an issue if you were to suffer an acute exposure--but that's not what happened even to the people in the complex itself.

This is a very low level exposure, the only threat is cancer far down the road. Oops--many of those people don't have a far down the road. The threat to many of them is effectively zero.

 

[angelo]

Overreaction when it comes to anything nuclear is right. The same people probably fill their bodies with many more poisons from supplements and mega doses of vitamins etc.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There was a tiny bit of exposure--they had to vent some radiokrypton to relieve pressure.

It was more dangerous to cross the street once than to not evacuate.

Which highlights a big part of the problem - it is so easy to detect even minuscule amounts of radiation, that the press go crazy with 'Radiation was detected!!!' stories. No thought is given to whether the radiation is able to do anything of the slightest significance other than triggering a detector.

But was the evacuation because of the current level of radiation or the potential for something to happen that would worsen the condition?

What I'm having a hard time accepting is that the study indicates 1600 deaths, yet seems to assume that surviving the earthquake, tsunami, destruction, and subsequent radiation issue would have had no effect on the locals, had they stayed there would have been 0 deaths related to the stress of the natural disaster and the nuclear plant issue (ignoring the statistical likelihood of radiation related disease and death).