Fukushima Open Thread 2

radiation and LNT

We have been deceived into believing that all radiation is bad because of policy reliance on the “linear no-threshold” theory, or LNT, which states that if large amounts of something cause death or sickness, fractional amounts of the same thing cause proportional amounts of death or sickness. If the LNT were applied to falling as it is to radiation, we might note that 100 percent of those falling onto concrete from 100 feet are killed, but only 50 percent of those falling from 50 feet die. With these data we would linearly extrapolate to say that 10 percent falling from 10 feet and one percent of those falling from one foot would die. Armed with this “linear no-threshold falling theory,” we could confidently assert that jumping rope should be banned on all school playgrounds since statistically anyone making 100 one-foot jumps would die.

LikeLike

radiation and LNT

the problem is, that we are breaking safety limits in Japan at many places these days. and those limits are NOT the result of a “linear no-threshold” theory.

LikeLike

“Gov’t asks treatment plants not to take in rainwater due to radiation

TOKYO, March 27, Kyodo

The health ministry has instructed the operator of water purification plants nationwide to temporarily stop taking in rainwater to prevent contamination in tap water following radiation leaks from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, ministry officials said Sunday.”

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81334.html

–bks

LikeLike

I’ve been pondering the impact of radiation on DNA and it seems to me that there is arguably some analogy to the effect that noise has on a digital radio signal. DNA, like a digital radio signal, includes protocols to correct bit errors.

Assuming a very rudimentary correction algorithm relying on a single parity bit we can ponder the impact of noise on a digital signal. At low levels of noise a digital radio signal can entirely filter out the interference. A single bit error in any given packet sequence can be repaired perfectly using parity checking. This can continue up to the point where every packet has a bit error. However the moment you get multiple bit errors in a signal packet then assuming noise starts to be manifested in the transmission result.

Obviously this is just a metaphor and I freely admit that I might have misunderstood the underlying mechanisms by which the process of DNA replication works to filter out noise. However if the analogy is appropriate it is not hard to see that there could be a quite abrupt threshold effect.

LikeLike

DV82XL & TerjeP Can I quote you? I like your analysis.

LikeLike

Asteroid Miner, you may then like the following link http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/Docs/Correspondence/BEIRVII/TubianaAurengo5Oct05.pdf from French Medicine Academy and Science Academy.

LikeLike

To those “experts” who insist the future is “doomed” to one outcome or another (especially those who claim its nuclear power or certain doom, but also economic growth or doom,) I offer this interesting new book. Turns out predicting the future is harder than you think, and the so called “experts” of one field or another are in fact less accurate at predicting the future than those who possess a little knowledge about a lot of things and adjust their opinions and predictions as more information is learned. Also known as “common sense” thinkers.

—–

This is the problem Dan Gardner tackles in “Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Are Next to Worthless, and You Can Do Better.” Gardner, a Canadian journalist and author of “The Science of Fear,” takes as his starting point the work of Philip Tetlock, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Beginning in the 1980s, Tetlock examined 27,451 forecasts by 284 academics, pundits and other prognosticators. The study was complex, but the conclusion can be summarized simply: the experts bombed. Not only were they worse than statistical models, they could barely eke out a tie with the proverbial dart-throwing chimps.

The most generous conclusion Tetlock could draw was that some experts were less awful than others. Isaiah Berlin once quoted the Greek poet Archilochus to distinguish between two types of thinkers: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Berlin admired both ways of thinking, but Tetlock borrowed the metaphor to account for why some experts fared better. The least accurate forecasters, he found, were hedgehogs: “thinkers who ‘know one big thing,’ aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains” and “display bristly impatience with those who ‘do not get it,’ ” he wrote. Better experts “look like foxes: thinkers who know many small things,” “are skeptical of grand schemes” and are “diffident about their own forecasting prowess.”

LikeLike

LNT

To LNT or not to LNT, that is the question.

perhaps @DV82XL This is an ancient debate in nuclear circles, so he’s no doubt heard it all before….

The latest high level US scientific panel assessment of the hazard presented by ionizing radiation is BEIR VII The Executive Summary is a quick 18 page online read available here –> http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=11

When describing what literature the committee assessed for this report, from various disciplines, the word “all” appears repeatedly.

The problem is not that the high level scientific panels made some sort of mistake with LNT, and it is not that society’s “policy reliance” on LNT is wrong. Our problem with LNT is society’s selective application of the insight it gives us.

Eg. I live in Seattle where I’m told the background radiation exposure is close to the US average. If I was to move to Spokane Washington 450 miles away my exposure would increase by a factor of 5. The additional exposure would dwarf the additional exposure someone would receive 10,000 years from now if they were to wander around the surface at Yucca, had it been certified and used as a nuke waste dump. No one argues that we truck away Spokane Washington to a nuclear waste dump, yet regulations have forced nuclear sites being decommissioned that were less radioactive to be treated as hazardous waste.

People dispute this line of reasoning by pretending there is a difference between exposure caused by adding radioactive material to a particular site and moving to a site that is more radioactive, although they tend to ignore insanity such as trucking off what’s left of a nuclear facility to a nuke waste dump while allowing the much more radioactive offices (due to building materials) of the former management of the facility a free pass to be disposed of anywhere.

Getting back to BEIR VII, i.e. from the “a few choice quotes” department:

“The committee judged that the linear no-threshold model (LNT) provided the most reasonable description of the relation between low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and the incidence of solid cancers that are induced by ionizing radiation” page 6

“One challenge to understanding the health effects of radiation is that there is no general property that makes the effects of man-made radiation different from those of naturally occurring radiation.”

“At doses less than 40 times the average yearly background exposure (100 mSv), statistical limitations make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans”

“A comprehensive review of the biology data led the committee to conclude that the risk would continue in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to human”

“Some of the materials the committee reviewed included arguments that low doses of radiation are more harmful than a LNT model of effects would suggest. The BEIR VII committee has concluded that radiation health effects research, taken as a whole, does not support this view. In essence, the committee concludes that the higher the dose, the greater is the risk; the lower the dose, the lower is the likelihood of harm to human health”

“some materials provided to the committee suggest that the LNT model exaggerates the health effects of low levels of ionizing radiation. They say that the risks are lower than predicted by the LNT, that they are nonexistent, or that low doses of radiation may even be beneficial. The committee also does not accept this hypothesis. …..Before coming to this conclusion, the committee reviewed articles arguing that a threshold or decrease in effect does exist at low doses. Those reports claimed that at very low doses, ionizing radiation does not harm human health or may even be beneficial. The reports were found either to be based on ecologic studies or to cite findings not representative of the overall body of data. ….in some cases, such studies have suggested that the incidence of cancer is much higher or lower than the numbers observed with more precise epidemiologic studies. When the complete body of research on this question is considered, a consensus view emerges. This view says that the health risks of ionizing radiation, although small at low doses, are a function of dose.”

Caution: when writing or speaking as if this report contains valid information this author (i.e. me) has been subjected to open contempt and ridicule in comments on pro nuclear blogsites. Don’t let this happen to you. Apparently the pro nuclear types like to examine part of the literature, or they are early adopters of scientific concepts the more august levels of the scientific establishment want to take their time with.

I think it is counterproductive in the extreme to be questioning the competence of a scientific panel such as BEIR VII or the National Academies. We must preserve our great scientific institutions as a place where people can get authoritative assessments of science. This is vital, because as the NAS has repeatedly stated there are far greater issues at stake than nuclear power. The current President of the NAS says Hansen, above all his peers, is the best living climatologist. Hansen asserts that the viability of Earth to support life will be jeopardized if the wastes of the fossil fuels still left in the ground are allowed to enter the atmosphere. This can not be allowed to occur.

No one ever asked the Academy for its opinion about should we continue to demand that the nuclear industry be forced to pour all these billions of dollars down rat holes in pursuit of a few millirem that make no difference. Rather than dispute the Academy assessment of LNT, we should ask it, now that the Academy has become so concerned about climate, what will they say now, about the selective application of their LNT insight into radiation.

Let them speak clearly. The hour is getting late.

Rather than dispute LNT, because of the way the anti nukes have exploited it given irrational public fear, we should direct the Academy to tell us how best to deal with radiation in all aspects of our lives.

LikeLike

The French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety has some pretty interesting simulations on anticipated nuclide concentrations and impacts for Fukushima and surrounding area (for first seven days of accident). Full and updated document record here.

– Atmospheric dispersion analysis and animation.

– Whole body doses (in milliseiverts).

– Iodine-131 dose levels.

– Global dispersion analysis and animation.

Their update for March 22 includes estimates for rare gases, iodine, cesium, and tellurium, and suggests 10% “the releases estimated during the Chernobyl accident” (with caveats). Austria’s Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics places their estimates in 20-50% range of Chernobyl for I-131 and Cs-137 (here and here). Recent statements from IAEA Director General and lack thereof from Prime Minister Naoto Kan indicate we are “still far from the end of the accident.” Smoke emissions are still being reported for Reactors 1, 3, and 4 (and occasionally steam emissions from Spent Fuel Pool in 2, which as of March 27 still has “damage suspected” to containment vessel). 5 day extended forecast for Fukushima Prefecture calls for chance of rain Tuesday and Thursday, and rain (with 4 mph NW winds) on Wednesday.

@DV82XL. It seems to me hormetic effects at the low range of LNT values (which indicate physiological stress or an immune system response in the presence of higher than background levels of radiation) are little comfort for anybody reading daily values of “radioactive fallout” near their homes, heightened concerns over weather forecasts and wind direction, indication that crisis might last additional weeks and/or months, and reports of higher than recommended levels of fission products in municipal tap water and food safety guidelines for adults and infants.

LikeLike

Many people claim that the solar panels they have installed on their roofs will pay back in about 10 years. Doing the calculations, I find this to be true but with a huge government subsidy. I am paying extra taxed so that my brother and law will benefit in 10 years – if there are a lot of sunny days.

One person posted on the internet how may solar panels needed to power the United States during the day. His calculation used 80 watts per 1000 sq. in panel. It turned out that one would have to cover the entire earth surface three times.

LikeLike

@David Lewis – Consider this review on Energy Probe’s website, of all places, at:

NCRP Report No. 136 – How to ignore data that contradict the LNT hypothesis

This review says much about what many epidemiologists have been doing. After reading it, you might have a better understanding of what “willful blindness” means. One very interesting sentence is quoted from the Cardis study on leukemia mortality (Cardis et al. 1995), which accepted only risk increments: “As there was no reason to suspect that exposure to radiation would be associated with a decrease in risk of any specific type of cancer, one sided tests are presented throughout.”

LikeLike

LNT
Scraches on the neck would be found carry a significant risk of death, if a linear model was assumed and cases of decapitation were included.

David Lewis

The models “allowed” and the extent of out-of scope data included to influence the studies is a repeated theme in BEIR group’s work. They claim to be studying low-level radiation in that document but most studies quoted are fitting with data way outside low-level as they define it.

Your quote from page 6 is interesting in that it shows how little time the BEIR report has for the idea of a threshold. The description of it is limited to a line among three others on the figure PS-3 on p7. Even there the apparent simplicity of the LNT is shown to be a fraud; the use of a low-dose adjustment factor renders the concept meaningless. Their discussion of a threshold model pp 9-10 is limited to a paragraph placed after a discussion on why low-level radiation is not more dangerous than extrapolation from high-level would suggest, and admixed thoroughly with the alternative hypothesis of hormesis, concealing its null-hypothesis status.

Or maybe that’s just my selective reading. Each should judge for themselves.

LikeLike

The public hearing on Darlington expansion

Yesterday went to Darlington expansion hearings in Courtice. Quite an ordeal getting there, alleviated by hitching one ~5-km ride when I realized I would be very late if I got there under only my own power.I said a very brief, I guess 40-second, version of my piece, something like

I am a layman who is trying to promote nuclear production of motor fuel. For electricity production, I am in favour of the expansion of the Darlington station because it will use inexhaustible fuel that is currently very inexpensive, with no pollution, no waste worries, and, in particular, none of today’s real waste worry: global warming.

I then found myself indecisive about what to say next, panicked, and declared myself done, forgetting to use my microphone time to ask about resident inspectors, and to ask if anyone there would take me back to Cobourg.

So I had to try to bicycle back, but soon realized my hill-climbing ability was gone. Going down the long hill that includes highway 2’s intersection with 115, assisted by an unrelenting northwest wind, I was amazed that earlier in the day I could have got up it, against that vicious wind.

Three motorists assisted me this time, and while I was walking from Port Hope to Cobourg, a fourth stopped to see if he might, but his car had no room for the bike, and I was too chilled to think of the obvious possibility of abandoning it.

Shortly after this, the last of the three successful thumbings got me all the way home, even though that wasn’t on the man’s way.

On the way in, stopped at the Clarington public library. It is very nice. They made me a guest card so that I could use a terminal, and I emailed Julie Bouchard of the CNSC — not connected to the net right now, so no access to most of this year’s email, but I did think to take a local copy of that one, hence I know her name — that I would be an hour late. This estimate was about three minutes optimistic: when I sat down in the back row, my camera said 14:34, so I got from Cobourg to Courtice in 5.0 hours. My presentation was the day’s last.

The library terminal could have been mine for 120 minutes!

<emHow fire can be domesticated

LikeLike

The reason I think solar power is not practical:

Stick your hand into a burning coal furnace. You’ll burn it in less than a second.

Stick your hand out into the bright sunlight at high noon on a summer day. Maybe takes 2 hours to burn?

The raw energy sources for fossil fuels and nuclear are so much more concentrated, it seems to me that “renewables” will never be practical for large-scale replacement of “dirty” energy technologies.

LikeLike

solar power costs – who cares?

The costs will come down and make solar competitive. Solar? Yes please. Wind? Yes please. But the numbers don’t add up for wind and solar alone. No way, no how. Let’s be very generous and give them each 20% of the energy pie. Then generously give other renewables and conservation/efficiency another 20%. That leaves a shortfall of at least 40%. Carbon capture? Unfeasible, expensive, and way too easy to cheat. Coal must be left in the ground. So– nuclear? Yes please.

Bickering about the cost per kWh of solar? Meaningless.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at 392 ppm and rising. Global energy demand is growing. The best way to slow population growth is economic development in the developing world, and that means lots more energy production. It can’t be coal.

A look at the numbers: http://www.withouthotair.com/

A look at the solutions:
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/climate_catastrophe_solutions.html

LikeLike

TerjeP: cellular cancer mechanisms aren’t like bit or multibit errors. Its more like a multistage lottery. For a cell to become cancerous it must pass through multiple stages … A->B->C … about 10 in all. Between each pair of states the causal factors which will enhance or inhibit the risk of moving to the next state may be different. The famous case is beta carotene which inhibits cancer in most cells except those already advanced along the chain and then it increases risk. A lot of the work on this is in vitro but seems applicable to in-vivo. I don’t know the specifics of how radiation fits into this picture, my reading has been confined to nutritional/lifestyle factors, many of which can turn genes on or off. Some genes will, when active, enhance movement between states in the chain, and others inhibit.

LikeLike

There has been a recent breakthrough for a new catalyst for fuel cells. It is based on duped carbon nanotubes rather than platinum. From the article
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cheap_Catalyst_Made_Easy_999.html
“Unlike platinum, the carbon-based catalyst: doesn’t lose catalytic activity and, therefore, efficiency, over time; isn’t fouled by carbon monooxide poising; and is free from the crossover effect with methanol.”
This means you do not have to store or transport hydorgen. You can power up all your mobile and remote sites using methanol.

LikeLike

Well some of us have to work on Mondays.

So good-bye to all you retirees, and students etc.

Remember – Nuclear is quick, dirty, short-term, [deleted personal opinion on motives] but hugely profitable.

Renewables are coming, clean, long-term, democratic, economic, and preferable.

If Australia does not invest in renewables we will be left behind other nations that are fast tracking these develoments.

Australia will be the looser.

I do not enjoy those [ad hom deleted] who try to suggest that if we do not go down the nuclear path the climate change will destroy civilisation.

I can put up with some technical and commercial enthusiasm for nuclear, [deleted personal opinion about a person’s motives]

By the way – in the near future we may all travel to work in a fuel cell powered bus.

How do you run a car on nuclear????

LikeLike

@Jeff Bullard/Solar costs

Solar is being installed in Germany at a multi-GW/yr run rate for costs (i.e. amount paid to solar power producers) ranging from 21 eurocents/kWh (for MW+ system) to 28 eurocent/kWh(for kW+ system). Considering USA gets more sun than Germany (most countries do), solar will cost less than the eurorate converted to $ here.

For a reasonable estimate of cost check out:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figures/retail-price-environment/solar-electricity-prices

LikeLike

John Newlands wrote:

I note that for electrical energy storage in medium-tech form they haven’t bettered the lead acid battery at about $200 per kwh. I think the basic idea came from the Babylonians about 2000 years ago. So much for R&D.

You should take another look at the battery sector, a lot of money sloshing around looking for the next big break through. There are some pretty impressive battery technologies that are very close to large scale development (some with specific energy densities close to fossil fuels, if you can believe it … and 80% charge times in 15-30 minute range). Chu finds every opportunity he can to tout new developments in metal-air batteries. Been around a long time (120+ years), and used in everything from hearing aids to buoys and railroad signaling, but they only recently figured out how to improve charge cycle performance (and use nano technology to limit dendrite formation on capacitors). ARPA-E project looks at same in grid-scale deployment in MW/hour range for low cost energy storage (with Satcon and Chevron as funding partners). It’s a bit higher up on the food chain than your typical fly by night venture capital “let’s get the ball rolling” guessing game.

Needless to say, a breakthrough in batteries for electricity storage (particularly in area of EVs, and dare I say back-up generators at power plants) would likely be a huge benefit to nuclear industry. Nobody has any interest in replacing a fossil fuel powered combustion engine with an electric powertrain that runs on coal power … unless you just happen to live in a place like West Virginia, Kentucky, or Wyoming. And shale gas (with conventional gas tapering off) can only hold it’s own, and has little room to grow.

LikeLike

@Jeff Bullard

Your solar estimate is about right for a small, home sized installation. All your other estimates are presumably for large scale power plants (re: I don’t know anyone with a coal burning plant for their home). When you scale solar power to large power generating installations, the cost is between 6¢ and 15¢ per kWh. Just FYI, I achieved this estimate by googling: /solar per kWh/ and combining a treehugger article estimate with a wikileaks answer. I saw it on the Internet, so… must be true (heh).

LikeLike

Saying R&D will help make Renewables a substitute for fossil fuels is ignoring the know limits of the amount of energy these technologies can provide. A solar array just takes up too much space to provide enough energy to provide a dent in our energy demands. Comparing the costs of Chernobyl and Fukushima is unfair. Chernobyl should have never been built and the US did warn Russia of the dangers of that reactor.
Fukushima was a tragedy caused by human error from locating it at sea level or by not having backup cooling systems above the plant. Tepco or who ever build that plant will surely be criticized for such terrible over-site.

The augment that these two plant disasters make Nuclear energy too expensive is ignoring the fact that there are (I believe) 442 nuclear power plants world wide providing energy.

It also ignores the fact that R&D in Nuclear energy has taken quantum leaps unlike R&D in renewables.

Perhaps one day the Laser Inertial Fusion Engine will solve all our energy problems but with the rapidly growing population, natural gas, Nuclear and fossil fuels seem to be the only solution.

Annual power consumption in the US is approximately 1.2*10^15 watt-hours. Wind and solar are great but how much of a dent can they really make?

LikeLike

Can anyone direct me to someone from the scientific community who has done a thorough commentary on the position of Helen Caldicott? Here is the latest set of statements http://www.countercurrents.org/smith260311.htm I am asked by someone who is very impressed by her to find someone qualified to respond to her claims, because my opinion or statements againt her are not sufficient. Fair enough. I am a layperson. By the way, in this radio interview, she slights Barry Brook, not surprisingly.

LikeLike

@ Caroline Webb:

From the linked article:

There are about two hundred new elements made when you fission uranium in a reactor, all of which are radioactive and man-made.

Now I realise she has just misstated the terminology here, but surely someone who has built an advocacy career around a certain issue can at least get the terminolgy right after four decades.

LikeLike

Mike: You ask “How can you run a car on Nuclear?”

At the risk of sounding simplistic, I’d say With the Greatest of Ease. Electric cars are already current technology.

The weak point in the technology is battery efficiency – currently a lot of the energy savings that you’d make running cars on electricity would be gobbled up in the battery. We’re working on that, though.

Large scale use of electric cars could actually provide us with a way to store energy for later, which augments the effectiveness of ANY electrical generating system; in off-peak times, power would simply be used to charge electric vehicles. I am an informed layman here, so there may be challenges I haven’t considered; but I can’t see in principle any reason why this system couldn’t be used to provide emergency power for the grid at times of extreme surges.

The problem with solar generation of electricity is efficency. The best figures I have suggest about 20% efficiency; and as far as I can tell, that’s pushing the theoretical boundaries as it is – Can anyone tell me if any major advances are on the horizon?

If you have 20% efficiency, this places a limit on the amount of area you’d have to cover with solar panels to generate the electric you need – and it’s massive.

LikeLike

LNT

BEIR VII does say this, as quoted before: “At doses less than 40 times the average yearly background exposure (100 mSv), statistical limitations make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans”

Because society decided to pick on the nuclear industry over radiation, the nuclear industry, rather than trying to educate society, tends to criticize the scientific establishment for its assessment of what is known about radiation. The public misunderstands what is known and continues to pick on the nuclear industry over radiation. Is there a point to the nuclear industry criticizing the scientific establishment? Let the scientists duke it out.

Leaving town…..

LikeLike

Johno, on 28 March 2011 at 10:21 AM — The issue for solar is how much the sun shines. For the Mohave Desert the capacity factor is 25% and for other decent locations more around 21%.

LikeLike

Hi folks, transfering this subject from the 26 Mar update thread per Moderator request:

Rational Debate, on 28 March 2011 at 4:12 PM said:

re post by: b, on 28 March 2011 at 4:27 AM said:

… added boric acid to the freshwater feed of unit 2. Such was NOT added to unit 1 and 3 freshwater feed….Why is there, 16 days after shut down, still need to suppress fission in unit 2?

How does that relate to short half life nucleotides in the water in the unit 2 turbine hall? Could the partial meltdown in no 2 have restarted some fission?

Hi b,

Primarily it’s being added as an overabundance of caution. Engineers and scientists are trained to always consider that almost anything, no matter how improbably, might be possible. They want to be absolutely certain (or as close to it as possible) that no matter how improbable, criticality can’t re-start.

As you probably know, once reactors are shut down, because it is uranium (and a small percentage of plutonium) there will always be a small percentage of fission occurring. So even tho it is very unlikely for criticality to occur, in a situation like this, if the coolant isn’t already carrying a large amount of boron, when you can, you add more.

I think if you go back thru the various reports you will find that they have added boron to each reactor at various times as the situation permitted.

LikeLike

Caldicott
My comment has appeared on the Caldicott article-wonder if it stays up:)

“Helen – at least you should have the courtesy to get Professor Barry Brook’s qualifications right. He is Director of Climate Science at the Environment Institute, Adelaide University and is in facT a conservation biologist/environmental/climate change scientists NOT A STATISTICIAN as you state. He has evolved to realise that only nuclear power and hydro power can replace fossil fuel baseload power and thereby prevent catastophic climate change and devastating species extinction.Tell me Helen – where in the World have non-hydro renewables been able to replace a single fossil fuel power station.
Rebuttals and correction of mistakes of some of the points made by Caldicott in this interview are appearing on the Fukushima Open Thread 2 at Prof Brook’s blog http://www.bravenewclimate.com“

LikeLike

Caldicott

However – despite other comments, after mine, being approved, there is no sign of it at http://www.dandelion salad.com
And they complain about BNC’s moderation – at least their comments see the light of day on this blog.

LikeLike

ref Steve Darden’s post

This aspect of nuclear safety is exactly what I have been considering and find is extremely odd that people go on about how safe nuclear reactors are when all you have to do is look at records (and pre-recorded historical documents) to see that building nuclear power stations around any coast is very risky.

I would love to understand why the pro-nuclear camp disregards these dangers almost to the point that they deny that these events are possible. Certainly in hindsight a 5.3 meter tsunami (considering historical information available) is woeful.

I would also like to know how risk assessments are carried out. From an outsider they sometimes seem more skewed to economic factors. ie they need the risk assessment to allow the building of the plant at a reasonable cost. Sorry for the cynicism.

My feeling is if an event could happen every 1000 years it must be factored in because it could happen tomorrow.

LikeLike

Sorry – that should read WebsandWeavers

LikeLike

Webs and Weavers did eventually say she was not Helen Caldicott. I don’t know the truth but incline to take such statements at face value until proven otherwise.

I do know she was hard work.

LikeLike

bchtd1parrot, if you really want to dip your toe in those murky waters, Webs and Weavers first appeared here.

LikeLike

bchtd1parrot

My allergy can be possibly caused by radiation or not enough radiation. We simply do not know.
My point was that more people will die from allergy over the years than from radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima combined. Also, there is no indication that increased background radiation after Chernobyl is responsible for dramatic increase in allergic reactions causing deaths. If that was the case I would believe you that my allergy may be caused by radiation.

This is open thread, hence we are invited to comment on anything we want to get off of our chest, so don’t ridicule anything or dispute anything as counter productive.
Barry Brook is doing an excellent job on this blog with giving us the chance to voice our opinions and by providing the information as correct as possible. One can clearly see he is genuine person trying to prevent the climate change by promoting the energy sources that make sense to do the job. His open tread once a while is intended to bring in comments and ideas that would not be otherwise discussed. Who knows, someone may someday bring the solution to complex problem in energy generation.
I am also trying to comment with accurate information as possible, plenty of it is derived from personal experience. The internet if loaded with misinformation, however, I have enough knowledge and experience to distinguish the crap from reality.

LikeLike