to be chafoin wrote:bardal wrote:There are still no deaths from radioactivity in Fukushima (for a major disaster!) ...
The 200 billions are an estimate, not a statement ...
The opinion of JR Jourdain is a personal opinion which is not shared by the experts of WHO and UNSCAER; today there is a very broad consensus among experts to reject this theory of "linear without threshold", in favor of a threshold placed around 100 mSv / year, ie around 50 times more than the official safety thresholds (2mSv / year), fixed in a very conservative way at a time when knowledge on this subject was almost non-existent. In the evacuated area of Fukushima, we are very far from this threshold of 100 mSv, and even rather below the threshold of 2 mSv ...
You ask me if I would like to return. I obviously can not answer that question, not being in the real situation. By cons, I live at 15 km as the crow flies from a nuclear power station, in the wind moreover, and at no time did this prevent me to sleep. Better, and you'll laugh, this plant has known, there are thirty years, a serious accident, with partial melting of the heart and emission of rejects, which led to the closure of the slice involved and decommissioning decision. Although aware of the accident (I have some friends who work there in positions of responsibility), I have never thought of evacuating at any time; and I am glad that no evacuation decision was taken by the authorities, it would certainly have resulted in victims ...
Excuse me but I have to repeat myself, I had already left some information on the subject, there is at least one death caused by the radioactivity of the Fukushima plant. This is a worker of 50 years who contracted lung cancer after intervening at least 2 times on the plant. It is not me who asserts that it is the Japanese authorities who have also acknowledged that the radiation of the accident was responsible for the diseases of 4 other employees. Compensation was paid to the families.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2018/ ... ations.phpSo is it "a children's tale intended to scare or manipulate infantile fears", what I have just written? Are we dealing here with "an anti-nuclear article"? What is incredible is rather this stubbornness (which does not concern you only) to deny death in this case. Is this being blinded by self-persuasion of the harmlessness of this technology? because personally I refuse to suspect you of wanting to manipulate the readers of forum... that leaves you thinking.
But let's put aside for the moment this question of the dangerousness of radioactivity. Let me say that I greatly overestimate the risks to human health. Me and also specialists in the field like JR Jourdain, the specialists who work at INRS and who wrote in January 2019
As a conservative approach, any dose, no matter how small, is considered to be associated with an increased risk of cancer. This is the "no threshold" hypothesis.
http://www.inrs.fr/risques/rayonnements-ionisants/effets-sur-la-sante.html
So let's admit that these are fables and that these people are "very broad consensus" dissidents who have gone astray.
Then there are the social, environmental and financial issues raised by this accident.
Hollow in what we see in Fukushima is first and foremost the issue of radioactive waste and / or the treatment of contaminated substrates, let's call them whatever you want. As far as I know, even if we see pictures of people handling bags without protections, it's not just because people like children are panicking, that the authorities are storing in thousands or millions of bags this earth, have filled vats for years. It is not for nothing that you should not eat red berries near undecontaminated forests or the skin of fish caught in the Fukushima Bay, those authorized for sale. It's not for nothing either that the issue of waste management in France is crucial.
But then again, let's go in your direction, imagine that all this is fomented by a plot of dangerous reactionary ecologists and absurd.
As you say, an evacuation results in deaths (it happened in Fukushima, and would surely happen in France near us). So are we ready to pay this human price? If we blandly defend nuclear power, it means that we are condoning the loss of human life in the event of an accident. But there again let's say that in a way we cannot manage their infantilism for people, it will be in a way their fault, they only have to inform themselves properly by choosing the representatives of the "consensus" large "as a source of information.
Are we ready to end up paying this price (anyway)? Here again I will go in your direction, imagine that the Japanese authorities are greatly wrong in their evaluations, that it will not be 200 billion but half: 100 billion euros that will be spent in all and in the 5,10 (? again low forecast) years to come to "restore" the site, the environment and the local society. 100 billion euros is the equivalent of the GDP of 10 African countries such as Congo, Chad, Benin ... By benevolently defending nuclear power, we therefore accept the risk of wasting the equivalent of 10 years of wealth from a disadvantaged African country or 1 year of wealth from a country like Ukraine or Morocco.
Well ... Me too I'll have to repeat ...
- There are indeed 4 workers who have been compensated by the Japanese State, but there is no recognition of a cause and effect relationship; no more than for the death of an employee whose lung cancer was detected approximately 6 months after the disaster; if you read sources a little less primary than the press release relayed by the whole press, you would know that these indemnities were paid only because these workers met the administrative criteria, and by "principle of social precaution" (the World says "for the benefit of the doubt"), which incidentally does not seem scandalous to me. It is true that lung cancer that appears at most 6 months after exposure, it appears a little surprising ... I am attaching some links to a little less simplistic, but safer, literature on the medical effects of Fukushima, seen by various recognized scientific bodies; it is certainly a little more complex than you think, even for thyroid cancers in children, which are however the best known.
That you turn all this into "a 50-year-old worker who contracted lung cancer after working twice on the power station" is indeed a children's tale intended to scare; Rest assured, all the workers who worked on the plant will die one day or another (they will not be the only ones) and you can repeat the exact same story for each of them.
I am, however, attaching some serious links (including a UN report) on this subject, not always very easy to read and far from being simplistic; but it is the least on a serious subject.
https://www.irsn.fr/FR/connaissances/In ... LbTuPZOKUkhttps://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conséquen ... s_le_mondehttp://www.sfen.org/rgn/fukushima-impac ... e-accidenthttps://www.contrepoints.org/2016/03/29 ... te-humaineI exempt you all the same from your reflections on my tendencies to "deny death"; To date, Fukushima has killed nearly 20 people due to the tsunami, which doesn't seem to move you too much, unlike the hypothetical victims of nuclear power ...
- in the same way, you had transformed the statement of JR Jourdain, "As a precaution, it is considered that any dose, however low it may be, can lead to an increased risk of cancer. This is the hypothesis" of absence of threshold ””, which is content to recall the current regulatory situation (this is what I told you in my previous intervention) while insisting on the caution of this hypothesis; so, there too, you romance a declaration, and even, you make her say exactly the opposite of what she says ... This affair of "threshold" is abundantly explained in one of the links which I transmitted to you. ..
- the evacuations actually have dangers recognized by all, whether they are caused by nuclear power, a natural disaster or human decisions. How many deaths in tsunami evacuations related to the Three Gorges Dam in China (1,5 million evacuees) or the opening of the last lignite quarry in Germany? I think you do not know, and you do not care (these deaths do not matter ...). Reflection on this aspect is of great importance to me; for the civil security officials also, apparently, the unfortunate experiences of Three Miles Island, Fukushima and even Chernobyl showing that the dangers of evacuation are infinitely greater than the dangers of the irradiation itself (even in the case from Chernobyl!). It is not a matter of infantilism of the people (they are not the ones who make the decision to evacuate), but of managing a crisis situation, to be assured with the best possible self-control; that was not the case at Chernobyl, much better at TMI and Fukushima, with a number of radiation victims so low that it despairs anti-nuclear weapons.
- Let us leave here the economic aspects, which will be known only after the end of the operations; estimates range from about 50 billion to more than 200; more than 500 says my concierge, who knows it, or Corinne Lepage ... 100 billion euro, that's about what we spent to develop photovoltaic and wind at home (6% of the production of electricity, mostly against-cycle), knowing that we have committed as much for the next 6 years. Note, Morocco and its neighbors have escaped the worst with the German project Désertec, for several thousand billion euros, which will have occupied our evenings and made a lot of ink, in the absence of electricity.
To conclude, presumably provisionally, I find it unfortunate to remain at such a level of discussion on the Fukushima disaster; there would be a lot to be gained by leading a debate free from any irrational and ideological aspect. But...
) That being said, carbon energy does not sag to kill more and more ..... 
