Fukushima and the Risks of Nuclear Power

By: George Noga – May 16, 2014
        Following the Fukushima accident 3 years ago, Japan shut all its 54 nuclear reactors although, recently and very quietly, they have restarted a few. Germany pledged to shut down all its reactors within 8 years and some utilities in the USA are under pressure to close reactors. Many countries, particularly in Europe, have vowed never to build new nuclear plants. All this was in response to an accident in which no one died due to radiation.
        Let’s recap the major nuclear power plant accidents throughout history. Three Mile Island (1979) resulted in severe damage to the core but there were no fatalities. Chernobyl (1986) was by far the worst accident; it resulted from a deeply flawed reactor design that never would have been built anywhere outside the former Soviet Union. Despite everything going wrong that possibly could go wrong at Chernobyl, the only known fatalities 28 years later are about 50 highly exposed rescue workers (5% of the 1,000 thusly exposed) and fewer than 10 thyroid cancer deaths. A UN study estimated thousands of future cancer fatalities; however, that represents only a 1% increase in the normal amount of cancer deaths in that population over the relevant time period and is impossible to measure.
“More people died at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile
Island and Fukushima combined (from radiation).”
       In 70 years with hundreds of mostly old reactors in place there have been fewer than 60 deaths due to radiation and all in the dysfunctional USSR. Why therefore was there such a dramatic reaction to Fukushima? There are 20 coal mining deaths each year in the USA and hundreds involving natural gas. However, we are accustomed to these and they don’t panic us. Each year 100 people die from both lightning and bee stings. A natural gas accident at a Texas school (1937) killed 425 children, yet there was no movement to ban natural gas following that tragedy.
Evidence Shows Higher Levels of Radiation are Beneficial

        Everyone knows too much radiation can kill. However, most people take this factoid and extrapolate that therefore even small doses can be harmful. Consider the following facts:

  • Highly radioactive cobalt accidentally was mixed into a batch of steel in Taiwan in the 1980s and used to build apartments housing 10,000 people; it delivered 30 times normal radiation. When the error was discovered 15 years later, the cancer rate of the residents was 97% lower and birth defects 94% lower than the general population – they were, in effect, immunized against cancer. The Fukushima evacuation zone had 10 times less radiation (equal to a few CAT scans) than the Taiwan apartments.
  •  The Rocky Mountain plateau (Denver area) has 10 times the background radiation of the Mississippi Valley yet has far lower cancer rates. There are areas in the USA with background radiation 100 times higher than the forbidden zone at Fukushima. Some scientists believe we have too little radiation for optimum health.
  • The Atomic Bomb Disease Institute of Nagasaki University studied 120,000 people who received low doses of radiation and compared them with unexposed Japanese. Conclusion: low doses of radiation increased the lifespan of atom-bomb survivors.
Nuclear is the Most Environmentally Friendly Energy
        What makes nuclear energy so attractive is its power density. Biofuels are low in density. If  the USA replaced just 10% of its oil consumption with switchgrass, it would require 37 million acres of land – about the size of Illinois. The power density (energy derived from a given volume or mass) of biofuels is a small fraction of a watt per square meter (“SM”). Wind turbines have a power density of 1 watt per SM. A small natural gas well delivers 30 watts per SM. Nuclear energy generates over 2,000 watts per SM. To get the same energy as one nuclear plant would require 800 square miles of wind turbines – about the size of Rhode Island.
       Nor is storage of nuclear waste a monumental issue. The USA to date has produced 60,000 tons of waste – which could be stored (to a height of 20 feet) in a building the size of a football field. France, which produces 80% of its electricity via nuclear, stores all its high level waste in a single building the size of as soccer field.

       The present perception and public policy about nuclear energy reflects panic rather than facts. For example, the (“ICRP”) International Commission on Radiological Protection (yes there really is such a thing) recommends an area be evacuated whenever the excess dose of radiation exceeds .1 rem per year. This ICRP standard would require the immediate evacuation of Denver. In many designated radiation hot spots in Japan (near Fukushima) the radiation level was much lower than in Denver – yet people panicked and were evacuated. More people died in the ensuing evacuation than in all the nuclear accidents in human history.
       Aversion to nuclear energy is based on panic, misinformation, ersatz environmentalism and political correctness. In 70 years of nuclear energy, deaths from radiation have been nearly nonexistent and far less than coal and natural gas deaths which continue to this day – not to mention lightning and bee stings. Future generations of advanced reactors would be even safer. And no other form of energy is remotely as friendly to our environment!