So funny and hypocritical. It’s like coming down from the fresh air of the mountains around Los Angeles into the smog which are chem cocktails whose pollutant concentrations and health effects are light-years above the mountain’s “background” (or nuclear effects) yet still acceptable enough allow fossil burners to run without much griping. Crazy. Someone challenge EPA, please!

James Greenidge
Queens NY

There is another downside — those absurdly-low limits will be flogged by fear mongers whenever radioactive substances are released beyond what is normally expected, no matter how inconsequential those releases may be.

What’s next here? Vaccines are bad for you? Go for it, science denial guy.

I think you are on to something there. We are innumerate regarding normal background radiation levels. As a thought experiment, suppose everywhere temperature is displayed, associated is the millisievert per year readout. Or percent-Denver-dose. Needs to always be in same units so that everyone gets familiar with normal (background). I like mSv/yr because I’m familiar with those numbers.

I still don’t know how to bring the general population to an understanding of the radiation level that could increase lifetime cancer risk by say 1%.

James Greenidge
Queens NY

I’m not implying that low level radiation is to be feared. It’s not. But there is a cancer risk, just like there is with sun exposure.

(…) I have not been able to find the article I read soon after the disaster which cites the pleas by Japanese nuclear scientists and engineers to the international community to help them limit the fear and uncertainty among the Japanese population. 

I wish I had spotted those early Japanese pleas for calm — were the articles in Japanese only? I was following commentary out of Japan closely – but what I read from Japan sources was about an unprepared and uninformed government (shockingly incompetent really), plus the expected media FUD and hype. 

It would be great if you could dig up the citation(s). If you would like to make some inquiries, some possible sources are: 

1. Adelaide Prof. Barry Brook (of BraveNewClimate). Barry’s wife is Japanese, and he was all over Fukushima – a primary source for me.

2. Daniel Garcia, a spanish-born Ph.D. nuclear engineer, working in Japan for JAEA (Japan Atomic Energy Agency). Daniel is married to a Japanese wife also. He speaks Spanish, French and probably Japanese. Daniel was an important source of hard-data on Fukushima. E.g., Japan NPP sources: radiation charts, reactor status. He is on Twitter @daniel_garcia_r and blogs infrequently here.

Sharpen Google searches to the time-frame of interest. E.g., I just executed the search “fukushima nuclear scientist” constrained to 3/11/2011 to 7/1/2011 and found such as these articles:

Modified version of original post written by Josef Oehmen (on the MIT NSE Nuclear Information site)

Short Sharp Science: Fukushima latest: Radiation around plant falls

The following credible source (James Conca) goes into detail on most of these facts and is perhaps similar in purport to my example article, though far better written and researched.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/03/16/nuclear-scientist-responds-to-critics-of-his-belief-that-fukushima-refugees-are-victims-of-fear-not-radiation/

Unfortunately, try as I might, I have not been able to find the article I read soon after the disaster which cites the pleas by Japanese nuclear scientists and engineers to the international community to help them limit the fear and uncertainty among the Japanese population. Of course, after a few days chaos really engulfed Japan and the voices of Japanese scientists were drowned out. It’s very difficult now to find a particular article dating from that period. I’d really like to find that article again so if anybody remembers it, please provide a link? It appeared within a few days of the accident if I remember correctly.

All the best,

Joris

It would be unfortunate to throw it out just because software developers have done a bad job.

Agreed, but I think the most likely cause of the silos of data (and hard to use software) is the institutional setting.  I’ve never seen elegant, standards-based software come out of a big bureaucracy, public or private. I.e., software that makes users literally excited and happy to use it. 

In other words, I don’t think the best programmers could make a soufflé out of this situation. But Google did a wonderful job – they know the art of great software, great data and they are an anti-bureaucracy.

Probably only nuclear power can provide sufficient clean energy for large developed countries. However, our pressurized water reactors are a serious mistake. We should be doing the necessary R & D work to prepare better nuclear technologies for wide-spread implementation.