As is often the case, the passage of time yields clarity about events, and the nuclear power plant accident at Fukushima is no different. It has become clear that the misinformation and hysterics by anti-nuclear groups and individuals were mostly wrong. Their doomsday prophesizing actually worsened human suffering and environmental impacts by contributing to unwise decisions by political leaders in Japan and elsewhere to shut down nuclear plants. In contrast, bloggers and experts from within the nuclear community accurately predicted outcomes and human health impacts.
As was predicted on this blog and elsewhere, the multi-barrier reactor containment design protected the public. Contrary to claims by anti-nuclear groups, the melted cores did NOT burn through the reactor vessels. The containment structures remained virtually intact. The damaged reactor fuel remained inside the reactor vessels and containment systems.
Despite preposterous claims by Greenpeace and others, there were no chunks of plutonium scattered across the countryside. Only radioactive gasses escaped over the land, and most of that gas was short lived Iodine that has long since decayed away.
As reported on Bloomberg and other news sources, no one in the public was harmed by radiation from the damaged reactors. A small number of plant workers received higher than normal radiation exposures, without lasting effects. Any hypothetical future health effects will be immeasurably low and will be indistinguishable from normal disease rates within the general population.
No one, not even the “Fukushima 50″, was exposed to life threatening amounts of radiation. Journalists who flew across the Pacific to cover the story received more radiation exposure from cosmic rays in flight than they received from the reactors once on the ground.
The visually spectacular hydrogen explosions of the plant buildings, while providing great fodder for anti-nuclear rhetoric had little impact on the safety of the reactors, and harmed no one.
The unit 4 fuel storage pools did not empty of water and did not catch on fire. The fuel there remained safely submerged and suffered no damage of any consequence.
Finally, there was no need for the 50-mile evacuation zone ordered by NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko. His decision still has nuclear experts scratching their heads and wondering why. Jaczko’s actions demonstrated he lacks the experience and knowledge to ask the right questions at crucial moments. In addition, he lacked the wisdom to recognize other more credible information was available that contradicted his view. He needlessly rushed forward with an ill-advised decision that was horribly wrong.
This is not to imply there were no environmental or economic impacts from the reactor accident – of course there were! The expensive cleanup in surrounding areas will take years and will cost billions. This is but a small fraction of the total cost of recovery from the horrific earthquake and tsunami.
The earthquake and tsunami were responsible for untold human suffering and devastation. That is where the focus of the world should have been and should continue to be. The problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant accident have contributed needlessly to Japan’s economic burden by prompting the irrational shutdown of nuclear plants across the country. This has caused energy shortages and billions of dollars of additional costs from skyrocketing imports of fossil fuels. Of course, the fossil fuels providers are scrambling to rake in tens of billions of dollars in profits.
The health effects to Japan’s population were NOT from radiation, but from stress caused by the unfounded fear of future health effects. The responsibility for this lies squarely on anti-nuclear activists who relished in spouting fatalistic, exaggerated claims, and on an uninformed media who presented those claims as virtual facts while downplaying opposing views from true experts in the field.
#1 by R Maxwell on March 11, 2012 - 9:46 PM
Your concise article hits it square on the head! I’d email it to science teachers around my city to help stem the anti-nuclear brainwashing in the schools but I’m afraid that like the media that they’ll just crumble up the facts and throw them away! Still keep up the good work!
#2 by Bob Applebaum on March 12, 2012 - 8:49 AM
This may come as a shock, but cancer doesn’t manifest itself until decades later. It’s pretty ignorant to use the absence of health effects (cancer) one year later. The reason the additional cancers will be low is because of the evacuation and food monitoring. If ignored, the cancer rates will be much higher.
#3 by John Wheeler on March 12, 2012 - 10:51 AM
In my article I did not state there would be no long term health effects in the general population. I stated they will be immeasurably low. My conclusion is consistent with studies done by multiple governmental and international organizations.
For example, according to the recently released report by the American Nuclear Society, the few nuclear workers at Fukushima with the highest exposure can expect about a 1% increase in the risk of developing cancer over their lifetimes. Since the general population has a normal cancer rate of around 40% from all causes, an increase of 1% will be impossible to measure in such a small population (only a few workers). Of course the general population received radiation doses hundreds or thousands of times lower than these plant workers, and thus their increased cancer risk is “immeasurably low.”
I agree with you that protective actions taken to evacuate and shelter the population and to monitor for contaminated foods has kept radiation exposures low. That’s the whole point of a multifaceted emergency preparedness program. It was not perfect, but worked as designed to protect the population.
#4 by Joffan on March 12, 2012 - 11:15 AM
Well said, and I agree with all your main points here. The suffering in Japan is directly due to foot-dragging and an excess of caution in the face of effects that are proven to be either zero or so minor as not to warrant the disruption being imposed.
One point where your statements overstep what is reasonably certain is in the status of the reactor cores. Indeed, they did not escape primary containment, except for dissolved or gaseous traces amounting to a few kg of cesium and iodine total, but it is highly probable that core melt did burn through the reactor vessel itself in at least reactor 1 and reactors 2 and 3 to some degree also. And while the hydrogen explosions did not cause serious injury, I seem to recall that some workers on site were taken to hospital as a result, and there is no doubt that there was at least the potential for serious injury in those cases.
Thanks again for this excellent article.