Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
cancer effects from the radiation release [
]. I said that it
was well done, and that I was surprised at how small the
numbers were, even though the authors had used the
Linear No Threshold model which is based on data from
the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most of the
epidemiological community agrees that the mechanism
for the development of cancers from low doses and high
doses is different and the Linear No Threshold model
is probably too conservative, but no one can agree on
what to substitute for it.
I then used the data on comparative risks in
Table
to compare the numbers in the article with what would
have happened from other sources of electricity. The
numbers in
Table
.
.
include all causes
-
mining,
fuel preparation, normal operations, etc.
and I added
the Fukushima cancer effect to the nuclear number. The
results surprised me because for the same total electricity
as had been generated at Fukushima up to the accident,
operation with coal as the fuel would have led to about
-
times as many years of life lost as nuclear, including
the accident, while if natural gas had been used it would
have accounted for
.
.
times as many years of life lost
[
]. Lives were disrupted and the economic impact was
large, but health effects were smaller than those expected
from fossil fuels.
One of the things that made the impact on the rest of
the world of Fukushima so great was the reputation of
Japan as one of the citadels of technical excellence. When
the Fukushima reactors failed it was
rst thought that
reactors were inherently unsafe. Only with the report of
the special committee set up by the Diet did the world
