Samhain wrote:

But Fukushima is no Chernobyl. The scale of the disaster is incomparable -- comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl is akin to comparing Columbine to the Holocaust. They're both bad, but worlds apart in the severity. Far be it from me to prevent people from panicking, but this helpful graphic may add a bit of context to your interpretations of the disaster. It contains several citations, of course, because it is never wise to rely fully upon secondary sources.


I think that the important thing to keep in mind is that even VERY low levels of radioactivity are not "safe" because even low levels of radiation CAN cause cancer. Cancer is caused by genetic mutation. Once a radioactive isotope is in the body, radiating energy CAN damage DNA, which can lead to cancer, if the damage is not repaired and the gene mutated is important for maintaining the cell cycle. Although the probability of getting cancer decreases with the amount of radioactivity, (just because there are fewer cells that are exposed to DNA damage), this does NOT mean that low levels of radiation can NOT cause cancer. This last article that Sean posted is extremely important and should be read to understand this point. EVEN x-rays from the dentist cause cancer is a population of people. When the number of people exposed to this radiation is large enough, the number of people who come down with cancer can be significant!

A recent paper shows that even background solar radiation (which makes up about 20-30% of the normal "background" radiation that we are exposed to), seems to be correlated with cancer related deaths. This study was conducted with data from 140 years and showed that peaks of solar activity corresponded to increased cancer mortality approximately 30 years later. This study and the studies in the article that Sean posted above show that even "background" radiation can cause cancer. Therefore, any increase in radioisotopes, even in amounts that are not above "background" can still cause MORE people to get cancer, when they may normally not have gotten cancer. It is all about probability. Any increase in radiation increases the probability of getting cancer. This is scientific fact and was actually published 50 years ago in the journal "Nature" by a Nobel Prize-winning biologist from my school. When he published his findings, the US military commanders were furious and tried to undermine his study and attacked him because his findings undermined their assertions that "low" radiation levels were "safe," so that it was okay to test nuclear weapons!

Because of these studies, I think that we need to strongly consider whether such risks are worth the amount of energy that can be derived from nuclear plants. I say NO. Moreover, it is IMPOSSIBLE to build enough nuclear plants (not enough space, money, time, or material) to actually provide the amount of energy that the world's population are projected to consume, so we NEED to focus on alternatives, anyway! It seems like alternatives that will not lead to cancer and death seem to be a smart direction to move!

Anna