Mutations, DNA damage seen in Fukushima forests: Greenpeace

March 4, 2016
A TEPCO employee measures the radiation in front of the No. 2 and No.3 reactor buildings during a press tour at the Fukushima Da
A TEPCO employee measures the radiation in front of the No. 2 and No.3 reactor buildings during a press tour at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on February 10, 2016

Conservation group Greenpeace warned on Friday that the environmental impact of the Fukushima nuclear crisis five years ago on nearby forests is just beginning to be seen and will remain a source of contamination for years to come.

The March 11, 2011 magnitude 9.0 undersea earthquake off Japan's northeastern coast sparked a massive tsunami that swamped cooling systems and triggered reactor meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

Radiation spread over a wide area and forced tens of thousands of people from their homes—many of whom will likely never return—in the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl in 1986.

As the fifth anniversary of the disaster approaches, Greenpeace said signs of mutations in trees and DNA-damaged worms were beginning to appear, while "vast stocks of radiation" mean that forests cannot be decontaminated.

In a report, Greenpeace cited "apparent increases in growth mutations of fir trees... heritable mutations in pale blue grass butterfly populations" as well as "DNA-damaged worms in highly contaminated areas", it said.

The report came as the government intends to lift many evacuation orders in villages around the Fukushima plant by March 2017, if its massive decontamination effort progresses as it hopes.

For now, only residential areas are being cleaned in the short-term, and the worst-hit parts of the countryside are being omitted, a recommendation made by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Workers, wearing protective suits and masks, are seen near the No. 3 and No.4 reactor buildings at the  Fukushima Daiichi nuclea
Workers, wearing protective suits and masks, are seen near the No. 3 and No.4 reactor buildings at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on February 10, 2016

But such selective efforts will confine returnees to a relatively small area of their old hometowns, while the strategy could lead to re-contamination as woodlands will act as a radiation reservoir, with pollutants washed out by rains, Greenpeace warned.

The conservation group said its report relies largely on research published in peer-reviewed international journals.

But "most of the findings in it have never been covered outside of the close circles of academia", report author Kendra Ulrich told AFP.

The Japanese government's push to resettle contaminated areas and also restart nuclear reactors in Japan that had been shut down in the aftermath of the crisis are a cause for concern, Ulrich said, stressing it and the IAEA are using the opportunity of the anniversary to play down radiation impacts.

"In the interest of human rights—especially for victims of the disaster—it is ever more urgent to ensure accurate and complete information is publicly available and the misleading rhetoric of these entities challenged," she said.

Scientists, including a researcher who found mutations of Fukushima butterflies, have warned, however, that more data are needed to determine the ultimate impact of the Fukushima accident on animals in general.

Researchers and medical doctors have so far denied that the accident at Fukushima would cause an elevated incidence of cancer or leukaemia, diseases that are often associated with radiation exposure.

But they also noted that long-term medical examination is needed especially due to concerns over thyroid cancer among young people—a particular problem for people following the Chernobyl catastrophe.

Explore further: Nuclear water: Fukushima still faces contamination crisis

Related Stories

Tokyo 'not doing enough' for Fukushima: Greenpeace

December 7, 2011

Fukushima's residents are being left to their fate and not enough is being done to protect them against radiation nine months after Japan's tsunami, environment group Greenpeace said Wednesday.

No health risk from Fukushima radiation, UN says

May 31, 2013

Radiation leaked after Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 is unlikely to cause any ill health effects in the future, a UN scientific committee drawing up a major new report said Friday.

Recommended for you

MIT's flea market specializes in rare, obscure electronics

September 25, 2016

Once a month in the summer, a small parking lot on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's campus transforms into a high-tech flea market known for its outlandish offerings. Tables overflow with antique radio equipment, ...

Tech titans join to study artificial intelligence

September 29, 2016

Major technology firms have joined forces in a partnership on artificial intelligence, aiming to cooperate on "best practices" on using the technology "to benefit people and society."

First test of driverless minibus in Paris Saturday

September 24, 2016

The French capital's transport authority will on Saturday carry out its first test of a driverless minibus, in the hope that regular routes for the hi-tech vehicles will be up and running within two years.

59 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nilbud
3.5 / 5 (21) Mar 04, 2016
Greenpeace has become a ridiculous lying joke.
victor_gallagher
3.1 / 5 (17) Mar 04, 2016
Greenpeace has no credibility,
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (15) Mar 04, 2016
Greenpeace has become a ridiculous lying joke.

Greenpeace has no credibility,


Well, at least they cite their sources...wheras you just make unsupported statements.

Guess who wins?
orti
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 04, 2016
And now phys.org has made itself a platform for that fountain of truth - greenpeace.
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 04, 2016
And now phys.org has made itself a platform for that fountain of truth - greenpeace.

Instead of spouting BS why don't you jst say WHAT exactly is the problem with the above article. Where do you see any factual errors (don't forget to support your assertions with actual data)

'Cmon...we know you have a mouth...now put some money in the same vicinity.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (12) Mar 04, 2016
Greenpeace has two sets of standards.
They do not show the same concern about radioactivity from mining ores for wind/solar.
http://www.thegua...ollution
http://e360.yale....ks/2614/
Greenpeace also does not care about the ruination of large natural landscapes/wildlife's habits, massacre of millions of birds and bats by wind/solar farms. What seems to matter for them is the BIG GREEN MONEY.
"Radical environmentalists are religious fanatics, convinced that their beliefs can save the world and arrogantly dismissive of all other considerations"
http://www.corvet...red.html
"its the money that drives their anti-nuclear dogma"
http://seekerblog...r-dogma/
Guy_Underbridge
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 04, 2016
Greenpeace has...
another pro-nuke whiner that can't refute the article. Let's see if you complain about the source of those rare earth magnets next time you need an MRI.
Lord_jag
3 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2016
No it's willie with two standards.

Radioactivity from mining non-radioactive ores for solar/wind = super plus bad.

Radioactivity from mining highly radioactive ores, then refining them to make them more radioactive, then accelerating radioactive decay, then storing radioactive waste for a million years = no big deal.
Lord_jag
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2016
Won't someone think of the birds? Willie??

The birds. All the birds. Mutated birds! Eating mutated food!

Nothing to worry about. Willie has a picture of a bird strategically placed within eye shot of a wind turbine. Nothing else matters.
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2016
Greenpeace has two sets of standards.
Greenpeace should also take a look at natural places that present radiation levels well above Fukushima with no damage for wildlife.
20 mSv Fukushima; 35 mSv Kerala Beach, India; 700 mSv Ramsar, Iran; 800 mSv Guarapari Beach, Brazil.
http://resources....ces.html
http://webecoist....-places/
"The worldwide average natural dose to humans is about 2.4 millisievert (mSv) per year."
http://en.wikiped...adiation
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2016
can't refute the article
Greenpeace study has no scientific value, because Greenpeace is biased anti-nuclear.
"Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power" - a radical hate based on their irrational convictions and equivocated ideologies.
http://www.greenp...nuclear/
Nuclear is compact, energy dense, fewer fatalities and fewer ecological impacts per gigawatt produced; but it does not matter for them because they will never admit the truth that renewables are causing more fatalities and impact on environment than nuclear.
JongDan
not rated yet Mar 04, 2016
Well a REAL scientist would gladly accept the circumstances and observe the evolution in fast motion.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 04, 2016
Send Willie!!

He says it is good for us.

Send Willie!
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2016
It's "good" to see all that radiation has the opposite effect on the insidious parasite known as Greenpeace.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2016
Willietard is a staunch defender of mafia toxic dumpsites worldwide, as featured in the movie 'Gomorrah'
kochevnik
4 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2016
@nilbud, @victor_gallagherm @nilbud Greenpeace has no credibility,
But fresh new trolling posters are unquestionable experts
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2016
Evolutionists claim that mutations are beneficial for evolution. They too often fall into contradictions and paradoxes, and now again are in contradictory situation.
Pooua
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2016
"Conservation group Greenpeace warned on Friday that the environmental impact of the Fukushima nuclear crisis five years ago on nearby forests is just beginning to be seen"

Translation: No one has seen much environmental impact from the nuclear side of this natural disaster in the last five years, but, Greenpeace promises, it's coming real soon!

"and will remain a source of contamination for years to come."

Technically true, but realistically just barely above the threshold of detection.

The reason that Greenpeace makes such pathetic statements is it is hysterically anti-nuclear, not because they have so much as a shred of scientific basis for their nonsense.

"Greenpeace said signs of mutations in trees and DNA-damaged worms were beginning to appear"

Greenpeace won't admit that plants show mutations all the time, anyway.
DrAlexC
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2016
Too bad Greenpeace lost its status as an honest broker of info long ago.
http://www.fukush...l?id=629 (UNSCEAR 2016)
http://www.japant...est-ever (Japanese life expectancy)

But, you folks do make $ scaring the unsuspecting, eh? Good job helping the fossil-fuel folks.
;]
--
Dr. A. Cannara
650 400 3071
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2016
Indeed nuclear industry all about honesty and integrity. For example that Hanford site that spread radiation across two states, causing hundreds of cancers. Or 25,000 tonnes of toxic uranium that will pollute Iraq for five billion years. That's a great way to eliminate your nuclear waste disposal. Flush it down the mouths of brown people
rrrander
3 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2016
Greenpeace are liars. All one has to do is look at the studies done in Chernobyl which showed virtually no mutations in higher animals (some in door mice) or plants. The initial radiation exposure (heavy gamma) killed people, obviously, but residual radiation has had so little impact, it is now causing researchers to re-examine the impact of radiation in an environment. Additional, natural systems hurt by populations of people in Russia and Japan (wildlife) has recovered amazingly unhindered by poaching and urban expansion.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2016
I suggest rrander go to Fukushima and Chernobyl. But first, look up "Chernobyl children".

Do it!!
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2016
DrAlexC

Hey, "doctor", want to treat some of the babies from Hanford? Look them up.

Did you look up the kids nukes murdered slowly and agonizingly in Chernobyl? Want some patients?

Or are you a "doctor" of music?
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2016
DrAlexC
pay not much attention to what gskam says, he is a notorious pathological fear-monger, a compulsive fibber.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2016
go to Fukushima..
Sounds so infantile
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2016
go to Fukushima..
Sounds so infantile


dubyadubyaMAROON

"infantile" and "sounds like" are entirely relative.

For example(and an "infantile" one, at that): which "sounds" more valuable --three Tiger animal crackers or five Elephant animal crackers?

Or --more to the point-- which sounds stupider: moron or MAROON?

As we can see, it is a distinction without relevance --as dubyadubya is as stupider as they come.

WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2016
"Supposedly one of the major crusades of Greenpeace is climate change but they persist in ignoring that nuclear power is by far the greenest source of energy"
"Greenpeace is an uncompromising and an ideologic, not realistic, organisation and are extremist." "ignorant of facts and heavily involved in fear mongering regarding nuclear power."
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence." "govern by assertion and attacks."
http://nuclearrad...ace.html

If Greenpeace were really worried about the environment, they would support nuclear energy as the most realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and greenhouse-gas emissions without ruining natural landscapes/wildlife's habitats.
Caliban
2 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2016


If Greenpeace were really worried about the environment, they would support nuclear energy as the most realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and greenhouse-gas emissions without ruining natural landscapes/wildlife's habitats.


So, MAROON-

Are you saying that Greenpeace should abandon its mission and proselytise for the longest-of-term harms known to humankind, just so you can live in your malicious, dumb-as-dirt, lying-through-your-teeth fantasy world?

Haha- almost forgot I was addressing dubyadubyaMAROON.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2016
The strangeloves are emerging from their caves, I see. Now they boldly claim Chernobyl and Fukushima to be some kind of utopia
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2016
fantasy world
fantasy: a world 100% powered by bird choppers/landscape destroyers;
real world: the intermittent wind/solar as a mere auxiliary power source, supplementing primary sources such as coal plants, gas or oil-based generators, that is, reliable Eco-friendly carbon-free nuclear power phased out to give place to fossil-fuel plants as in Germany. So hypocritical bogus-environmentalists will have their world 100% powered by unicorn fart energy.
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2016
No, Willie, the Real World in on my roof, supplying my house and automobile with clean, silent, non-polluting power. No fuel costs, no maintenance, no stinky exhaust, no waste toxins.

Unicorns fart clean power. Nukes kill children.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2016
Nuclear power has killed nobody in Fukushima, and in Chernobyl, the culprits are the children-eater communists.
"Critics often point to the Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union as an even more terrifying warning against nuclear power, but that accident was a direct result of both a faulty design and the operators' incompetence."
"nobody in Japan died from radiation, and in 2013 United Nations researchers predicted that "no discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected." "
"If we are serious about replacing fossil fuels, we are going to need nuclear power, so the choice is stark: We can keep on merely talking about a carbon-free world, or we can go ahead and create one."
http://www.nytime...eed.html
https://en.wikipe..._of_1921
"U.N. panel sees no discernible rise in cancer from Fukushima nuke mishap"
http://www.fukush...l?id=629
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2016
..on my roof .. non-polluting power .. no stinky exhaust, no waste toxins.
"Brominated flame retardant: Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) and brominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) are used in circuit boards and solar panel inverters (which convert DC to AC power). PBDEs, which bioaccumulate in fatty tissues, are recognized as toxic and carcinogenic and are described as endocrine disrupters."
"Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) is used in many solar panels as a coating to absorb solar radiation. It is also often used in screws and circuit board chassis. Cr(VI) is considered carcinogenic."
"End-of-life hazardous waste: Selenium is a regulated substance that bioaccumulates in food webs and is considered highly toxic and carcinogenic by the EPA."
"Lead is often used in electronic circuits, including solar PV circuits" "Lead is highly toxic to the central nervous system, endocrine system, cardiovascular system, and kidneys."
http://www.txses....end-life
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2016
Well, gosh, Willie, if it is so miniscule, why don't you pay for it?

BTW, ever study the thermodynamics of a nuke? Ever seen what passes for "safety"? Ever even been in one?

No? then why would your ignorant opinion be better than ours, those of us who actually have done those things?
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2016
Hey, Willie, I worked making semiconductors. Want to know how they take care of those toxins? Want to see the differences between those and the gases put out from those very high and usually-skinny stacks we see at nuke plants? They are MUCH different than combustion stacks. Why?

The stacks are 400 feet tall at Fukushima!!

What are they SO SCARED of coming out of that reactor?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2016
The stacks are 400 feet tall at Fukushima!!
Tall but it has no wind blades to butcher birds and bats in midair.
"Hawaii's push toward green energy is having an impact on flying creatures who live next to wind farms or traverse the spinning turbines, some of which stand 493 feet tall at the highest blade tips."
http://www.kitv.c...25786564
"study links taller wind turbines to more bird deaths"
"..increased bird mortality may be a result of both increased turbine height and increased rotor diameter"
"..turbine size coupled with our finding of greater bird collision mortality at taller turbines.."
http://earthtechl...-deaths/

WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2016
making semiconductors
"workers who developed cancers after working at Samsung semiconductor plants"
"Some of the workers have died from leukemia."
http://www.electr...nsation/
"Chemicals Used in Apple/Samsung Factories Cause Cancer Deaths"
"Carcinogenic chemicals that include benzene and trichloroethylene, both associated with causing these types of cancer"
http://www.ibtime...-1445873
http://www.indepe...526.html
http://www.iflsci...e-cancer
http://spectrum.i...ou-think
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2016
You dodged my question, Willie.

What are they so AFRAID of coming out of those 400-foot stacks?
Phys1
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2016
can't refute the article
Greenpeace study has no scientific value, because Greenpeace is biased anti-nuclear.

You political argumentation suggests that you are unable to disprove GP's content,
which gives supports to GP's position.
Was that intentional?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2016
disprove GP's content
Natural radiation well above Fukushima and Chernobyl and no health problem/no mutation, no fear-mongers and no Greenpeace bogus-environmentalists there to fabricate their fables to scare people for promoting their ecologically hypocritical bird-choppers/seascape-devastators.
http://www.youtub...Ax1yIKjg
http://www.youtub...HUGwFoJE
http://en.wikiped...uarapari
Steelwolf
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2016
Our 'background radiation' levels are way beyond what they have been historically, the testing of nuclear weapons in the 40s-90s (Yeah, some 50 years of ittermittent tests), but hundreds were conducted and so our background radiation levels are very high presently. And while the general basis and use of atomic energy IS a clean and actually renewable resource if done in cold burn-hot burn cycle for the rods, same rods 2 different reactors. GE went ahead with the first ones, the cold burn, which creates VERY radioactive rods, which are hard to store and a known hazard, the hot burn would have returned then to pre-cold burn state, and rods could typically get 8 cycles from the system. The Hot Burn facilities were never built, so there is a growing number of Too-Hot-to-use fuel cell rods. Some of these were in use in Fukushima, to save money, when the quake hit, thus the release was much dirtier than it should have been. Pennies saved, billions lost and irreplacable land destroyed.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2016
"Too-Hot-to-use fuel cell rods. Some of these were in use in Fukushima, "
-------------------------------

Are you referring to MOX, mixed oxide? Those were spiked with additional Plutonium, one of the nastiest elements in existence, and we made all of it that exists today. It was the first part of their idea to power all of Japan with this dangerous and nasty stuff. We want to do it, too.

And, no, it is not either "clean" or renewable. It only continues to contaminate everything around it.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2016
@Willietard "Brominated flame retardant: Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) and brominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) are used in circuit boards and solar panel inverters (which convert DC to AC power). PBDEs, which bioaccumulate in fatty tissues, are recognized as toxic and carcinogenic and are described as endocrine disrupters."
"Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) is used in many solar panels as a coating to absorb solar radiation. It is also often used in screws and circuit board chassis. Cr(VI) is considered carcinogenic."
Selenium is a nutrient. Will you toss out your computer and cell phone and ride only a bicycle now?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2016
Selenium is a nutrient.
"Consuming too much selenium can lead to selenium toxicity, a condition called selenosis."
"Selenium also helps support a strong immune system, regulates thyroid function, and may help reduce the risk of prostate and secondary cancers."
"High blood levels of selenium can result in selenosis, with gastrointestinal distress, hair loss, white spots on nails, fatigue, and irritability."
http://healthyeat...749.html
http://www.drweil...ium.html
http://www.livest...isoning/
cantdrive85
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2016
I'd like to invite everyone to join me in a worthy and responsible cause, it's time to send Willie to his utopia on Earth, his chance to prove us all wrong and show a radioactive wasteland is indeed a Fountain of Youth on Earth. Go to:
www.gofundme/To_Fuku_Willieward_and_His_Whole_Family/good riddance

If there was a more worthy cause I wouldn't know what it is....
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2016
If there was a more worthy cause I wouldn't know what it is....
@cd
how about sending pseudoscience conspiracy theorists like the eu cult to Fukushima ofr unprotected cleanup duty??
or better yet, to Challenger Deep ????(unprotected, of course... a sub or even a suit would cost too much for crowd-sourcing)

WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2016
"Natural radiation makes up about 85 percent of the global total, according to the World Nuclear Association. Manmade contributors include medicine and buildings, as well as the nuclear industry, which accounts for 1 percent of the total"
"The highest level of background radiation is in the state of Kerala and city of Chennai in southern India, where people receive average doses above 30 millisieverts per year, or 3.42 microsieverts an hour, according to the World Nuclear Association. India has vast amounts of thorium in its soil. A millisievert is 1,000 microsieverts."
"In Brazil and Sudan, exposure can reach 40 millisieverts a year or 4.57 microsieverts an hour"
http://www.bloomb...n-crisis
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2016
wasteland
"Without recycling, panel manufacturers have no other choice than disposal, and they are left largely to their own devices as far as reporting their waste and dumping it properly."
http://oilprice.c...age.html
http://news.natio...ranking/
"a solar powered world produces 63,000 times the waste of a nuclear powered world."
http://www.things...ion.html
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2016
@Willietard "Selenium also helps support a strong immune system, regulates thyroid function, and may help reduce the risk of prostate and secondary cancers."
Exactly
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2016
"selenium sulfide .. can cause cancer"
http://www.livesc...cts.html
Copper-indium-gallium-selenium-sulfide (CIGS) is a material used in the production of solar cells.
https://en.wikipe...ar_cells
https://en.wikipe...ar_cells
Caliban
3 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2016
I'd like to invite everyone to join me in a worthy and responsible cause, it's time to send Willie to his utopia on Earth, his chance to prove us all wrong and show a radioactive wasteland is indeed a Fountain of Youth on Earth. Go to:
www.gofundme/To_Fuku_Willieward_and_His_Whole_Family/good riddance

If there was a more worthy cause I wouldn't know what it is....


Cantdrive, I salute you.

At long last, you propose something that we can all agree upon!

Excellent timing, by the way...
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2016

"The highest level of background radiation is in the state of Kerala and city of Chennai in southern India, where people receive average doses above 30 millisieverts per year, or 3.42 microsieverts an hour, according to the World Nuclear Association. India has vast amounts of thorium in its soil. A millisievert is 1,000 microsieverts."
"In Brazil and Sudan, exposure can reach 40 millisieverts a year or 4.57 microsieverts an hour"


So which is it, MAROON?

It can't be the highest in both.

We're going to have to develop a new metric for quantifying your cognitive ability.

I recommend we measure it in units of bone density.

WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2016
To_Fuku_Willieward_and_His_Whole_Family
Greenie bullying tactics to dissuade the truth. Lamentable!
Caliban
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2016
wasteland
"Without recycling, panel manufacturers have no other choice than disposal, and they are left largely to their own devices as far as reporting their waste and dumping it properly."
http://oilprice.c...age.html


And dubyadubyaMAROON would have us believe that a Nuke dominant/fossil fuel backup energy supply would be less toxic to human and environmental health?

Not even you, ddM, could possibly believe that to be true.

But just in case you are seriously considering advancing the claim, then I must INSIST that you first go gather the information about the waste and pollution generated by those industries, and scale them appropriately in proportion to the overall usage levels you advocate, say 90% nuke and 10% fossil?

Report back here with your findings at once!

WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2016
less toxic to human and environmental health
"The nuclear fuel cycle does not give rise to significant radiation exposure for members of the public, and even in two major nuclear accidents – Three Mile Island and Fukushima – exposure to radiation has caused no harm to the public."
"Natural sources account for most of the radiation we all receive each year."
"Fear of radiation causes much harm."
http://www.world-...cts.aspx
Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and mildly radioactive material from the coal.
http://www.scient...r-waste/
wind/solar: "one ton of rare earth .. one ton of radioactive waste residue are produced"
http://web.mit.ed...ing.html
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2016
less toxic to human and environmental health
"The nuclear fuel cycle does not give rise to significant radiation exposure for members of the public, and even in two major nuclear accidents – Three Mile Island and Fukushima – exposure to radiation has caused no harm to the public."
"Natural sources account for most of the radiation we all receive each year."
"Fear of radiation causes much harm."
http://www.world-...cts.aspx


Excellent non-answer there, diddums!

I can't --and won't-- say that it isn't pretty much exactly the type of agenda-driven response that is to be expected from a foaming-at-the-mouth ideologue, ie, you.

So much for evidence-based support for an assertion.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2016
"In Brazil and Sudan, exposure can reach 40 millisieverts a year or 4.57 microsieverts an hour"
-----------------------------

So, why aren't you there?
rolf_dupont_hansen
3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2016
Greenpis!? Did you just get retarded phys.org?

A whole article without any numbers, proof or anything indicating anything. Yes propaganda is what this is. Not science...
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2016
Plutonium, one of the nastiest elements in existence, and we made all of it that exists today. It was the first part of their idea to power all of Japan with this dangerous and nasty stuff
Hey george kamburoff is this the stuff you claimed was raining down on idaho?

Is this the stuff you claimed was brought to prompt criticality at fukushima by an H2 conflagration, and which then threw vessel parts 130km, even though it existed in dirty contaminated molten form at the time, and even though bona-fide thermonuke explosions can't throw debris more than a few km?

And since there was no crater, then according to you, it must've been an airburst??

Kind of a stretch don't you think?

It's good we know your real name because george kamburoff has proven himself to be a serial liar and fact fabricator, and we can rest assured that no one would dare hire him after reading the shit he posts.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.