http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_2808121.html

"The mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes
because of the Fukushima accident was the cause of 34 early deaths, said
a report from Japan's Reconstruction Agency on 21 August. The figure
compares to 1916 people from Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi prefectures
that died during evacuation from areas hit only by the tsunami and the
earthquake. The leading causes of the majority of those early deaths
were disruption to the smooth operation of hospitals, the exacerbation
of pre-existing health problems, and the general 'mental fatigue' from
dramatic changes in life situation."

"If we took a 'do more good than harm' approach I suspect we would
abandon forced evacuation altogether, especially where iodine tables are
available"

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Den 29.08.2012 03:28, skrev The Natural Philosopher:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_2808121.html




"The mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes
because of the Fukushima accident was the cause of 34 early deaths,
said a report from Japan's Reconstruction Agency on 21 August. The
figure compares to 1916 people from Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi
prefectures that died during evacuation from areas hit only by the
tsunami and the earthquake. The leading causes of the majority of
those early deaths were disruption to the smooth operation of
hospitals, the exacerbation of pre-existing health problems, and the
general 'mental fatigue' from dramatic changes in life situation."

"If we took a 'do more good than harm' approach I suspect we would
abandon forced evacuation altogether, especially where iodine tables
are available"

This is quite correct. How do we cure this misery?
By education. When you write about radiofobia you
must always tell people how to get cured:
http://www.radiationandreason.com/
For more than half a century the view that radiation represents an
extreme hazard has been accepted. This book challenges that view by
facing the question How dangerous is ionising radiation? Briefly the
answer is that radiation is about a thousand times less hazardous
than suggested by current safety standards.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RadiationAndReason
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html
As Wade Allison, emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University,
says: €œThe reporting of Fukushima was guided by the Cold War reflex
that matched radiation with fear and mortal danger. Reactors have
been destroyed, but the radiation at Fukushima has caused no loss of
life and is unlikely to do so, even in the next 50 years. The voices
of science and common sense on which the future of mankind depends
were drowned out and remain to be heard, even today. The result has
been unnecessary suffering and great socio-economic damage.€�
--
jo
"La vérité est en marche et rien ne l'arrêtera."
-- Emile Zola,"J'accuse ...", 1898.

On Aug 29, 5:54*am, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 29.08.2012 03:28, skrev The Natural Philosopher:



http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS..._of_Fukushima_...

"The mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes
because of the Fukushima accident was the cause of 34 early deaths,
said a report from Japan's Reconstruction Agency on 21 August. The
figure compares to 1916 people from Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi
prefectures that died during evacuation from areas hit only by the
tsunami and the earthquake. The leading causes of the majority of
those early deaths were disruption to the smooth operation of
hospitals, the exacerbation of pre-existing health problems, and the
general 'mental fatigue' from dramatic changes in life situation."

"If we took a 'do more good than harm' approach I suspect we would
abandon forced evacuation altogether, especially where iodine tables
are available"

This is quite correct. How do we cure this misery?
By education. When you write about radiofobia you
must always tell people how to get cured:http://www.radiationandreason.com/ For more than half a century the view that radiation represents an
extreme hazard has been accepted. This book challenges that view by
facing the question How dangerous is ionising radiation? Briefly the
answer is that radiation is about a thousand times less hazardous
than suggested by current safety standards.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RadiationAndReason
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has... As Wade Allison, emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University,
says: “The reporting of Fukushima was guided by the Cold War reflex
that matched radiation with fear and mortal danger. Reactors have
been destroyed, but the radiation at Fukushima has caused no loss of
life and is unlikely to do so, even in the next 50 years. The voices
of science and common sense on which the future of mankind depends
were drowned out and remain to be heard, even today. The result has
been unnecessary suffering and great socio-economic damage.”

--
* * * * * * * * * * * jo
* "La vérité est en marche et rien ne l'arrêtera."
* *-- Emile Zola,"J'accuse ...", 1898.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well would you move your family into the zone?
By how much has people's lives been shortened?
I hear the fish are now radioactive around the NW coast of Japan .
Marie Curie died of radiation induced cancer.

This is all government propaganda so they can build nuclear reactors
(and collect backhanders)

Yes, moving house is, as we are often told, one of the most stressful things
you can do.
I'd have expected Japan to have been one of the world experts on radiation
though given the history.
I do notice though that there is increasing evidence that the body reacts
differently to a constant low level giving a higher dose than a sudden high
dose given in a shorter time. the genetic make up of the individual can
often make a huge difference to the actual damage it seems.
Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_2808121.html

"The mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes because
of the Fukushima accident was the cause of 34 early deaths, said a report
from Japan's Reconstruction Agency on 21 August. The figure compares to
1916 people from Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi prefectures that died during
evacuation from areas hit only by the tsunami and the earthquake. The
leading causes of the majority of those early deaths were disruption to
the smooth operation of hospitals, the exacerbation of pre-existing health
problems, and the general 'mental fatigue' from dramatic changes in life
situation."

"If we took a 'do more good than harm' approach I suspect we would abandon
forced evacuation altogether, especially where iodine tables are
available"

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members
of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:
On Aug 29, 5:54 am, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 29.08.2012 03:28, skrev The Natural Philosopher:



http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS..._of_Fukushima_...
"The mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes
because of the Fukushima accident was the cause of 34 early deaths,
said a report from Japan's Reconstruction Agency on 21 August. The
figure compares to 1916 people from Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi
prefectures that died during evacuation from areas hit only by the
tsunami and the earthquake. The leading causes of the majority of
those early deaths were disruption to the smooth operation of
hospitals, the exacerbation of pre-existing health problems, and the
general 'mental fatigue' from dramatic changes in life situation."
"If we took a 'do more good than harm' approach I suspect we would
abandon forced evacuation altogether, especially where iodine tables
are available"
This is quite correct. How do we cure this misery?
By education. When you write about radiofobia you
must always tell people how to get cured:http://www.radiationandreason.com/ For more than half a century the view that radiation represents an
extreme hazard has been accepted. This book challenges that view by
facing the question How dangerous is ionising radiation? Briefly the
answer is that radiation is about a thousand times less hazardous
than suggested by current safety standards.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RadiationAndReason
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has... As Wade Allison, emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University,
says: €œThe reporting of Fukushima was guided by the Cold War reflex
that matched radiation with fear and mortal danger. Reactors have
been destroyed, but the radiation at Fukushima has caused no loss of
life and is unlikely to do so, even in the next 50 years. The voices
of science and common sense on which the future of mankind depends
were drowned out and remain to be heard, even today. The result has
been unnecessary suffering and great socio-economic damage.€�
--
jo
"La vérité est en marche et rien ne l'arrêtera."
-- Emile Zola,"J'accuse ...", 1898.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well would you move your family into the zone?

yes. Would you evacuate your family from Dartmoor?


By how much has people's lives been shortened?

depends on how scared they were.

I hear the fish are now radioactive around the NW coast of Japan .

All fish are radioactive everywhere. You are radioactive.

Marie Curie died of radiation induced cancer.


She was handling radium with bare hands for many years.,

This is all government propaganda so they can build nuclear reactors
(and collect backhanders)


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes, moving house is, as we are often told, one of the most stressful things
you can do.
I'd have expected Japan to have been one of the world experts on radiation
though given the history.
I do notice though that there is increasing evidence that the body reacts
differently to a constant low level giving a higher dose than a sudden high
dose given in a shorter time. the genetic make up of the individual can
often make a huge difference to the actual damage it seems.
Brian

The problem is that the safety levels are set insanely low: How can you
say 'yes the radiation is 30 times normal, but its still perfectly safe'?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Den 29.08.2012 07:39, skrev harry:
On Aug 29, 5:54 am, Jo Stein wrote:
On 29.08.2012 03:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS..._of_Fukushima_...


....
"If we took a 'do more good than harm' approach I suspect we
would abandon forced evacuation altogether, especially where
iodine tables are available"

This is quite correct. How do we cure this misery? By education.
When you write about radiofobia you must always tell people how to
get cured:http://www.radiationandreason.com/ For more than half a
century the view that radiation represents an
extreme hazard has been accepted. This book challenges that view
by facing the question How dangerous is ionising radiation?
Briefly the answer is that radiation is about a thousand times
less hazardous than suggested by current safety standards.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RadiationAndReason
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has...



As Wade Allison, emeritus professor of physics at Oxford
University,
says: €œThe reporting of Fukushima was guided by the Cold War
reflex that matched radiation with fear and mortal danger.
Reactors have been destroyed, but the radiation at Fukushima has
caused no loss of life and is unlikely to do so, even in the next
50 years. The voices of science and common sense on which the
future of mankind depends were drowned out and remain to be
heard, even today. The result has been unnecessary suffering and
great socio-economic damage.€�
....
Well would you move your family into the zone? By how much has
people's lives been shortened? I hear the fish are now radioactive
around the NW coast of Japan . Marie Curie died of radiation induced
cancer.

This is all government propaganda so they can build nuclear reactors
(and collect backhanders)

I think we agree that The Natural Philosopher is crazy as he is a
climat denialist. He suffer from a delusion. Your delusion is also
very bad. It looks similar to the propaganda we hear from climate
denialist when they tell us that we cannot trust scientists.

I would have no problem moving my family into the zone. I can read
and I understand the book written by prof. emeritus Wade Allison.
The big problem facing the world today is green idiots like you.
Because of your ignorance we are unable to solve the big problem
facing us, how to get rid of dirty energy production.

Not only the fish is radioactive, also harry is radioactive.
I guess you are fat as stupid people also tend to be fat.
Then you have about one billion Bq in your body because of
natural radiation. Yes, one billion. I have about 610 000 000
ionizations in my body per second. Pleaase, go and learn how
we are designed to tolerate this radiation.

If you read the book by Wade Allison, I promise that I will
read this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear
State of Fear is a 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton
concerning eco-terrorists who attempt mass murder to support their
views. The novel had an initial print run of 1.5 million copies and
reached the #1 bestseller position at Amazon.com and #2 on the New
York Times Best Seller list for one week in January 2005. The book
contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a
twenty-page bibliography. Most climate scientists dispute Crichton's
science as being error-filled and distorted.[

Criton was a MD and a author. Had he been a skilled MD, he might still
be among us. He died from cancer caused by smoking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton
In accordance with the private way in which Crichton lived his life,
his throat cancer was not made public until his death.

The author Freud smoke cigars at it killed him.
He did not understand science. Get a life, learn science.
--
jo
€œThere is a tension between short-term, individual welfare
and long-term, group welfare or world welfare.
If it were left to Darwinism alone, there could be no hope.
Short-term greed is bound to win. The only hope lies in
the unique human capacity to use our big brains with our
massive communal database and our forward-simulating imaginations.€�
€”From Dr. Dawkins' acceptance speech at the 2001 Kistler Prize Banquet

On 29/08/2012 09:55, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 29.08.2012 07:39, skrev harry:
On Aug 29, 5:54 am, Jo Stein wrote:
On 29.08.2012 03:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS..._of_Fukushima_...



...
"If we took a 'do more good than harm' approach I suspect we
would abandon forced evacuation altogether, especially where
iodine tables are available"

This is quite correct. How do we cure this misery? By education.
When you write about radiofobia you must always tell people how to
get cured:http://www.radiationandreason.com/ For more than half a
century the view that radiation represents an
extreme hazard has been accepted. This book challenges that view
by facing the question How dangerous is ionising radiation?
Briefly the answer is that radiation is about a thousand times
less hazardous than suggested by current safety standards.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RadiationAndReason
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has...

As Wade Allison, emeritus professor of physics at Oxford
University,
says: €œThe reporting of Fukushima was guided by the Cold War
reflex that matched radiation with fear and mortal danger.
Reactors have been destroyed, but the radiation at Fukushima has
caused no loss of life and is unlikely to do so, even in the next
50 years. The voices of science and common sense on which the
future of mankind depends were drowned out and remain to be
heard, even today. The result has been unnecessary suffering and
great socio-economic damage.€�
...
Well would you move your family into the zone? By how much has
people's lives been shortened? I hear the fish are now radioactive
around the NW coast of Japan . Marie Curie died of radiation induced
cancer.

This is all government propaganda so they can build nuclear reactors
(and collect backhanders)

I think we agree that The Natural Philosopher is crazy as he is a
climat denialist. He suffer from a delusion. Your delusion is also
very bad. It looks similar to the propaganda we hear from climate
denialist when they tell us that we cannot trust scientists.

The greens and antigreens do very much the same sort of deliberate
misrepresentation of the facts but with opposite spins.

I would have no problem moving my family into the zone. I can read
and I understand the book written by prof. emeritus Wade Allison.
The big problem facing the world today is green idiots like you.
Because of your ignorance we are unable to solve the big problem
facing us, how to get rid of dirty energy production.

Coal fired power stations actually emit more radioacivity into the
environment from burning coal than a nuclear plant is allowed to!

Not only the fish is radioactive, also harry is radioactive.
I guess you are fat as stupid people also tend to be fat.
Then you have about one billion Bq in your body because of
natural radiation. Yes, one billion. I have about 610 000 000
ionizations in my body per second. Pleaase, go and learn how
we are designed to tolerate this radiation.

No you don't. You are wrong by 5 *ORDERS* of magnitude. 100,000x

This is gibberish and you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
The dominant natural radioactivity in the human body is a trace
radioisotope of potassium and whole body content is about 40mg. There is
also some natural Carbon 14. This translates to about 10,000 Bq about
one hundred thousandth of the dose you claim. A correct set of figures
for radioactive components of a typical human is online at:

http://physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
(title Human Body)

All up the grand total is about 10 kBq mostly from K40 and C14.
Everything else adds up to less than 100 Bq.

If you read the book by Wade Allison, I promise that I will
read this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear
State of Fear is a 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton
concerning eco-terrorists who attempt mass murder to support their
views. The novel had an initial print run of 1.5 million copies and
reached the #1 bestseller position at Amazon.com and #2 on the New
York Times Best Seller list for one week in January 2005. The book
contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a
twenty-page bibliography. Most climate scientists dispute Crichton's
science as being error-filled and distorted.[

Criton was a MD and a author. Had he been a skilled MD, he might still
be among us. He died from cancer caused by smoking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton
In accordance with the private way in which Crichton lived his life,
his throat cancer was not made public until his death.

The author Freud smoke cigars at it killed him.
He did not understand science. Get a life, learn science.

I think you need to learn some science first. Your numbers are insane.
If you had 1 GBq of radioactivity you would be a 1/37 curie open source
and would set of radiation alarms when you tried to travel abroad.

We would be looking to bury you in a lead lined casket as was done for
the unfortunate Eben Byers due to his use of Radithor patent medicine :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Byers

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Jo Stein wrote:


I think we agree that The Natural Philosopher is crazy as he is a
climat denialist. He suffer from a delusion. Your delusion is also
very bad. It looks similar to the propaganda we hear from climate
denialist when they tell us that we cannot trust scientists.


I love the idea of someone denying that climate exists, or changes.

Only a crazy mentally deficient scandinavian would even think such a
thing was possible.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/08/2012 09:55, Jo Stein wrote:

The author Freud smoke cigars at it killed him.
He did not understand science. Get a life, learn science.

I think you need to learn some science first. Your numbers are insane.

Jo Stein is patently insane.

If you had 1 GBq of radioactivity you would be a 1/37 curie open source
and would set of radiation alarms when you tried to travel abroad.

We would be looking to bury you in a lead lined casket as was done for
the unfortunate Eben Byers due to his use of Radithor patent medicine :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Byers



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 29.08.2012 12:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/08/2012 09:55, Jo Stein wrote:
On 29.08.2012 07:39, skrev harry wrote:
....
This is all government propaganda so they can build nuclear
reactors (and collect backhanders)

I think we agree that The Natural Philosopher is crazy as he is a
climat denialist. He suffer from a delusion. Your delusion is also
very bad. It looks similar to the propaganda we hear from climate
denialist when they tell us that we cannot trust scientists.

The greens and antigreens do very much the same sort of deliberate
misrepresentation of the facts but with opposite spins.

I would have no problem moving my family into the zone. I can read
and I understand the book written by prof. emeritus Wade Allison.
The big problem facing the world today is green idiots like you.
Because of your ignorance we are unable to solve the big problem
facing us, how to get rid of dirty energy production.

Coal fired power stations actually emit more radioacivity into the
environment from burning coal than a nuclear plant is allowed to!

Not only the fish is radioactive, also harry is radioactive. I
guess you are fat as stupid people also tend to be fat. Then you
have about one billion Bq in your body because of natural
radiation. Yes, one billion. I have about 610 000 000 ionizations
in my body per second. Pleaase, go and learn how we are designed
to tolerate this radiation.

No you don't. You are wrong by 5 *ORDERS* of magnitude. 100,000x

This is gibberish and you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The dominant natural radioactivity in the human body is a
trace radioisotope of potassium and whole body content is about
40mg. There is also some natural Carbon 14. This translates to about
10,000 Bq about one hundred thousandth of the dose you claim. A
correct set of figures for radioactive components of a typical human
is online at:

http://physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm (title Human Body)

All up the grand total is about 10 kBq mostly from K40 and C14.
Everything else adds up to less than 100 Bq.

What is you weight. I can compute similar figures for you.
It is a very simple formula given on page 133 in this book:
http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/8819091

I could have scanned the page for you.
Here follows the same page in Norwegian as I am sure that
a smart guy like you will be able to tell where Thormod Henriksen
and David H. Maillie went wrong:
De fleste blir forbauset og litt vantro når de hører at naturlig
stråling fører til omkring 500 millioner ioniseringer i kroppen
hvert eneste sekund. Hvis du er interessert i å vite hvordan vi
finner frem til dette, så følg med:

Antall ioniseringer er proposjonalt med kroppsvekten. For en
sumobryter kan antall ioniseringer fort komme opp i 1 milliard pr.
sekund, mens det neppe er mer enn halvparten for danserinnen.

Figur 7.1 angir de ulike strålekilder og tilhørende årsdoser (gitt
i mSv). Ved beregning av antall ioniseringer, må vi se på
stråleenergien som absorberes i kroppen og regne årsdosene i mGy.
Det betyr at radon, med sin høye vektfaktor, spiller en vesentlig
mindre rolle enn antydet i Figur 7. 1. Hvis vi videre kutter ut
doser fra medisinsk strålebruk, vil de naturlige strålekildene gi
oss en årsdose på ca. 1,5 mGy. Det betyr at 1,5 millijoule
strålingsenergi blir absorbert pr. kg pr. år.

For atomære prosesser er det vanlig å angi energien i elektronvolt
(eV). Den er definert som;

leV = 1,6 · 10-19 J

En dose på 1,5 mGy, omregnet til elektronvolt, blir dermed:

9,4 · 1015 eV

Videre må vi finne ut hvor mye energi som går med til én
ionisering.

Vi vet at det går med ca. 34 eV for å danne et ionepar i luft.
Samtidig dannes det flere eksitasjoner, men det skal vi holde
utenfor i dette regnestykket.

La oss anta at det går med 34 eV til én ionisering i kroppen.
Antall ioniseringer pr. kg pr. år blir da:

2,75 · 1014

Hvis en person veier 70 kg, blir det totale antall ioniseringer
pr. sekund:

(2,75 . 1014 . 70)/(365 . 24 . 60 . 60)

Utregnet blir det 610 millioner ioniseringer pr. sekund. Dette er
et ufattelig stort tall, og det er lite vi kan gjøre for å hindre
alle disse ioniseringene. Vi er tilpasset et naturlig strålingsnivå
og har et reparasjonssystem. Vi har ikke noe grunnlag for å hevde
at det fører til skadelige effekter. Vi vet således ikke om det
ville vært en fordel å flytte til et sted med lavere
bakgrunnstråling.
--
jo
".. I think it's important to realize that when two opposite
points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth
does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them.
It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." Richard Dawkins

On 29/08/2012 13:00, Jo Stein wrote:
On 29.08.2012 12:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/08/2012 09:55, Jo Stein wrote:

Not only the fish is radioactive, also harry is radioactive. I
guess you are fat as stupid people also tend to be fat. Then you
have about one billion Bq in your body because of natural
radiation. Yes, one billion. I have about 610 000 000 ionizations
in my body per second. Pleaase, go and learn how we are designed
to tolerate this radiation.

No you don't. You are wrong by 5 *ORDERS* of magnitude. 100,000x

This is gibberish and you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The dominant natural radioactivity in the human body is a
trace radioisotope of potassium and whole body content is about
40mg. There is also some natural Carbon 14. This translates to about
10,000 Bq about one hundred thousandth of the dose you claim. A
correct set of figures for radioactive components of a typical human
is online at:

http://physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm (title Human Body)

All up the grand total is about 10 kBq mostly from K40 and C14.
Everything else adds up to less than 100 Bq.

What is you weight. I can compute similar figures for you.
It is a very simple formula given on page 133 in this book:
http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/8819091

I could have scanned the page for you.
Here follows the same page in Norwegian as I am sure that
a smart guy like you will be able to tell where Thormod Henriksen
and David H. Maillie went wrong:

They didn't say that. Although the way they are presenting the data on
p133 is confusing for non scientists and you have comprehensively
demonstrated your cluelessness in referencing it with wonderful aplomb.

They guesstimate the number of *ionisations* caused by all natural
radiation by taking the annual dose energy and dividing into it the
energy needed to ionise air of 34eV. This is *very* misleading.

You are 100,000x less radioactive than this crazy description implies!

The distinction is between radioactive disintegrations per second and
the number of electronic ionisations caused by the fast particle track.
The latter is a larger number but not to quite the extent they claim.

A single alpha particle will cause a fair number of ions to be formed
before running out of steam. A penetrating hard X-ray may go right
through without causing more than a handful of events with its energy
largely unchanged. The body is not opaque to all natural radiation.

I presume they have an axe to grind as the presentation on p133 is
bordering on dishonest. Direct link in English for those interested:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W...page&q&f=false

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 29.08.2012 15:30, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/08/2012 13:00, Jo Stein wrote:
....
What is you weight. I can compute similar figures for you. It is a
very simple formula given on page 133 in this book:
http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/8819091

I could have scanned the page for you. Here follows the same page
in Norwegian as I am sure that a smart guy like you will be able to
tell where Thormod Henriksen and David H. Maillie went wrong:

They didn't say that. Although the way they are presenting the data
on p133 is confusing for non scientists and you have comprehensively
demonstrated your cluelessness in referencing it with wonderful
aplomb.

They guesstimate the number of *ionisations* caused by all natural
radiation by taking the annual dose energy and dividing into it the
energy needed to ionise air of 34eV. This is *very* misleading.**

You are 100,000x less radioactive than this crazy description
implies!

The distinction is between radioactive disintegrations per second and
the number of electronic ionisations caused by the fast particle
track. The latter is a larger number but not to quite the extent they
claim.

A single alpha particle will cause a fair number of ions to be formed
before running out of steam. A penetrating hard X-ray may go right
through without causing more than a handful of events with its energy
largely unchanged. The body is not opaque to all natural radiation.

I presume they have an axe to grind as the presentation on p133 is
bordering on dishonest.

Here I found the digital version of the norwegian book:
http://www.mn.uio.no/fysikk/tjeneste...skap/straling/
Why dont you write your correction in more detail and send it to the
authors?

I am a friend of Per Wethe and will send your comments to him.

The basic fact is found he
http://www.mn.uio.no/fysikk/tjeneste.../straling/#k10
Now animals and humans exposed to radiation, the blood-forming
organs (bone marrow) to react quickly. At high doses, the production
of both red and white blood cells and platelets, decrease as shown in
Figure 10.4. When the production of blood cells is reduced, the
immune system fails, and after one to two weeks can result in fatal
infectious diseases. If the radiation doses are less than 4-5 Gy, it
is perfectly possible for the bone marrow will resume production of
blood cells, and the survival chances are great. This occurs within
three to four weeks, and consequently, 30 days a reasonable chosen
limit for a will call "acute stråledød".

We can determine the LD50 dose for a variety of animal species, and
some values €‹€‹are given in Table 10.1. Some single-celled animals
(such as bacteria, tøffeldyr or paramecium) can survive doses of
2000-3000 Gy.

When it comes to people, we have not enough information to set a
specific LD50 dose. The reason is fairly obvious - we can not do
radiation experiments on humans. Until today, the random accidents
given us some information that we can build on.

We find that the LD50 dose for Man is 2 - 3 Gy
and we are designed to tolerate far more than the
normal background radiation.

Harry do not understand this and he write:
This is all government propaganda so they can build nuclear reactors
(and collect backhanders)

Now Martin Brown presume that
Thormod Henriksen (born 1928) is professor of biophysics at the
University of Oslo. He has worked with dosemetri and radiation
effects on proteins, DNA and hormones. In recent years he has worked
with ozone and UV radiation.

Find Ingebretsen (b. 1937) is a professor of nuclear physics at the
University of Oslo. He works on experimental nuclear physics,
radiation physics and energy physics (solar).

Anders Storruste (b. 1917) is Associate Professor at the University
of Oslo (retired). His area of €‹€‹expertise is nuclear physics, and he
is especially concerned with radiation hygiene problems associated
with radon in Norwegian homes.

Terje Strand (b. 1960) works at the Norwegian Radiation Protection
Authority, but is also a professor of radiation and health physics at
the University of Oslo. He has worked with the study of natural
radiation, especially radon issues, as well as studies in connection
with the discharges of radioactive substances.

Tove Svendby (b. 1967) works with ozone and UV issues. She is one of
the main responsible for environmental exhibition "Delicious is the
sky blue" which opened at the Norwegian Museum in September 1992.

Per Wethe (b. 1940) works at the Institute for Energy Technology at
Kjeller. He has worked on problems in the nuclear area, including
reactor safety, radioactive waste and nuclear energy & environment.
all have some axe to grind. He has found something bordering on
dishonest in their book.

He should read the book by Wade Allison and then we can try to cure
harry for his delusion.
The Natural Philosopher has a worse type of delusion and he may also be
too old to be cured.

**Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments, Justin Kruger and David
Dunning, Cornell University, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol 77, no 6, p 1121-1134 (1999)
--
jo
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its
way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the
false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just
as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

On Aug 29, 9:55*am, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 29.08.2012 07:39, skrev harry:



On Aug 29, 5:54 am, Jo Stein wrote:
On 29.08.2012 03:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS..._of_Fukushima_....

...
"If we took a 'do more good than harm' approach I suspect we
would abandon forced evacuation altogether, especially where
iodine tables are available"

This is quite correct. How do we cure this misery? By education.
When you write about radiofobia you must always tell people how to
get cured:http://www.radiationandreason.com/ For more than half a
century the view that radiation represents an
extreme hazard has been accepted. This book challenges that view
by facing the question How dangerous is ionising radiation?
Briefly the answer is that radiation is about a thousand times
less hazardous than suggested by current safety standards.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RadiationAndReason
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has....

As Wade Allison, emeritus professor of physics at Oxford
University,
says: “The reporting of Fukushima was guided by the Cold War
reflex that matched radiation with fear and mortal danger.
Reactors have been destroyed, but the radiation at Fukushima has
caused no loss of life and is unlikely to do so, even in the next
50 years. The voices of science and common sense on which the
future of mankind depends were drowned out and remain to be
heard, even today. The result has been unnecessary suffering and
great socio-economic damage.”
...
Well would you move your family into the zone? By how much has
people's lives been shortened? I hear the fish are now radioactive
around the NW coast of Japan . Marie Curie died of radiation induced
cancer.

This is all government propaganda so they can build nuclear reactors
*(and collect backhanders)

I think we agree that The Natural Philosopher is crazy as he is a
climat denialist. He suffer from a delusion. Your delusion is also
very bad. It looks similar to the propaganda we hear from climate
denialist when they tell us that we cannot trust scientists.

I would have no problem moving my family into the zone. I can read
and I understand the book written by prof. emeritus Wade Allison.
The big problem facing the world today is green idiots like you.
Because of your ignorance we are unable to solve the big problem
facing us, how to get rid of dirty energy production.

Not only the fish is radioactive, also harry is radioactive.
I guess you are fat as stupid people also tend to be fat.
Then you have about one billion Bq in your body because of
natural radiation. Yes, one billion. I have about 610 000 000
ionizations in my body per second. Pleaase, go and learn how
we are designed to tolerate this radiation.

If you read the book by Wade Allison, I promise that I will
read this book:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear

State of Fear is a 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton
concerning eco-terrorists who attempt mass murder to support their
views. The novel had an initial print run of 1.5 million copies and
reached the #1 bestseller position at Amazon.com and #2 on the New
York Times Best Seller list for one week in January 2005. The book
contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a
twenty-page bibliography. Most climate scientists dispute Crichton's
science as being error-filled and distorted.[

Criton was a MD and a author. Had he been a skilled MD, he might still
be among us. He died from cancer caused by smoking:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

In accordance with the private way in which Crichton lived his life,
*his throat cancer was not made public until his death.

The author Freud smoke cigars at it killed him.
He did not understand science. Get a life, learn science.
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *jo
* *“There is a tension between short-term, individual welfare
* *and long-term, group welfare or world welfare.
* *If it were left to Darwinism alone, there could be no hope.
* *Short-term greed is bound to win. The only hope lies in
* *the unique human capacity to use our big brains with our
* *massive communal database and our forward-simulating imaginations.”
* *—From Dr. Dawkins' acceptance speech at the 2001 Kistler Prize Banquet- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The reason nobody died of radiation poisoning at Fukushima is that the
population was moved out pronto. As simple as that.
If it was as safe as you seem to think, the could have stayed at home.

On 29/08/2012 18:35, Jo Stein wrote:
On 29.08.2012 15:30, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/08/2012 13:00, Jo Stein wrote:
...
What is you weight. I can compute similar figures for you. It is a
very simple formula given on page 133 in this book:
http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/8819091

I could have scanned the page for you. Here follows the same page
in Norwegian as I am sure that a smart guy like you will be able to
tell where Thormod Henriksen and David H. Maillie went wrong:

They didn't say that. Although the way they are presenting the data
on p133 is confusing for non scientists and you have comprehensively
demonstrated your cluelessness in referencing it with wonderful
aplomb.

They guesstimate the number of *ionisations* caused by all natural
radiation by taking the annual dose energy and dividing into it the
energy needed to ionise air of 34eV. This is *very* misleading.**

You are 100,000x less radioactive than this crazy description
implies!

The distinction is between radioactive disintegrations per second and
the number of electronic ionisations caused by the fast particle
track. The latter is a larger number but not to quite the extent they
claim.

A single alpha particle will cause a fair number of ions to be formed
before running out of steam. A penetrating hard X-ray may go right
through without causing more than a handful of events with its energy
largely unchanged. The body is not opaque to all natural radiation.

I presume they have an axe to grind as the presentation on p133 is
bordering on dishonest.

Here I found the digital version of the norwegian book:
http://www.mn.uio.no/fysikk/tjeneste...skap/straling/
Why dont you write your correction in more detail and send it to the
authors?

I am a friend of Per Wethe and will send your comments to him.

Go ahead. Send it. Their book needs a corrigenda.

Be sure to include the drivel that you have written so that they can see
why my criticism of this badly written page is justified.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"harry" wrote in message
...

The reason nobody died of radiation poisoning at Fukushima is that the
population was moved out pronto. As simple as that.
If it was as safe as you seem to think, the could have stayed at home.

That is the whole point, they could have stayed at home.

On 30/08/2012 08:33, dennis@home wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...

The reason nobody died of radiation poisoning at Fukushima is that the
population was moved out pronto. As simple as that.

No it isn't as simple as that. The dose rate even in the hot spots would
only shorten life by a few years except for an unlucky few that got a
hot alpha emitting particle in their lungs and/or smoke.

Even the workers inside the plant did not get acute radiation injuries
they mostly slipped on twisted metal or were injured by debris from
*chemical* explosions caused by build up of hydrogen gas. eg

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/1237...-caualties.htm

By comparison the criticality splash up at Tokaimura killed two
operators from immediate acute radiation sickness, and gave one a
seriously life shortening zap and 120 people were above 1mSv dose.

If it was as safe as you seem to think, the could have stayed at home.

That is the whole point, they could have stayed at home.

Some areas needed to be evacuated and some were not evacuated in a
timely fashion so that hot rain fell on them. It wasn't all that hot in
the general scheme of things but it was a lot more than civilians are
supposed to be exposed to routinely. Therein lies the problem.

The difficulty is with hot airborne particles that can get into the
lungs. You can survive a lot better with filtered air. Blocking
radioactive iodine uptake in people is also important early on.

The authorities chose to move people away because they were unsure what
would happen next and whether a major containment breach with massive
releases of radiation was in progress. They were in a no win situation.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

harry wrote:
On Aug 29, 9:55 am, Jo Stein wrote:
Den 29.08.2012 07:39, skrev harry:



On Aug 29, 5:54 am, Jo Stein wrote:
On 29.08.2012 03:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS..._of_Fukushima_...
...
"If we took a 'do more good than harm' approach I suspect we
would abandon forced evacuation altogether, especially where
iodine tables are available"
This is quite correct. How do we cure this misery? By education.
When you write about radiofobia you must always tell people how to
get cured:http://www.radiationandreason.com/ For more than half a
century the view that radiation represents an
extreme hazard has been accepted. This book challenges that view
by facing the question How dangerous is ionising radiation?
Briefly the answer is that radiation is about a thousand times
less hazardous than suggested by current safety standards.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RadiationAndReason
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has...
As Wade Allison, emeritus professor of physics at Oxford
University,
says: €œThe reporting of Fukushima was guided by the Cold War
reflex that matched radiation with fear and mortal danger.
Reactors have been destroyed, but the radiation at Fukushima has
caused no loss of life and is unlikely to do so, even in the next
50 years. The voices of science and common sense on which the
future of mankind depends were drowned out and remain to be
heard, even today. The result has been unnecessary suffering and
great socio-economic damage.€�
...
Well would you move your family into the zone? By how much has
people's lives been shortened? I hear the fish are now radioactive
around the NW coast of Japan . Marie Curie died of radiation induced
cancer.
This is all government propaganda so they can build nuclear reactors
(and collect backhanders)
I think we agree that The Natural Philosopher is crazy as he is a
climat denialist. He suffer from a delusion. Your delusion is also
very bad. It looks similar to the propaganda we hear from climate
denialist when they tell us that we cannot trust scientists.

I would have no problem moving my family into the zone. I can read
and I understand the book written by prof. emeritus Wade Allison.
The big problem facing the world today is green idiots like you.
Because of your ignorance we are unable to solve the big problem
facing us, how to get rid of dirty energy production.

Not only the fish is radioactive, also harry is radioactive.
I guess you are fat as stupid people also tend to be fat.
Then you have about one billion Bq in your body because of
natural radiation. Yes, one billion. I have about 610 000 000
ionizations in my body per second. Pleaase, go and learn how
we are designed to tolerate this radiation.

If you read the book by Wade Allison, I promise that I will
read this book:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear

State of Fear is a 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton
concerning eco-terrorists who attempt mass murder to support their
views. The novel had an initial print run of 1.5 million copies and
reached the #1 bestseller position at Amazon.com and #2 on the New
York Times Best Seller list for one week in January 2005. The book
contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a
twenty-page bibliography. Most climate scientists dispute Crichton's
science as being error-filled and distorted.[
Criton was a MD and a author. Had he been a skilled MD, he might still
be among us. He died from cancer caused by smoking:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

In accordance with the private way in which Crichton lived his life,
his throat cancer was not made public until his death.
The author Freud smoke cigars at it killed him.
He did not understand science. Get a life, learn science.
--
jo
€œThere is a tension between short-term, individual welfare
and long-term, group welfare or world welfare.
If it were left to Darwinism alone, there could be no hope.
Short-term greed is bound to win. The only hope lies in
the unique human capacity to use our big brains with our
massive communal database and our forward-simulating imaginations.€�
€”From Dr. Dawkins' acceptance speech at the 2001 Kistler Prize Banquet- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The reason nobody died of radiation poisoning at Fukushima is that the
population was moved out pronto. As simple as that.
If it was as safe as you seem to think, the could have stayed at home.

They could have.

The reason they were safe is that the most dangerous emission - Iodine
131 - is dealt with by taking iodine pills and its gone very quickly.

The whole point of the article is that rapid evacuation is what killed
the people. Not the radiation they were exposed to and not the
radiation they would have been exposed to.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Martin Brown wrote:


The authorities chose to move people away because they were unsure what
would happen next

And that is the true reason. The reactors were in an unknown state.
Those charged with civilian safety were not nuclear experts. They could
not be expected at that time to understand the implications of what was
happening. Part of this review of the accident is precisely to make sure
that people ARE aware of the implications in future.

And in this case, the evidence was clear. The mass evacuations with 20
20 hindsight did more harm than good.



and whether a major containment breach with massive
releases of radiation was in progress. They were in a no win situation.

Oddly enough they were in a major containment breach. As these things
are judged.

BUT what emerges is that a major containment breach is not actually that
life threatening.

Less than 100 people died of radiation or have died of radiation from
Chernobyl.

And if they had got iodine pills to the populations there, the several
thousand survivable but avoidable thyroid cancers would not have
happened either.

apart from hots spots of actual fuel rods - which don't travel far - the
greatest danger is iodine, followed by caesium.

In the case of elderly people whose life expectancy is not huge anyway,
caesium is almost a non issue.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Aug 30, 9:07*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 30/08/2012 08:33, dennis@home wrote:



"harry" wrote in message
....

The reason nobody died of radiation poisoning at Fukushima is that the
population was moved out pronto. As simple as that.

No it isn't as simple as that. The dose rate even in the hot spots would
only shorten life by a few years except for an unlucky few that got a
hot alpha emitting particle in their lungs and/or smoke.

Even the workers inside the plant did not get acute radiation injuries
they mostly slipped on twisted metal or were injured by debris from
*chemical* explosions caused by build up of hydrogen gas. eg

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/1237...kushima-daiich...

By comparison the criticality splash up at Tokaimura killed two
operators from immediate acute radiation sickness, and gave one a
seriously life shortening zap and 120 people were above 1mSv dose.

If it was as safe as you seem to think, the could have stayed at home.

That is the whole point, they could have stayed at home.

Some areas needed to be evacuated and some were not evacuated in a
timely fashion so that hot rain fell on them. It wasn't all that hot in
the general scheme of things but it was a lot more than civilians are
supposed to be exposed to routinely. Therein lies the problem.

The difficulty is with hot airborne particles that can get into the
lungs. You can survive a lot better with filtered air. Blocking
radioactive iodine uptake in people is also important early on.

The authorities chose to move people away because they were unsure what
would happen next and whether a major containment breach with massive
releases of radiation was in progress. They were in a no win situation.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

So the "authorities" were unsure yet wehave all these experts here
think you could have a picnic right next door?

So you are saying things could have been a lot worse?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ia/Conditions-
at-Fukushima-Plant-Improve-But-Return-Home-Will-Take-Years.html

harry wrote:
On Aug 30, 9:07 am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 30/08/2012 08:33, dennis@home wrote:



"harry" wrote in message
...
The reason nobody died of radiation poisoning at Fukushima is that the
population was moved out pronto. As simple as that.
No it isn't as simple as that. The dose rate even in the hot spots would
only shorten life by a few years except for an unlucky few that got a
hot alpha emitting particle in their lungs and/or smoke.

Even the workers inside the plant did not get acute radiation injuries
they mostly slipped on twisted metal or were injured by debris from
*chemical* explosions caused by build up of hydrogen gas. eg

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/1237...kushima-daiich...

By comparison the criticality splash up at Tokaimura killed two
operators from immediate acute radiation sickness, and gave one a
seriously life shortening zap and 120 people were above 1mSv dose.

If it was as safe as you seem to think, the could have stayed at home.
That is the whole point, they could have stayed at home.
Some areas needed to be evacuated and some were not evacuated in a
timely fashion so that hot rain fell on them. It wasn't all that hot in
the general scheme of things but it was a lot more than civilians are
supposed to be exposed to routinely. Therein lies the problem.

The difficulty is with hot airborne particles that can get into the
lungs. You can survive a lot better with filtered air. Blocking
radioactive iodine uptake in people is also important early on.

The authorities chose to move people away because they were unsure what
would happen next and whether a major containment breach with massive
releases of radiation was in progress. They were in a no win situation.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

So the "authorities" were unsure yet wehave all these experts here
think you could have a picnic right next door?

perhaps unlike those authorities we dont have to confirm to public
pressure, fear of losing jobs if we get it wrong and face.


So you are saying things could have been a lot worse?


No. I think they were probably as bad as that deign of reacrtor could be
- maybe if they had run away and left iot it might have been all four
nits sloshing muck around,.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ia/Conditions-
at-Fukushima-Plant-Improve-But-Return-Home-Will-Take-Years.html


You dont honestly expect neutral unbiased reporting from the NY times do
you? And that is 8 months out of date.

Think Daily mail with a Guardian readserhsip...

SOME parts of the exclusion zone are already accessible though people
aren't allowed to stay permanently. Which is pretty stupid considering
the stupidly low levels of radiation. 10mSv/yr

(Dartmoor is 30-60mSv/yr)

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/up...200x534%29.jpg

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 30/08/2012 18:35, harry wrote:
On Aug 30, 9:07 am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 30/08/2012 08:33, dennis@home wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...

If it was as safe as you seem to think, the could have stayed at home.

That is the whole point, they could have stayed at home.

Some of them anyway. But the authorities didn't know that at the time.

I don't think the zone at 400mSv and above would be good to live in and
I would not be thrilled to live with more than 100mSv per year
(equivalent to 100 years industrial nuclear worker permitted dose if
memory serves, or 50 years spent as long haul flight crew).

Some areas needed to be evacuated and some were not evacuated in a
timely fashion so that hot rain fell on them. It wasn't all that hot in
the general scheme of things but it was a lot more than civilians are
supposed to be exposed to routinely. Therein lies the problem.

The difficulty is with hot airborne particles that can get into the
lungs. You can survive a lot better with filtered air. Blocking
radioactive iodine uptake in people is also important early on.

The authorities chose to move people away because they were unsure what
would happen next and whether a major containment breach with massive
releases of radiation was in progress. They were in a no win situation.

So the "authorities" were unsure yet wehave all these experts here
think you could have a picnic right next door?

The problem during the emergency was that with very limited data early
on they had no idea how bad it was going to get and with exposed fuel
getting mad hot it looked like it was possibly going to get a lot worse
and quickly. An impression that was amplified when the two hydrogen
explosions occurred causing further problems on site.

We have the advantage of 20:20 hindsight now and accurate maps of the
actual dose rate. They chose to evacuate everywhere that had above 20mSv
or 3x typical annual exposure. They could probably have gone higher but
would have had to convince a sceptical and worried public.

Given the logistical problems 100mSv was probably a more rational choice
of threshold for evacuating completely. Initially they didn't know where
was hot and where was not - rain plays a part in this.

So you are saying things could have been a lot worse?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ia/Conditions-
at-Fukushima-Plant-Improve-But-Return-Home-Will-Take-Years.html

Probably not all that much worse although they didn't have as much by
way of fully exposed burning core and fuel rods unlike Chernobyl.

The point about evacuation is that you need to do it before there is
significant radiation about otherwise you can end up spreading hot
particles around the country. Once the contaminated zone is defined
stuff that is used there stays inside unless it is carefully
decontaminated to avoid spreading radioactivity elsewhere.

It is ironic that the stress of evacuation and living in shelters has
probably killed many more people already than the radiation exposure.

You also seem to have forgotten that they were dealing simultaneously
with the aftermath of a very powerful earthquake that had trashed a lot
of other infrastructure so nothing was straight forward.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown