Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation

Why Fukushima 'should not turn us against nuclear power'

More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to.

Nuclear radiation at very high levels is dangerous, but the scale of concern that it evokes is misplaced. Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a ... Full Story »

Posted by David Agnew - via BBC News, Gianni D'Anna (t), Sirajul Islam (t), Jason Samfield (t), Gian Antelles (t), Jaimey Perham (t)
Tags Help
Member Tags: fukushima, nuclear energy, health risks
Stats Help
# Tweets: 0 (as of 2011-03-26)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by David Agnew - Mar 26, 2011 - 6:23 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Fabrice Florin - Mar 26, 2011 - 12:13 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
David Agnew
1.8
by David Agnew - Mar. 26, 2011

This appears to have been written by a PR firm for the nuclear industry. It is full of half-truths, misleading statements, and falsities. The glib opening - that no one has died from Fukushima radiation and it is unlikely they will - is premature, and quite probably unsupportable. Similiarly it states that there were no known deaths at TMI and just 43 at Chernobyl. The industry takes full advantage of the fact that radiation leaves no calling card when it causes cancer. The world authority on radiation health effects, Dr. John Gofman, estimated that Chernobyl will cause one million cancers (many still in the future). Contrary to what is stated in this article, potassium WAS used after Chernobyl - although not consistently. And a ... More »

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Patricia Blochowiak
1.0
by Patricia Blochowiak - Mar. 26, 2011

Picks and chooses which facts to include, then adds a few "facts" to support his opinion. Either he knows nothing about radiation and cancer, or he's well-paid.

See Full Review » (2 answers)
Fabrice Florin
3.9
by Fabrice Florin - Mar. 26, 2011

Interesting opinion about the health risks of nuclear radiation, from a physicist at the University of Oxford. He makes some reasonable points based on factual evidence, arguing that the news media may have exaggerated the actual harm caused by radiation at Fukushima - and suggesting that modern reactors are better designed to reduce the risks of nuclear power. Though it's a controversial viewpoint, it merits further examination.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
THOMAS MAXWELL REDALIA
2.0
by THOMAS MAXWELL REDALIA - Mar. 26, 2011

Half-truths and blatant lies do not make good journalism. Allison lies repeatedly by omission: "Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day" (omitting the fact that the plutonium and uranium fallout from bomb tests will continue killing for billions of years). "What of Three Mile Island? There were no known deaths there." (because any deaths would have been miles downwind, giving plant owners "plausible deniability"). He lies about the full Chernobyl death toll, "The latest UN report published on 28 February confirms the known death toll - 28 fatalities among emergency workers, plus 15 fatal cases of child thyroid cancer" (omitting the enormous spike in leukemia, birth defects, thyroid and other cancers ... More »

See Full Review » (3 answers)

Comments on this story (1)Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.8

Average
from 4 reviews (48% confidence)
Quality
2.9
Information
2.3
Insight
2.5
Style
3.0
Context
3.5
Expertise
2.5
Originality
2.5
Relevance
3.5
Responsibility
2.5
Popularity
2.2
Recommendation
1.8
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!