re: #18 dragonath
Oh yes, yes there is an exclusion zone. And even a small increase in cancer risk is significant. There has been a loss of arable land which really hurts a country like Japan. The ocean waters got nseriously dosed with rads, we can only carefully watch the sea life and try to assess.
EDIT-So how does that compare to the downwind side of a coal plant that maybe should be an exclusion zone? What casualty rate do we assess for all that CO? I don’t mean to downplay the risk, just put the truth of it up against the actual damage and casualties compared to what we are taught to expect from such a disaster by the critics.
I guess I want the bottom line to be like this-For each and every thing we worry about in nuclear power, is our worry scaled to the real risk? Does that risk assessment have perspective as to what we risk instead without the nuke plants? Generally people suck at risk assessment. we can’t afford that this time.