On 22 October 2014 07:08, Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu> wrote:

On Oct 21, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com> wrote:

>
> This is comparable to *2 months* of casualties from coal power, and is the worst accident in decades. It really is bad risk assessment.

Agreed, aside from “oh yeah we cannot inhabit this large chunk of Japan for a thousand years or so”

Immediate casualties aren’t the only costs from a nuclear accident. <http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/chernobyl-ghost-cities>

Latest National Geographic has an article about "disaster tourism".  The author spent a weekend in and around the Pripyat/Chernobyl area, wearing a geiger counter the whole time.  He received a significantly higher radiation dose during to flights to and from than he did over the whole weekend on site.  To be sure, some local hotspots (eg. adjacent to the blade of a bulldozer used in decontamination efforts) had a higher mSv/hr dose than the flights, but most did not.

Cheers,
Ken "not that I'd want to live there yet" Barns