Re: [TML] Fusion by 2025?
Phil Pugliese 22 Oct 2014 17:14 UTC
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 10/22/14, Kenneth Barns <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML] Fusion by 2025?
To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 12:31 AM
On 22 October 2014 07:08, Bruce Johnson <xxxxxx@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
wrote:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Anthony Jackson <xxxxxx@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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As far as "living there goes", I saw a show on PBS 3-4 years ago that detailed some of the work that biologists were doing wrt studying the wildlife that has flourished there since the people left.
They found that the rate of birth defects was about double the rate outside. (about 4%vs2%)
As they put it, "That's OK for animals, but not for people".
====================================================================
