Archives for posts with tag: accidents


J-value or Justification Value.


Often we are faced with the problem:

Shall or Shall Not

We have classic dilemma:
“The Fat Man and the Trolley”
or shall I kill one, in order to save five?

Recently it has been attempted to quantify this recurring dilemma using J-value.
For good and for bad it has been necessary to include the value of human life and human wellbeing.
From the link in the heading, I quote:

  • How much should a nuclear power plant spend on protecting its workers?
  • Is it cost-effective to install a new safety system for railway signaling?
  • Should the Government be spending more to prevent road deaths?

I will ask:

  • Do you take on a bullet-proof west before you go out to post a letter?

From my time in Africa I have tried to face the problem:

  • How to spend the limited funds available if you want to give
    (some of) the countless orphans a better future life?

In my opinion a lot of the discussions should be modified considering the philosophy related to J-value.
The following are a few examples.

Relocation measures following nuclear power plant accidents.

From the highlights to a very detailed net-paper,
I refer that
75 % of the evacuations at Chernobyl and ALL at Fukushima were not justified if the evacuations were evaluated considering J-value.

Or more specific:
You consider years lost from the (very limited) radioactive pollution, assuming the alternative “Just stay at home.”
This is then compared to the years lost as a consequence of the mandatory evacuations.

Personally I will claim that the many “evacuation-casualties” has been a result of the reckless fight to demonize nuclear.


From the above mentioned paper I quote:
It balances the costs of a safety scheme against the improvement in quality of life of those affected as a result of implementing that scheme.

Going back to the example with the run away trolley you have:
blaThe scheme: Shifting the
bla – direction of the trolley.
blaCosts: Killing one man.
blaImprovement: Saving five
bla – lives.
blaJustification Value: 5 saved compared to one killed.

Relationship between radiation and harm

Originally – and to be sure – it was assumed that “No matter how little, all radiation is harmful”. (LNT or Linear No Threshold)
Without finding it specified, I understand that this assumption has been used in the above mentioned paper.

However, there are strong evidence showing that even 1000 mSv per year is not harmful if it is evenly distributed, thus giving the human “repair mekanisme” time to do the job.

For obvious reasons there is an enormous confusion about radiation and the above mentioned 1000 mSv/year is 50 times the limit used at Fukushima where people were evacuated – mandatory? – if the radiation was more than 20 mSv/year.
If this is considered there will be even less justification for the many evacuations.

Value of human life

For good and for bad it has been necessary to discuss the value of human life.
It has been done in the above mentioned paper.

In order to set it in perspective, I refer from a lecturer given by a German visiting professor in Dar es Salaam.
He did not shy away from difficult explanations and I remember the following:

  • In the good old times a lot of Germans had at good holiday in the then peaceful Yugoslavia.
    -mm –Some came home in a cuffin.
    -mm –You know: Bad roads and bad drivers.
    But one year one man came home with only one leg because the other had been eaten by a shark.
    The following year the flow of tourists was halved.
    Of course, it soon came back to normal.

Sometimes we can not shy away from the classic “Trolley Dilemma” where it is discussed: trolley_problem
“Shall I divert the train and kill one in order to save five?”

Still it is relatively easy.
But it is also asked: You stand on a bridge
bla Will you push one man to death in order to save five?
bla And what will you do if this man is a friend of yours?
bla Jump yourself.
An Indian soldier saved his group.
He got the Victoria Cross Post mortem.

Noise from windmills

What is the value of human life and welfare compared to the wish for
so-called green electricity?
See part of the discussion on

Contaminated / Uninhabitable Areas

More than half of all people live in contaminated sites.
Most air pollution or contaminated drinking water.
Whatever, our choice is in fact based on J-value.

Cleanup at Hanford

During the war and later during the Cold War, plutonium was produced at the Hanford US plant.
As with almost all military activity, there was a poor safety culture.
And, as it is usually the case with “nuclear clean-up”, there have apparently been exaggerated demands.
Unfortunately, it has been difficult to find anything but alarming information.
Typically, the account of a tunnel that collapsed.
The cleanup will be both expensive and late.
From the daily newspaper Information: A bombs require US victims.

Despite much search, it has not been possible to find factual information:
(Persons Injury / Death – mSv / ?? or Bq / ?? )
If you, my unknown reader, have factual information, write to me at


In connection with a political struggle between the English Government and the coal miners, it was decided, in fact demanded, that the plant for Plutonium production should also provide power.
As we know, this urgent decision resulted in a very poor security culture and much pollution.

From the Danish paper Information, which usually is anti-nuclear:
bla The British nuclear plant Sellafield houses Western Europe’s most
bla harmful buildings with tons of unknown radioactive material
bla stored in pools.
bla The cleanup will cost the British taxpayers unimaginable sums and
bla will last decades.

As usual, one should try to assess the situation as it was at the time of the Cold War and the political conflict.
Was it justified? J-value

A supporter of nuclear power feels that it should be added that spent fuel elements from nuclear power, along with other highly radioactive material, will be stored in pools under water for up to 30 years.
Of course, because it’s safe and convenient.

Belgian nuclear power 2018

Following the public debate, it may be felt that the Cold War is replaced by a new war For or against nuclear power.
In 2018 it appears that 6 out of 7 Belgian reactors were taken out of service due to incipient damage at connecting buildings.
blaThese buildings contained the pumps to be used if everything else
blafailed. And the buildings might not withstand a crash by an airplane.
On Ingeniørens Netavis (Nov 2018), this is addressed with the almost mocking headline:
One [not closed] out of seven is actually pretty miserable.
At the end of over 125 submissions, an assessment was proposed based on J-value.
In any case, such an assessment would have shown that the closures could only be defended as “politically motivated” and driven by an inflated popular mood.
This attempt to reach the core was not well received.

German resistance to nuclear power

In Germany, there is a popular fear of everything with Atom.
Apparently this can be traced back to a study, allegedly showing that children who lived near nuclear power plants had more cases of leukemia and other forms of cancer.
Although the original study has been disputed, an analysis based on J-value would have been appropriate.

  • In a desperate (and fruitless) attempt to find a connection between the clearly contradictory information, I ask if this (very small) deviation can be explained by Neutrinos.

But again, I emphasize that this, like so much else, should be assessed using the J-value philosophy.

Military Considerations

Although the term J-value was not used at that time, it must have been an almost inhumane task, e.g. deciding whether the invasion of Normandy should be postponed due to bad weather forecasts.

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
The reactor at Three Mile Island was a so-called light water reactor of a relatively early design. The capacity was 852 MW.
852 MW is a little more than half of what is seen at modern reactors.

More about the accident can be seen here.
As a natural thing the reactor was protected by reactor containment.
Such a reactor containment (1) which usually is an about 2 meters thick reinforced concrete shell, is the last defense against the release of radioactive waste.
Even the pressure vessel (2) was unaffected.isar2_reaktor
Here it proved to stand up to the test:
People within a radius of 15 km from the reactor were exposed to an average dose of 8 millirem (0.08 mSv).
Og.klimSv (milli Sivert) is the acceptet unit
Og.klifor biological influence of radiation.
Highest measured dose was 100 millirem
(1 mSv).
This should be seen in the context of the natural background radiation, which we are all exposed to, is about 200 millirem (2-3 mSv) per year.

Such a core meltdown can under no circumstances evolve into just something towards a “nuclear explosion”.
It will require both highly enriched uranium and a very special “initiator”.
Yet it was not long before half of the American population had been convinced that such a threat was imminent.
A small crowd of journalists who perhaps had waited for some horror stories.
They had to go home disappointed.
As so often both Greenpeace and lawyers were buissy.

For reasons not understood, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission followed in the heels of Greenpeace and spread horror reports about non-existent hazards.

Radioactive contamination

It is estimated that US coal burning in 1982 released 150 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity to the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.

Evacuations and claims

There were some panicky evacuations and many claims for compensation.
Most, if not solely, for loss of income as a result of the unnecessary evacuations.
The private, but compulsory, Price Anderson Act’s savings, covered as far as it can be seen all these costs.
These costs came to $ 70 million, of which 41% were “legal expenses”.
To put this amount in perspective I will mention that the US nuclear power plants annually pay $ 375 million to this private insurance-fund.

It may be worth mentioning that it was the first and the only time where a nuclear accident resulted in this form of payment.
When the savings accumulated in the Prince-Anderson “money tank” (0,01 US-cent/kWh) reached astronomic proportions, further payments has been suspenderet.

The cleanup was expensive

On this link it is stated that the cleanup lasted 11 years and cost about
USD 1 billion.
This long time: 11 years is probably explained by a desire to wait until the worst radioactivity had subsided.

The real damage

As seen below, the hysteria developed into a disaster.
A disaster that has made its marks even to this day:
bla – Expensive and unstable energy
bla – Loss of position in technical capacity
bla – And a looming climate disaster

How ?

A very detailed assessment is provided by Alternative Energy / Nuclear Power.
Here you find data related to the large fluctuations between 1975 and 1985
These are reactors that were under construction at the same time as the hysteria after the accident.
I quote:
Some countries like the United States, Canada, Japan and W Germany responded to the Three Mile Island accident by introducing regulations that pushed costs through the roof, while France, S Korea and India did not.

Klik on the little gry square for details about France and USA.

At the same place you find the following:
From 1974 to 1975, orders fell sharply from 75 GW to 28 GW.
In addition, all 41 reactors ordered after 1973 were subsequently canceled and eventually more than two thirds of all nuclear power plants ordered after January 1970 were canceled.


zz Kina It is easy to see that the initiative has shifted to Korea, Russia and especial to China.

I ask why ?
and try to say HERE

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.

The discussion

Although the term “Contaminated” is usually seen in relation to nuclear, it will be seen that most contamination in reality is a result of rejecting nuclear power.

In connection with the reporting about contaminated areas you often see a mix of criteria for concepts such as “polluted” or “uninhabitable”.
As a conclusion of the following you will see that the areas can be contaminated without necessarily being uninhabitable.
Although nuclear contamination worldwide is a minor problem it takes up a major part of the public discussion – also in the following.

I have tried to divide the discussion in the following:

  • How is it measured?
    Some of it is here.
  • What are we exposed to?
    An overview of natural radioactivity found here.
  • What can you tolerate?
    Here, as in most diskussions, ignorance replaced by great confusion.
    Large populations – even in Europe – live exposed to
    10 mSv / year. few places more.
    Aparently without harm.

The background radiation we are all exposed to, is about 2 mS/year.

  • There are overwhelming material showing that moderate the influence of ionizing radiation are beneficial. Almost like a vaccination against cancer.
    But let that be.
  • What do you allow?
    In a race to the bottom politicians try to avoid criticism and specify still lower permissible doses for what is described as dangerous and to be avoided.
    Thus, the permissible exposure of workers at German nuclear power plants in 1988? Reduced from 22 to 2 mSv/year
  • The extreme is apparently reached in Japan.
    To be on the safe side, a limit of
    one millisievert / year was introduced. (Arbitrarily)
    This is only a tenth of that many Europeans have suffered throughout their lives.

Unfortunately, I must note that it was necessary to get all these details in place before you can get to the real.

What happened?
Leaving aside the obvious forgery and remember that the discussion is about uninhabitable spaces I can only say:

  • I have not found anything about the situation in Japan after the atomic bomb attacks.
    It was before the concept uninhabitable areas was ‘invented’.
  • To complete the picture from Japan I mention that people who at the nuclear bombing were exposed to 500 mSv, and got weak symptoms of acute radiation sickness, nevertheless had no shorter life span than people in general.
  • Emissions from the accident at Three Mile Island was so extremely small that it is irrelevant; Also in this context.
    There were compensations for lost wages as compensation for unnecessary forcible evacuations and spent almost as much on ‘legal expences’.
  • Similarly, it must be noted that information about the accident at Fukushima are so entangled by conflicting “evidences” that it is not possible to draw conclusions.

Thus, we must start with the disaster by Chernobyl.
There you will find information, some of it seems reliable.

  • Without source reference is a picture showing dead trees.
    OK There were major release of radioactive material.
  • Of course, effortlessly, you will find countless horror stories.
  • You see the “back-mowaers” (babushkas) live in areas with
    more than 500 kBq/m^2
    Almost all are old and will naturally die from old age before they may get injuries from the perhaps not so dangerous radiation.
  • Maybe this page help with reliable information on the situation shortly after the disaster.

Already in 2006 you will find an assessment by the BBC:
Chernobyl’s ‘nuclear nightmares’
The following is from this article.

  • “Low doses of radiation are a [very] poor carcinogen,” says Professor Brooks, som har spent 30 years studying the link mellom radiation and cancer.
    “If you talk to anybody and you say the word radiation, direkt you get a fear response. That fear response har caused people to do things att are scientifically unfounded.”
  • Beneficial effects:
    Other studies having come to even more startling conclusions’.
    Professor Ron Chesser, of Texas Tech University, US, har spent 10 years studying animals living Reviews within the 30km exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl.
    Han har found att, far from the effects of low-level radiation being Carcinogenic, it fremgår two boost dem att genes protect us against cancer.
    (Radiation hormesis?)

    Generally, information from the BBC considered reliable.

October 2015 The Guardian (England) comes forward with something similar:

  • For years, both animals and plants thrived in the forbidden zone that is closed to humans.
    Måske it is not so terribly terribly dangerous.
  • Especially the comments for this article gives a good insight into the general reluctance to accept information that goes against what I very rude call “ordinary childhood”.

Of course, Greenpeace has been out with activists – Wearing white protective clothing and breathing apparatus.
To tell the “back-movers” that their lives are in danger.
Of course, this white protective suit is completely without effect if the purpose is to protect against ionizing radiation.

If you, my unknown reader, have come so far, I suggest that you try to draw the consequences.

If you still have doubts and want more, I refer to anything else I have written:
Greenpeace’s credibility is a myth.
Pollution of the ocean.
Unlike most doomsday prophets, I have a large scale given references to my sources.

And later (2018) you read at that UNHCR has adjusted the estimate of “late casualties” (from cancer?) from about 4000 to about zero.

If you feel you have missing information, write to me at

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Even in the debate on nuclear energy, it is hard to find so much misleading “Information” as in the debate on the deaths caused by the disaster at Chernobyl.
In the following I will try to make a summary.

  • When the disaster struck, I was in Tanzania where a friend of mine
    – a good English lady – followed the developments on TV – relaied from BBC.
    When she saw how the radioactive cloud slowly enveloped the whole earth, she went to her sleeping children to say goodbye.
    For now we will soon die all of us.
  • Also the Danish television remained determined to show the horror.
    Shortly after the accident you could hear that there were 1,000 killed and that on satellite photographs you could see the dead bodies on the streets and dead animals in the fields.
    It was added that it could not be ruled out that these figures would be much higher.
    A look at any ordinary Medical Manual would have shown that even if you get a lethal dose of radiation, it will take some time before you get symptoms and you will not ‘just’ wait to die on the street.
    It is still unclear how this, unfortunately not unique, “information” was planted in the media.
    (The total death toll from the disaster was below 50).

As usual Danmarks Radio had no need to go back to the truth.

  • Instead of giving factual information, shortly after the accident the public media “found” highly elevated levels of various forms of cancer.
    This should be seen in the context of cancer from radiation, as well as from smoking and asbestos, do not arise until after a “waiting period” (latency) between 5 and 20 years.
    Less for leukemia or thyroid cancer.
    Also this can be seen in any Medical Manual.
    – – Of course, this may be explained by that it soon became
    – – fashionable to explain all possible and impossible defects
    – – from radiation.
    – – And, of course, hope for compensation.
  • Numerous reports of horrific birth defects in children quickly gave column space for journalists who reported on many (nonexistent?) orphanages.

Here I will add that contrary to expectations, there has NEVER been found increased number of birth defects in children born to survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks on Japan, where there was completely different high emissions. See:

Of course it was not long before the media began to report on numeroous current and especially future deaths, mainly from cancer.

  • This should be seen in connection to experiences, mainly from survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks on Japan:
  • As time has passed and the survivors started to grow old, it has been possible to realize that ionizing radiation is a [very] weak carcinogen “. Source: BBC
  • Here it was discovered that survivors, who were exposed to 500 mSv or less, had no shorter life than the general population.
    – – 500 mSv as individual exposure will cause minor symptoms
    – – of acute radiation sickness, and is more than 100 times of
    – – what is normally allowed.
    Also this shows that, in contrast to the usual horror stories, the risk of later cancer is very limited.
  • Already in 2006 we could read the result of thorough, and hopefully honest, studies, showing that animals have performed excellently in the areas that have been declared as unhabitable to humans.
    In accordance with experience related to Radiation hormesis there has even been FEWER cases of damage (cancer) to the animals who have taken over the area.
  • And from The Guardian (2015)
    ”Wildlife Thriving around Chernobyl nuclear plant in spite of radiation”, you can get seemingly credible information.

Obviously: All this was “no problem” for the numerous scaremongers:

  • Greenpeace has been out with the following:
    “It is now more than 20 years since the Chernobyl nuclear accident that affected millions of people in western Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The disaster was the fault of a hundred times more radiation than the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    Today, over twenty years later, the nightmare continues for thousands of people. “

Even if you believe this and prefer Greenpeace as a source of honest information, you should try to look at

  • The record is probably reached with “information” about a million recorded deaths and seven million future.
    One is tempted to say that if we wait long enough, then we will be dead all of us.

Of course you will ask: How were serious scientists lured astray?

After the nuclear bomb attacks, lack of knowledge and a natural desire to be cautious translated into fear of future horrific injuries.
At the same time, it was made into a “law of nature” that future damage should be calculated from the LNT hypothesis that allows calculated statistical predictions.
Although recent data show that this hypothesis is clearly misleading,
Still the LNT is stil maintained stubbornly by “The Establishment.”


Although it is difficult to find data which is accepted by everybody, I dare to refer to den E-bogen STRÅLING OG HELSE, udgivet af Fysisk institutt, Det norske matematisk-naturvitenskapelige fakultet.
Mostly from this, I have the following
bla – In connection with the accident (mostly rescue-workers):
bla – Less than 50
bla – Later, as a result of radiation: Probably nil.
bla – Deaths following the forced, but mostly unnecessary, evacuations:
bla – More than 1000

– – – – For kilder og henvisninger:
– – – – Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.
– – – – Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.

Dødsfald i forbindelse med kernekraft bør sammenlignes med dødsfald i forbindelse med andre ENERGIKILDER.
På den måde vil det være urimeligt at diskutere skader ved militære anlæg og ved forskningsinstitutioner.

Saglig diskussion bør naturligvis kun omhandle dødsfald i forbindelse med tænkte fremtidige reaktorer, hovedsageligt i Europa.
Således vil det være naturligt at udelukke den specielt farlige reaktorer ved Tjernobyl.

På samme måde vil en saglig vurdering udelukke diskussion om reaktorerne ved Fukushima, hvor forholdene var specielle og skader fra tsunamien på et stort område var forfærdelige.
På trods af oplagte mangler og på trods af utallige rædselsberetninger var skaderne på reaktorerne meget begrænsede.
—- De tre, der døde på kraftværket, de druknede og
—- de store evakueringer viste sig at være sagligt ubegrundede.

Således vil diskussionen indskrænkes til ulykken ved Three Mile Island.
Her var der tale om meget store materielle skader.
Men ingen personskader fra radioaktivt udslip.
Som ofte i USA udbetaltes småbeløb.
Her hovedsageligt eller udelukkende for tabt arbejdsfortjeneste på grund af forståelige, men unødvendige krav om evakueringer.
Derudover blev næsten det samme beløb brugt til “legal expences”.

Endeligt vil jeg konstatere at der, på trods af ihærdige påstande, ikke har været bare ET ENESTE tilfælde af personskade på grund af radioaktivitet i forbindelse med civil kernekraft i de 50 år der har været kernekraft i vesten.
(Her er der tale om skader, ved den nødvendige minedrift, ved driften af reaktorerne og ved behandling af det, der stadigvæk kaldes affald.)

Hvis du, min ukendte læser, har FAKTUELLE oplysninger, der modsiger dette, så skriv til mig på

Fra Climate Ansvers og tidligere også fra Ingeniøren, citerer jeg følgende:

Energikilde – – Dødsfald/trillion kWh – ….- Andel af forsyning af el
Coal – global – – – 170.000 – – – – – – – – (50% global electricity)
Coal – China -…. – 280.000 – – – – – – – – (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. – -… -. – 15.000– – – – – – – – – (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil – – – – -……- – –36.000 – – – – (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas -…… – –4.000 – – – – – – – – – (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass …..- 24.000– – – – – – – – – (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) – ..- – – –440– – – – – – – – – (< 1% global electricity)
Wind – – – – –…. – – – –150 – – – – – – – – (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – – – – -…. – – –1.400 – – – – – – – – (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – – – – – ….- – – 90 – – – – – – – – (17% global electricity)

Alt tyder på at når der angives 90 dødsfald/TWh er det fordi dødsfald ved Tjernobyl og Fukushima inkluderet – og overdrevne.
Det lave tal for vadkraft tyder på at en enorm katastrofe i Kina er overset.
Desuden savner man oplysninger om “Solar Totalt”

En længere artikel (June 10, 2012), der er i overensstemmelse med ovenstående, findes her.

En tilhænger af kernekraft vil naturligvis fremhæve at kernekraft er det eneste realistiske alternativ til kulkraft.
Tilsvarende nævnes at UNSCEAR har nedjusteret antallet af “sendødsfald” ved Tjernobyl fra omkring 4000 til “næsten nul”
Det kan argumenteres at dette er fordi man har medregnet erfaringer fra Hiroshima hvor man, mod al forventning, ikke har fundet den meget omtalte stigning i forekomst af kræft.

På internettet finder man dette:

severe accidents

Klik på tabellen for fuld størrelse.

Mere illustrativt fra New Scientist (2011)

Klik på tabellen for fuld størrelse.
Her, som så mange andre steder, benyttes gamle og overdrevne tal for dødsfald ved kernekraft.
Senere data angiver omkring 60 dødsfald ved Tjernobyl – ikke 9000
Derudover var der over 1000 “Evakueringsdødsfald” der næsten alle kunne være undgået hvis man havde overvejet uden den oppustede frygt.
En tilhænger af kernekraft siger
————————-Send regningen til Greenpeace.

Risiko – Generelt

Fra What is nuclear får man følgende oplysninger.

Activity ———————————————–mSv
Typical yearly dose, all sources —————- 3.6
Full set dental X-ray ——————————– 0.4
Flying roundtrip from D.C. to Los Angeles 0.05
Living outside nuclear plant ——————- 0,001 /year

Helth risk —————————— Expected life lost
Smoking a pack of cigarets a day —— 6 years
Being 15 % overweight ——————– 2 years
Working in construction ——————- 227 days
Working in nuclear power plant
(1000 mrem/year)—————————– 51 days
Typical annual background radiation
(3 mSv/year)


Udover dødsfald har den generelle modstand mod kernekraft resulteret i megen forurening, ikke bare med CO2

Et par andre kilder

Fra Deaths from Nuclear Energy Compared with Other Causes. February 26, 2013 citeres følgende – Relateret til panikken efter tsunamien.

  • Ifølge World Data Bank steg Japans kulforbrug med 57 TWh, naturgas 58 TWh og olie 9 TWh gennem 2011.
    Det er rimeligt at antage, at dette forblev det samme gennem 2012.
  • Dødsfald / TWh / år fra kul-, gas-, olie- og nuklear-baseret produktion er henholdsvis 24, 3, 19,2 og 0,052.
  • Ekstra fossile dødsfald og alvorlige lidelser over 2 år:
    Kul = 24 mennesker x 57 TWh x 2 år = 2.736 dødsfald plus 25.000 alvorlige lidelser
    Gas = 3 x 58 x 2 = 348 dødsfald plus 3.400 alvorlige lidelser
    Olie = 19,2 x 9 x 2 = 342 dødsfald plus 2.900 alvorlige lidelser
    I alt ekstra fossile dødsfald = 2.736 + 348 + 342 = 3.426 plus 31.300 alvorlige lidelser.
    Atom = 0,052 x (57 + 58 + 9) x 2 = 13 dødsfald plus 54 alvorlige lidelser.

Der afslluttes med følgende:

  • Modstandere af atomenergi er fuldstændig irrationelle med hensyn til ”farerne ved nukleare”.
    Bemærk, at naturgas er 8 gange mindre dødbringende end kul.
    Disse dødsfald er aktive, så længe Japans nukleare anlæg er i tomgang!!
  • Den kritiske læser hævder sig ved et rodet layout og at enheden Deaths/TWh/yr er selvmodsigende.

Kilder til ovenstående:
Og en meget lang artikel på The Lancet 2007
(The Lancet anses normalt som meget pålideligt og graph side 983 er meget illustrativt.)

  • Brug af atomkraft i stedet for fossile energikilder, såsom kul, har forhindret omkring 1,8 millioner luftforurening-relaterede dødsfald globalt – – –
    Se her.

Ikke bare dødsfald

Ovenstående har hovedsageligt behandlet antal af dødsfald.
Det er efter min mening langt fra fyldestgørende.
Hvis man er ærlig skal man også diskutere Liv og Livskvalitet.

I forbindelse med et – desværre opgivet – projekt for forældreløse børn i Tanzania gik jeg så vidt som at skrive:

– – – – De, de er måske de heldige, de får fred i deres grav – selv om de måske ikke får en grav.

Støj fra vindmøller
Selv om vindkraftens lobbyvirksomhed gør et stort arbejde for at neddysse omtale af skader fra støj og andet, er det et alvorligt aspekt i det, der optimistisk kaldes Den Store Grønne Omstilling.

Ud over dødsfald, som omtalt, er der mange der lider af astma og lignende.
Dårligt helbred og dårlig livskvalitet hører med til billedet.

Olie og Gas
Hvis tilgængelige oplysninger står til troende er der alvorlige skader, også menneskelige, i forbindelse med udvinding af olie og gas.

Efter ulykkerne ved Tjernobyl og Fukushima var man vidne til meget store evakueringer.
Disse evakueringer var skyld i mange skader, både fysiske og psykiske.
Endog selvmord.
Hvis tilgængelige oplysninger står til troende har disse skader langt overskredet de, tilsyneladende hypotetiske, skader der ville have været set hvis disse evakueringer havde været begrænset til et rimeligt niveau.

Bhopal 1984
Den alvorligste industrielle ulykke var The Bhopal disaster.
Her var der mindst 3800 døde og i 100.000vis af syge og forgiftede.
Sammen med uhyggelig megen forurening.
I virkeligheden meget værre end Tjernobyl og Fukushima TILSAMMEN.
Men det var fattige indere og det var ikke en ulykke med radioaktivitet.
Det er næsten glemt.

Black Swan Theory

Ekstreme og “uforudsigelige” ulykker er forsøgt behandlet på dette link.
Det der dominerer i denne vurdering er financial crash og lignende.
Verst tænkelige menneskeskabte katastrofe vil formentligt være i forbindelse med et
blank xxxxxxxxxdæmnidæmningsbrud.

Der er naturligvis internationale eksperter, der vurderer nuclear sikkerhed.
I forbindelse med kernekraft er den egentlige Black Swan risiko forbundet med politiske tiltag.
Som fx da man i Tyskland uden varsel og uden tilstrækkelig kompensation “sådan bare” besluttede at udfase kernekraft.

Drabsforsøg på politi

Et nær dødsfald

Ved en omfattende demonstration mod A-kraft blev en tysk betjent slået bevidstløs og ført med strømmen ned af et vandløb medens hundredvis af demonstranter stod og hujede.

Han blev reddet fra druknedøden da en demonstrant længere nede forstod realiteterne og samlede ham op.

Hvorfor denne diskussion?

Jeg mener at det er nødvendigt at give et modsvar til årtiers dygtig propaganda, som fx ses og afdækkes på en anden post:
Greenpeaces Troværdighed er en Myte.


Februar 2020 læser man på Weekendavisen og på Ingeniøren at udfasning af atomkraft hæmmer Tysklands klimaindsats og at det tyske Energiewende har været skadeligt for folkesundheden.

Ved opslag på internettet er det let at finde modstridende oplysninger fra måske velmenende kilder, der beretter om dødsfald i forbindelse med uranminer.
De fleste af disse sider giver ikke andet end vage oplysninger, der kun udmærker sig ved at være alarmerende.
Derfor vil jeg nøjes med at referere til New Scientist og naturligvis også til
World Nuclear.

Som en slutbemærkning opfordres modstandere af kernekraft til at give kilder til faktuelle oplysninger, der støtter de gentagne påstande om specielt mange dødsfald ved kernekraft og minedrift for uran.

Skriv til

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.


The release of radioactive material has been estimated to be between
500 PBq and 1000 PBq
The Pacific Ocean covers 165 million km^2 and contains 66 million km^3 of water.
Assuming all of these 1000 PBq (10^18 Bq) to be equally distributed over 1 % of the ocean to a depth of 50 m, and without considering the ‘sinking down’ of heavy material, you will get 12 Bq/kg. If you thereafter consider that some 90 % of the radioactive release is Iodine131 (see page 116 in UNSCEAR 2013 Report,) only some 2 Bq/kg will be active at the time of the horror-stories.
Further, it may be worth mentioning that the US National Academy of Science has referred to measurements showing 7 Bq/m^3 Fukushima-derived fallout of 137Cs near the Canadian continental shelf.
This may have been rather difficult to measure, considering that the natural level of radiation in the ocean is 11,000 Bq/m^3

In order to relate to something familiar, it can be mentioned that all of us carry with us about 65 Bq/kg (65,000 Bq/m^3) as part of our human body, or that a radon level of 100,000 Bq/m^3 was found in the basement of an occupied house. (Watras Incident, as discussed on another post.)
Correct me if I am wrong.
Fukushima Greenpeace
Considering this, it is difficult to understand how well established “green organizations” show maps and indicate the “extreme danger” related to the radioactive pollution the whole way to the American west coast.
Even far inland.
1 RAD = 10 mSv However, this unit is (deliberately?) confusing and will not have any meaning without stating the time. E.g. RAD/hour.

Without being able to check, I think this link from The Register is more reliable.

If you have trust in World Nuclear, the following may be interesting:

  • A silt fence has long been in place to prevent contamination reaching the open sea and the diluting effects of ocean currents mean that radioactivity cannot be detected in seawater beyond the plant harbour.

If you are a fan of YouTube and have seen “The Ocean of Death”, you may wonder how the many fish can be so sensitive that the increase in radiation from 11,000 to 11,007 Bq/m^3 has caused the disaster shown on the film.
Contrary to radiation; fish are rather sensitive to change in the concentration of salt in the water. So, if not directly falsified, the dead fish may be found outside a plant for desalinating seawater.
Besides this it is worth looking at the last table in a paper from UNSCEAR. Here it is seen that the radiologic tolerance  for fish is some ten times that for mammals and birds.
On the other hand you may be relieved to see how the animals are thriving in the highly radioactive and forbidden zone at Chernobyl.

As far as I am aware of, Tepco’s limits for groundwater contamination is that groundwater should contain less than 5 Bq/L of beta ray-emitting radioactive material and 1 Bq/L of caesium-134 and caesium-137.
Again, this should be seen in relation to the natural load of the human body: 65 Bq/L and of the ocean: 11 Bq/L
Natural Radiation EU
To be on the safe side, the standard for public radiation exposure was (arbitrary) set
to one millisievert/year.
This is only one tenth of what some Europeans have been exposed to throughout their lives.

My conclusion is clear.
Something is rotten – somewhere –
But where ?

englandEnglish translation.
For kilder og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.

Og.klik påb Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.
I forbindelse med omtale af forurenede områder ser man ofte en sammenblanding af kriterier for begreber som ”forurenede” eller ”ubeboelige”.
For en ordens skyld nævner jeg at langt over halvdelen af jordens befolkning lever i områder, hvor der er luftforurening.
Over to millioner dør årligt på grund af luftforurening fra kulkraft.
På verdensplan er generel luftforurening skyld i ni millioner dødsfald.

Som en konklusion af det følgende vil man se at områder kan være forurenede uden nødvendigvis at være ubeboelige.

Jeg har prøvet at opdele diskussionen i følgende:

  • Hvordan måles det?
    Noget findes her.
  • Hvad udsættes vi for?
    En grundig oversigt over naturlig radioaktivitet findes her.
  • Hvad kan man tale?
    Tilsyneladende er manglende viden erstattet af stor forvirring.
    Store befolkningsgrupper – også i Europa – lever udsat for
    10 mSv/år.
    Enkelte steder meget mere.
    Tilsyneladende uden skadevirkninger.

Den baggrundsstråling, vi alle udsættes for, er omkring 2 mS/år.

  • Der er overvældende materiale, der viser at moderat påvirkning af ioniserende stråling er gavnlig. Næsten som en vaccination mod kræft.
    Men lad det nu være.
  • Hvad vil man tillade?
    I et ræs mod bunden forsøger politikere at undgå kritik og fastsætter stadig lavere tilladelige grænser for hvad der betegnes som farligt og skal undgås.
    Således blev den tilladelige påvirkning af arbejdere på tyske kernekraftværker i 1988? nedsat fra 22 til 2 mSv/år
  • Natural Radiation EUDet helt ekstreme nås tilsyneladende i Japan, hvor panikken overtrumfede logikken.
    For at være på den sikre side, fastsatte man (helt arbitrært) en grænseværdi på
    en millisievert/år.
    Dette er kun en tiendedel af det mange europæere har været udsat for gennem hele deres liv.

Desværre må jeg konstatere at det var nødvendigt at få alle disse detaljer på plads inden man kan komme til det egentlige.

Hvad er der sket?
Når man ser bort fra klart falskneri og husker at diskussionen er om Ubeboelige Områder kan jeg kun oplyse følgende:

  • Jeg har ikke fundet noget om forholdene i Japan, efter atombombeangrebene.
    Det var før man ‘opfandt’ begrebet Ubeboelige Omrder.
  • For at færdiggøre billedet fra Japan nævner jeg at personer, der var udsat for 500 mSv, fik svage symptomer på akut strålesyge.
    Alligevel havde de ikke kortere livslængde end normalbefolkningen.
  • Udslip fra ulykken ved Three Mile Island var så ekstremt små at det er uden relevans; også i denne sammenhæng.
    Der blev udbetalt erstatning for tabt arbejdsfortjeneste som kompensation for unødvendige tvangs-evakueringer og brugt næsten lige så meget på ‘legal expences’.
  • Tilsvarende må det konstateres at oplysninger om ulykken ved Fukushima er så indfiltrede af modstridende oplysninger at det ikke er muligt at drage slutninger.

Således må vi starte med katastrofen ved Tjernobyl.
Der finder man oplysninger, der trods alt virker pålidelige.

  • Uden kildeangivelse findes et billede, der viser døde træer.
    OK Der var meget store udslip af radioaktivt materiale.
  • Naturligvis finder man, helt uden besvær, utallige rædselsberetninger.
  • Man ser at “tilbage-flyttere” (Babushkas) lever i områder med over 500 kBq/m^2
    Næsten alle er gamle og vil naturligvis dø af alderdom før de eventuelt får skader fra den måske ikke så farlige stråling.
  • Måske kan denne side bidrage med troværdige oplysninger om situationen kort efter katastrofen.
    Her ser man en frygtindgydende tabel med tal for forurening.
    Der var megen radioaktiv forurening forbundet med katastrofen.
    Hvis man derefter ser hvorledes ”tilbage-flyttere” (Babushkas) lever gladelig i områder forurenet med over 500 kBq/m^2
    Ja så bliver tallene pludseligt knapt så frygtindgydende.

Allerede i 2006 finder man en vurdering fra BBC:
Chernobyl’s ‘nuclear nightmares’
Det følgende er fra denne artikel.

  • “Lave doser af stråling udviser [meget] ringe kræftfremkaldende virkning,” siger professor Brooks, der har tilbragt 30 år på at studere sammenhængen mellem stråling og kræft.
    “Hvis du taler med nogen, og du siger ordet stråling, får du straks en frygt reaktion.
    Denne frygt reaktion har foranlediget folk til at gøre ting, der er videnskabeligt ubegrundet.”
  • Gavnlige effekter:
    Andre undersøgelser er kommet til endnu mere overraskende konklusioner.
    Professor Ron Chesser, Texas Tech University, USA, har brugt 10 år på at studere dyr, der lever i det 30 kilometer udelukkelse zone omkring Tjernobyl.
    Han har fundet at virkningerne af et lavt niveau af stråling, langt fra at være kræftfremkaldende, så ser det ud til at sætte skub i de gener, der beskytter os mod kræft.
    (Radiation Hormesis ?)

    Almindeligvis kan oplysninger fra BBC betragtes som pålidelige.

Oktober 2015 kommer The Guardian (England) frem med noget tilsvarende: – – — – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – Dyr ved Tjernobyo

  • I årevis har både dyr og planter trivedes i den forbudte zone, der er lukket for mennesker.
    Måske er det ikke så forfærdeligt forfærdeligt farligt.
  • Specielt kommentarerne
    til denne artikel giver et godt indblik i den almindelige modvilje mod at acceptere oplysninger, der går imod det jeg, meget ubehøvlet, kalder “den almindelige barnetro”.

Naturligvis har Greenpeace været ude med aktivister – Iført hvid beskyttelsesdragt og åndedrætsværn.
For at fortælle “tilbage-flyttere” at deres liv er i fare.
Men denne hvide beskyttelsesdragt er helt uden virkning, hvis formålet er at beskytte mod ioniserende stråling.
Efter katastrofen var der megen luftbåret radioaktivitet.
Men i dag er dette fine åndedragtsværn nærmest latterligt.


Hvis du, min ukendte læser, er kommet så langt, vil jeg foreslå at du prøver at drage konsekvenserne.


Hvis du stadigvæk er i tvivl og ønsker mere, henviser jeg til noget andet jeg har samlet sammen:
Greenpeaces troværdighed er en myte.
Forurening af Oceanet.
I modsætning til de fleste Dommedagsprofeter har jeg i stor stil givet referencer til mine kilder.

Hvis du har FAKTUELLE oplysninger, der mangler, så skriv til mig på


Når man taler om katastrofe og forurening, bør man sammenligne med katastrofen ved Bhopal. (1984)
Den alvorligste industrielle ulykke var The Bhopal disaster.
Her var der mindst 3800 døde, 100.000vis syge og forgiftede samt en meget omfattende forurening.
I virkeligheden ti gange så alvorligt sammenlignet med Tjernobyl og Fukushima TILSAMMEN.
Men det gik mest ud over fattige indere der, som så mange andre, ‘sådan bare’ var flyttet ind på et forbudt område.
Det var ikke en ulykke med radioaktivitet.
Nu er det næsten glemt.

Militære Områder

Ofte ser man hvorledes der ved militære anlæg har været en dårlig sikkerhedskultur, og efterlader forurening, der ikke ville være acceptabel ved civile anlæg.
Ikke bare i det gamle Sovjet.
Desværre er der flere eksempler, der benyttes til at dæmonisere også civil brug af atomkraft.
Fx et kollaps af en tunnel ved et nedlagt militært koldkrigs-anlæg ved Hanford i USA.
Hvis man læser ovenstående link og sammenligner det venstre billede med det andet, der stammer fra et civilt anlæg i Sverige.
Ja så løber det koldt ned af ryggen – i hvert fald på mig.

Svensk affald

Hilsner og god tænkepause
Thorkil Søe

På Ingeniørens netavis, der normalt er domineret af modstandere af alt med Atom læser man at
De mange evakueringer var unødvendige og derigennem skadelige.