Archives for posts with tag: radiation

Again and again we are told that there has not been found a solution for the used fuel from nuclear plants.
Trying to bring an end to this (deliberate?) misunderstanding, the following should be considered.
After use, the radioactive fuel elements are stored under water.
– Three years at the power plant.
– Thereafter some 30 years at a temporary storage.

Thus, after almost all radioactivity has “evaporated”,

there are several possibilities.
1) “Wait and see” (Waiting for new regulations or possibilities)
2) Final disposal deep underground. (Almost abandoned)
3) Safe storage for future use. (Most sensible)
4) Reprocessing (As done in France)

About Reprocessing

During use, different harmful elements build up in the fuel rods and they should be removed before there is risk of cracks developing.
However well over 90 % of the original energi is still left, together with different useful elements.
But still
As long as the market has plenty of cheap uranium reprocessing is not economically feasible.
It is the reason for “Safe Storage”.

Dear unknown reader

Somehow I think the above notes should answer the question about nuclear waste.
If you want further details: Have a look at

However, I have a request:
This post was ment as an answer to the repeated statement that

“The problem related to used nuclear fuel has not been solved.”

Assuming that it is not based upon your own observation,
I dare to ask you – –
Go to the sources of this obviously wrong “information” and ask them to stop their (deliberate?) misinformation of the public.

Greetings and good reflection
Thorkil Søe

Hvis man spørger hvorfor den tyske befolkning i almindelighed er imod A-kraft, så kan man måske finde noget af svaret i det følgende.
For en ordens skyld nævner jeg at den tyske reaktion senere viste sig at være ubegrundet.
Erfaringen viser at sådanne senere vurderinger har det har megen lille indvirkning på folkestemningen.

KiKK studiet

A German study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants called “the KiKK study” was published in December 2007.
– – Det var 20 år efter ulykken ved Tjernobyl 1986
– – men før ulykken ved Fukushima (11 Marts 2011)
According to Ian Fairlie it “resulted in a public outcry and media debate in Germany. But it has received little attention elsewhere”.
– – Tre år efter KiKK-studiet (September 2010) introduceredes
– – det meget omtalte Energiewende.
– – Det var et år før ulykken ved Fukushima. (Marts 2011)
Således kan man formode at der har været en sammenhæng mellem KiKK-studiet og Energiewende.

– – “It [Energiewende] has been established “partly as a result of an earlier study by Körblein and Hoffmann, which had found statistically significant increases in solid cancers (54%), and in leukemia (76%) in children aged less than 5 within 5 km of 15 German nuclear power plant sites.”

– – “It red a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias and a 1.6-fold increase in solid (mainly embryonal) cancers among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations.”

In 2011 a new study of the KiKK data was incorporated into an assessment by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). Studying the incidence of childhood leukemia around British nuclear power plants.
Her blev det tyske studie kritiseret.
En specifik kritik, i et senere “læserindlæg” til det samme tyske medie.
fra et Kanadisk studie The KiKK Study Explained kommer der også direkte kritik.

Min tilføjelse

Man higer og søger og hvis man er ihærdig, ja så finder man nok noget.
Hvis man vil være logisk, så bør risiko vurderes med spørgsmålene
– – – – Hvor farligt? og Hvad så?
Dette dilemma er forsøgt behandlet i forbindelse med det der går under betegnelsen: J-Value eller Justification Value.
I et forsøg på at komme nær dette har jeg prøvet at få svar på det nagende spørgsmål: Hvor mange?
I den lidt rodede artikel finder man:
Around 600 [children] who become ill with leukemia yearly [in Germany.]
37 children catching leucemia live within 5 km from a nuclear power plant.

– – Nu er det ikke per år men over en periode på 24 år.
Senere (tabel 5) finder man følgende:
Forventet 24 og observeret 34 (40 % flere)
Deraf konkluderes at der var tale om 10 ekstra tilfælde af leukæmi i en periode på 24 år.
Længere nede, i konklusionen, finder man:
– – “Notably, even after the pooling of all data, in the 24-year study period only 37 cases of leukemia in children under 5 within the 5-km zone were included in the evaluation
Out of a total of 5893 cases of leukemia [for Germany].”

I modsætning til den tyske befolkning vil jeg hævde at:
Skader ved at frasige sig A-kraft vil langt overskride de – måske hypotetiske – skader fra anlæg for A-kraft eller højspænding.

Når man læser artiklen efterlades man desværre med en ubehagelig følelse af at de mange tal skjuler manglende substans
eller et ønske om – – – .

– – Tidsrummet “10 eller 24 år” og andetsteds “årligt” virker (bevidst?)
– – forvirrende.

For at øge forvirringen nævner jeg at tilsvarende studier i hvert fald “frifinder” andre kræftformer og forklarer at disse ekstra tilfælde af kræft kun gælder for leukemi.

Power lines ?

Nær ved A-kraftværker er der naturligvis mange højspændingsledninger og transformatorer.
Flere studier omtaler en sammenhæng mellem højspænding og leukemi blandt børn.
Andre studier tilbageviser.

For en ordens skyld har jeg forgæves forsøgt at forklare det med Neutrinos.

Hilsner og god tænkepause
Thorkil Søe


Usually it is agreed that climate change is mostly due to global pollution with CO2.
It is a huge problem that calls for many imaginative solutions.
The following is a proposal that may be a realistic solution.

Click at yellow text for more details.

A bit technical

  • The earth’s temperature depends on a delicate balance between radiation from the sun.
    And the other way (long-wave) radiation back into space.
    (Sometimes called cold heat radiation.)
  • Even very small changes in these two parameters will have a major impact on the climate.
  • White marble has little absorption of sunligt and great radiance back into space.
    Old galvanized iron (corrugated iron): Just the other way around.
  • Greenhouse gases (CO2) inhibit the emission.
  • Ice at sea and in Greenland is predominantly white as white marble.
    While the sea is black as galvanized iron.
    This results in a dangerous self-reinforcing effect.
  • The Little Ice Age was (perhaps) triggered by a large volcanic eruption at Tambora in Indonesia in 1815
  • Volcanic eruptions in Iceland are claimed to be a contributing factor to the French Revolution.

A few solutions

  • Paint the roads white.
  • Spray up seawater and get some white clouds.
  • And totally unrealistic:
    Extract CO2 from the atmosphere – quite a lot – a few billion tons.


To avoid misunderstandings, I have to point out that I do not have the prerequisites to make a quantitative assessment of what I am proposing.
However, I would like to stress that even a very expensive solution will be justified if it can solve a huge problem.


Hydrogen filled balloons
black – Flying without control at altitudes above maximum flight altitude.
black – Be white (on the upper half.)
black – Be as cheap as possible.
black – Be able to contain the very small hydrogen molecule.
black – Be able to cope with the harsh climate (radiation).
black – Have a reasonably long life.

Even a “micro-meteor” will punch a hole and let the gas escape – slowly.
If deemed necessary: A radio-controlled “suicide mechanism”.

Proposals come forward like mushrooms in the forest.

Some almost negative remarks.

  • Even a lot of energy from sun and from wind will never be able to cover more than a small fraction of the world’s needs for energy.
  • Even if we “in time” – some 35 years ago – had gone hard in for nuclear power, we would still be in trouble.
    But nothing compared to what we have now messed us up into.
  • The proposal will not help with the acidification of the ocean.
    But it is argued and justified that more CO2 in the atmosphere will promote both agriculture and growth in the forests.
  • To me, it seems totally irresponsible that we have just banned fertilization of the ocean.
    In my opinion it will perhaps be the only realistic method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.
    Maybe also increase the fish stock.
  • Of course
    For good reason it is emphasized that it will be irresponsible to do something that may have negative consequences for others eg in Bangladesh.
    “We” in the industrialized and rich part of the world have already caused climate damage in other countries – without being held accountable.
  • It is stated that
    More than two million people have been displaced during the year due to natural disasters linked to climate change.
  • AND
    I think almost militarily and would argue that a small risk – for a few.
    It will be outweighed by expected great benefits – for the many.

Greetings from Thorkil Søe
I am a civil engineer, retired.
Brogårdsvej 60 – 307 Gentofte, Denmark
Phone +45 5117 1936


I en grundig norsk E-bog Radon, Lungekræft og LNT-modellen finder man mange interessante vurderinger om stråling og helse.
Nedenstående er uddrag fra dette.
Like etter Tsjernobylulykken bestemte helsemyndighetene at den øvre grense for radioaktivitet i matvarer skulle være 600 Bq/kg
Senere fikk reinkjøtt en grense på 6000 Bq/kg.

En god del kjøtt av sau, og særlig rein, har inneholdt betydelig mer enn dette.
Er det farlig å spise slikt kjøtt?
En middag med kjøtt som inneholder 10 000 Bq/kg gir en ekstra stråledose som tilsvarer en flyreise til Syden.
Dosen er fordelt over et helt år. Vi kan spise et par hundre slike middager i året før stråledosen blir like stor som den dose vi får (i gjennomsnitt) fra naturlig stråling!
Vi mener at det er uheldig å fiksere en bestemt grenseverdi gitt i Bq/kg. Derimot bør vi satse på å gi informasjon om stråledoser ved inntak av kunstige radioaktive isotoper.

Fra en anden (også norsk) kilde
citeres følgende:
Lave doser av stråling ser ikke ut til å være farlig, og det fins ganske mye forskning som peker mot at lave stråledoser til og med kan være bra for oss (Google “hormese” eller “hormesis”).
Å “regne seg frem til” at det blir 500 ekstra kreftdødsfall i Norge på grunn av Tsjernobyl, er 100 % useriøst og uetisk.

Fra en lang og grundig norsk e-bog
Radon, lung cancer and the LNT model
(52 sider) refereres:
Meget mere: Se
– – LNT eller “Liniar No Treashold” angiver at
– – “Lige hvor lidt så er stråling altid skadeligt”
1. Radon in homes: It is evident from this long paper that we can forget about most of the remedial actions for reducing the average radon level. This would save a lot of money for those involved.
2. Nuclear power: In the fight for reducing the CO2 release to the atmosphere, nuclear power could be a considerable contributor to the worlds energy supply. The world energy consumption increases annually by approximately 2 %. Also the use of fossil fuel with CO2 release increases. A significant contribution to halt and even reduce the CO2 release would be to increase the contribution from nuclear energy. It is a surprise to us that environmental organizations that worry about global warming – are not pro nuclear.
3. Reactor accidents We have had two major breakdowns of nuclear reactors which both have been treated according to the LNT-theory. For both Chernobyl and Fukushima consequences have been calculated using collective doses and LNT. In Chernobyl a number of people were hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome and 28 died within 3 months. There has also been recorded thyroid cancer to children that was drinking contaminated milk (I-131). Altogether 11 deaths have been recorded. Whether these cancers have been caused by the Chernobyl accident is rather douptful since similar changes in the thyroid have been observed without radiation. Furthermore, the thyroid doses from I-131 after the Chernobyl accident have not been measured and they are very poorly determined. Cancer deaths in combination with the reactor accidents are based on LNT. No threshold and no hormetic region has been considered. However, the most significant and serious decision taken after the reactor accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima was to evacuate several hundred thousands of people. The decision was taken based on the LNT-theory and the use of collective doses. No attempts were made to compare the radiation level in the contaminated areas with the level found in the HBR (High Background Radiation) regions. If such a comparison had been made, the most negative of the reactor accidents could have been avoided.

– – – – For kilder og henvisninger:
– – – – Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.
Hvis man leder på internettet finder man let de mest fantastiske oplysninger om skader på grund af stråling.
Generelt vil jeg hævde at

Ioniserende stråling kan være skadelig, men i den offentlige debat er skaderne vildt overdrevne.


Der er et væld af viden, mest fra dyreforsøg og fra overlevende efter atombombeangrebene i Japan.

500 mSv er 100 gange det der normalt tillades.
Som engangsdosis vil det bevirke svage symptomer på akut strålesyge, men giver ikke anledning til kortere livslængde.
Det dobbelte: 1000 mSv som engangsdosis medfører en lille risiko for at dø af akut strålesyge.
Ved 4000 mSv er der meget lille mulighed for at overleve.

Jævnt fordelt

Det oplyses at 1000 mSv jævnt fordelt per år ikke er skadeligt og at organismen vil reparere skaderne løbende.

Varige skader

Ved engangsdosis over 500 mSv er der konstateret tre års kortere livslængde en for normalbefolkningen.
I Hiroshima døde 60 000 af strålesyge inden årets udgang.
De døde af organsvigt og ikke af kræft.
Det var udover de 200 000 der døde næsten øjeblikkeligt af trykbølgen og af brandsår.
Lidt mere – også om eftervirkningerne.

Skader fra stråling har et velkendt og karakteristisk hændelsesforløb.
Man vil enten dø eller komme sig efter nogen (lang) tid.
Hvis man dør, vil det være på grund af organsvigt.

Kronisk strålesyge forudsætter langvarig, høj og næsten kronisk bestråling.
Når man ser billeder, fx på YouTube, hvor folk sidder i rullestol på grund af kronisk strålesyge.
Ja så er det (bevidst ?) bedrageri.
(Siden er tilsyneladende fjeret.)

På trods af utallige rædselsberetninger er der meget lille sammenhæng mellem stråling og kræft.
Til gengæld er der overbevisende data, der viser at moderat stråling vil virke, næsten som en vaccination mod kræft.

Bortset fra ulykker i forbindelse med mislykkede forsøg (på verdensplan under 30 dødsfald), skader i forbindelse med tyveri af radioaktivt materiale samt under 50 brandmænd ved Tjernobyl, har der ikke været andet end vage oplysninger om varige skader (dødsfald).

Fremtidig “Cancer-epidemi”

Efter ulykker i forbindelse med kernekraft har fantasien ofte fået frit spil med de mest fantastiske beretninger.
Man finder tal for fremtidige dødsfald forårsaget af den radioaktive stråling.
Tilsyneladende er der tale om beregninger baseret på den gamle hypotese at lige meget hvor lidt er stråling altid skadelig (Linear No Treshold)
Karakteristisk er beregninger af “sendødsfald” ved Tjernobyl.
Først ser man at UNSCR har skønnet 4000 fremtidige dødsfald.
Senere er dette tal nedjusteret til “omkring nul.”
For mit forsøg på en vurdering: Se her.
Det kan formodes at man har benyttet erfaringerne fra atombombe-angrebene i Japan, hvor man nu, flere år senere, blev forbavset over at man ikke konstatere de mange forventede “sendødsfald”.
Naturligvis har Greenpeace kommet frem med andre tal: 90.000
Meget ivrige debattører når frem til en million allerede og syv millioner fremtidige.

Hvad kan vi tåle ?

Der er få pålidelige data.
På oplyses at 1000 mSv per år, jævnt fordelt over året, ikke vil bevirke skader.
Befolkningsgrupper har levet for generationer, udsat for over 100 mSv/år uden skadevirkninger.
Vi er alle sammen udsat for omkring 2 mSv/år

I Japan defineres 5 mSv/år som farligt og folk bliver tvangsevakuerede hvis de udsættes for mere end 20 mSv/år.
Dette er bare 2 % af det der viste sig at være ufarligt – måske gavnligt.

Genetiske skader

Blandt andet efter atombombeangrebene erfarede man at der ikke kunne konstateres øget antal genetiske skader blandt børn, født af forældre, der havde været udsat for endog høj dosis af radioaktivitet.

Og naturligvis

I modsætning til brande og epidemier, vil skader fra stråling ikke sprede sig over store områder.
Alligevel er skader fra stråling frygtet langt ud over rimelighedens grænser.
Jed citerer fra National Geographic
Tilsyneladende er man mere død hvis man dør af radioaktivitet end – – –

Alt dette, og meget mere, samt en del dokumentarise henvisninger kan du finde på de sider jeg refererer til på

Til sammenligning dør årligt over 2000 i kulminer og nok over tre millioner på grund af luftforureningen.

Næsten i en sidebemærkning skriver Wikipedia at et ton (høj?)radioaktivt affald modsvarer en reduktion af CO2-udledning på 25 millioner ton.


Strålesyge er generelt forbundet med akut eksponering og har et karakteristisk sæt symptomer, der fremkommer på kendt måde og i kendt rækkefølge.
På denne måde er det ikke svært at forbigå mange krav, hvor alle former for sygdomme angives at skyldes stråling.


Længe har behandling af strålesyge indskrænket sig om hjælp til almindelig overlevelse.
Behandling af akut stråling syndrom, især til formål at undgå komplikationer, såsom infektion med leukopeni.
Målrettede kurser af antibiotika og svampemidler er afgørende.
Virkningerne af et fald i antallet af røde blodlegemer kan inhiberes ved indgivelse af blodprodukter.

I enkelte tilfælde forsøger man med knoglemarvstransplantation.
Nu (2014) fortælles om lovende forsøg med mus.

Forebyggende Bestråling

Hvor mærkeligt det end lyder, så er der forskning der viser at moderat bestråling vil forebygge eller formindske skader fra efterfølgende store doser.
Dette er vist på cellekulturer og ved dyreforsøg, men naturligvis ikke på mennesker.
Tilsvarende erfarede man at nogle af de folk, der arbejdede i kælderen ved Tjernobyl overlevede selv om de modtog en stråling på 10 Gy.
De overlevede tilsyneladende fordi strålingen kom i små fraktioner.

Lidt af en Forklaring

Det kom bag på os alle at skader på genomet ikke medfører de frygtelige og forventede skader.
Halvejs nede på en lang og interessant artikel fra forklares at vores genom er i stand til at reparere og at udviklingen har lært genomet at imødegå utallige skader, der ikke skyldes stråling men
Frie Radikaler.

Kernekraft i Vesten har store problemer.

Smitte – Symptomer – Sygdom

Vi er underlagt en meget dygtig propaganda, hvor alt der blot indeholder ordet ”atom” bliver gjort til en stor risiko.
Det er stort set smitten.

A-kraft i England bliver urimeligt dyr.
Østeuropæiske lande går til den gamle fjende for at få hjælp til stabil energi.
Det var vist symptomerne.

I det man lidt overfladisk kalder Vesten skal kernekraft opfylde sikkerhedskrav, der langt overskrider det der kræves fra andre energikilder.
Det er vist sygdommen.

I Rusland, Kina og Korea har man været i stand til at tænke klart.
Vi – i det der kaldes Vesten – må frigøre os for den kollektive angstneurose.
Mon ikke det er kuren.

– – – – 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.

Du finder ufatteligt meget på nettet, der er oplagt forkert og til tider ganske enkelt bedrageri.
Eksempler på Photoshop  (36 billeder) og lidt geometri
Mere illustrativt end egentligt bedrageri.

Nok specielt når det drejer sig om klimaændringen er der ofte langt mellem sandhed og realiteter.

Typisk ?

Naturligvis er venstre del af dette billede falskneri.
Ingen ville blande små og store beholdere på den måde.
En af de små beholdere er tom og uden låg.
To små terninger kom med – ved en fejltagelse?
Ingen ville efterlade affald på den måde, klar til fotografering.
Hvem er så dumme at de tror at jeg er så dum?

Meget andet bliver ‘sådan bare’ godtaget

Fukushima Fier in the OILDette billede, der blev vist i Danmarks Radio og mange andre steder, stammer fra Fukushima.
Det viser et brændende olieraffinaderi.
Billedet blev vist i sådan en sammenhæng at den almindelige lytter måtte tro at det viste en brand på kernekraftanlægget.

Også fra Fukushima

Fukushima GreenpeaceDette billede, der også stammer fra anonyme kilder, er et fra en serie af massproducerede billeder.
Bortset fra en ulogisk enhed er realiteterne at utallige mennesker har godtaget det falske budskab og blevet bange for kernekraft.
For detaljer, se på en anden post om Fukushima.

Greenpeace kom for skade at – – –

Normalt er det der skrives af Greenpeace så vagt formuleret at fejlagtige “oplysninger” ikke kan tilbagevises.
Men i dette tilfælde er der ingen tvivl.

Greenpeaces troværdighed er en myte.

Enten Eller, men ikke “Både Og”

Ofte ser man at der berettes om
“Langlivet, højradioaktivt affald”
Dette vidner om manglende forståelse af de fysiske forhold.

Jeg vil drage følgende sammenligning.
Hvis du vinder en stor pose penge i lotto, har du to muligheder:
– Du kan bruge pengene i et kort orgie af luksus.
– Du kan oprette en livsopsparing og have nok til et langt godt liv.
Men ikke begge dele.

Tilsvarende kan et radioaktivt stof bruge sine kræfter og være farligt i kort tid som fx jod J-131 der har en halveringstid på 8-dage.
Eller det kan være svagt radioaktivt i megen lang tid som fx Thorium, hvor halveringstiden er sådan omtrent lige så lang som universets alder.

Den meget omtalte Plutoniumisotop Pu239, den har en halveringstid på over 24.000 år og er i realiteten ikke særligt farlig – sådan her og nu.

Ikke radiation


Denne artikel fra BBC behandler analyse af billeder.
Der gives mange eksempler på hvorledes selv eksperter har svært ved at afgøre hvad der er rigtigt og hvad der er bedrageri.

Teksten til ovenstående billede er:
This effect is not due to radiation, it’s actually a natural process called fasciation.

Mere fra Tjernobyl

Fra unavngivne kilder vises en samling af klart forfalskede billeder, der angiveligt stammer fra Tjernobyl.
Her vil jeg benytte lejligheden til at nævne at omkring 5 % af alle nyfødte har en medfødt fejl, der medfører kosmetiske eller fysiske skader.
På den måde er det let af finde rædselsfulde tilfælde, som med lidt billed-manipulation bruges til at vise rædsler fra noget, der var næsten ufarligt.

Måske nås rekorden med “afsløring af tilbageholdte data” hvor det angives der er en million døde – allerede og syv millioner fremtidige.

Helt personligt kan jeg fortælle, at jeg for meget længe siden hjalp en dreng, der var født helt uden arme.
For ham var det ikke et resultat hverken af radiation eller Thalidomid.

Man “glemmer” kapacitetsfaktoren

Men måske finder man det værste bedrageri når man sammenligner “Installeret Kapacitet” fra sol og vind med den fra kernekraft.
Og det ser man ofte.
Det er nødvendigt at inkludere “Udnyttelsesgrad” (Produceret effekt divideret med maksimalt tilgængelige, det man optimistisk kalder “Installeret Kapacitet”.)
Vind Danmark: 25 – 50%
Vind Tyskland: mindre end 25%
Sol Tyskland: ca. 18%
Kun solenergi kan trods alt forudsiges.
Til ganeæld er uforudset afbrydelse af atomkraft begrænset til højst en per to år.

Klima Cover up

Fra miljø-netavisen DESMOG med den malende under-titel
Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science.
Donald Trump, abdication of U.S. leadership on climate and increased risk of damage from climate change.
Her argumenteres ud fra tesen Follow the Cash.
Man fristes til at kalde det bedrageri, når man undlader at tale om kernkraft.

Sandheden kan fortolkes

Trump og Putin var uenige om, hvilke biler der var bedst – amerikanske eller russiske – og blev enige om at køre om kap.

Trump vandt stort.

Næste dag kunne man i de russiske aviser læse følgende:

”I et dramatisk bilvæddeløb kunne vores ærværdige præsident Putin høste en ærefuld andenplads – den amerikanske præsident måtte tage til takke med en skamfuld næstsidste-plads!”

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.

Risk and Return Period

Risk of (partial) unpredictable natural and industrial accident / happenings, are usually assessed by attempting to calculate the Return Period for this event.
A similar concept is Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF), which apparently is more relevant when assessing breakdown due to the wear of industrial equipment.
A more thorough assessment can probably be obtained by using Probabilistic Risk Assessment.

Slightly simplified, we can say that if you sit at a river and wait for a flood (of this river at this point) then the average waiting time between this – or more serious – flooding is a measure for the return period.

A few extreme examples

Flooding in Mozambique

Some time ago a tornado hit an area in Mozambique.
All infrastructure in the affected area along with an unknown number of people were swept out to the ocean.
But this incident was so special that the return period was estimated to be several thousand years.
This was included in the planning of the reconstruction.

The extreme

Without connection to this, I was asked to evaluate a building’s collapse, allegedly due to an extraordinary wind.
My estimate was that the age of the universe was a blink in the eye in comparison with the return period for the alleged combination of events.
The insurance paid as an “Act Of Good”.

Morning Call from the Mosque

If you are unfortunate enough to live next to a mosque you will be called to prayer five o’clock in the morning.
Here is the Return Period in return only 24 hours.

The subject of the following

In the following I will try to assess and counter some of the misconceptions that come up in the debate about damage from the windturbines and from the nuclear power, we will get, even in Denmark – sooner or later.

Windturbines – Return Period for noise

If you are plagued by noise from a wind turbine, the return period will be about one week.

Nuclear – Return Period of accidents

First, I emphasize that a realistic discussion on the safety of future European systems for nuclear, will naturally exclude the irresponsible amd dangerous type of reactor at Chernobyl.
Similarly, I also consider the accident at Fukushima, as being irrelevant to the assessment of future European nuclear power.
——- If you, my unknown reader, want to include these accidents in your
——- assessment, I pray you read the two links above.
The reactors, that will be relevant in this discussion, have together been in use over 15,000 “reactor -years”.
There have only been one serious accident and no injuries.

The damage

Typical of the vexatious discussion, we are often meet with the mention of the risk of a near-fictional disaster which then will have a great psychological effect.
A logical assessment of risk and damage will roughly be based on the calculation of sum of risk times damage.
The mathematical treatment can obviously be refined, but it is not honest to deviate from this principle.

Windmills – Damage

The lobbying for windturbines has done a great job to influence the public to disregard what I think is well-documented damage from noise and flash of light from wind turbines.

To add a little realities, I will mention that 30% of neighbors of wind turbines are bothered “a lot” or “somehow”.
Source: Energy Spply that certainly are not against wind power.
At another page I have tried to assess the facts.

Nuclear power – Damage

The only serious accident that is relevant in this discussion was about Three Mile Island.
There was paid compensation ($ 40 million) for loss of earnings due to enforced but unnecessary evacuations.
There was major economic damage but no injuries.

The subject of the following

In the following I will try to assess and counter some of the misconceptions that come up in the debate about damage from the wind and from the nuclear power, we will have, also in Denmark – sooner or later.

Windmills – Return Period for noise

If you are plagued by noise from a wind turbine, the return period will be about one week.

Nuclear – Return Period of accidents

First, I emphasize that a useful discussion on the safety of future European systems for nuclear naturally exclude the irresponsible and dangerous type of reactor at Chernobyl.
Similarly, I also consider the accident at Fukushima, as being irrelevant to the assessment of future European nuclear power.
——- If you, my unknown reader, want to include these accidents in your — —- assessment, I pray you read the two link above.
The reactors that will be relevant in this discussion, have together been in use over 15,000 “reactor-year “.
There has only been one serious accident and no injuries.

Windmills – Damage

The energetic lobbying has done a great job to influence the public to disregard what I think is well-documented damage from noise and flash of light from wind turbines.

To add a little realities, I will mention that 30% of neighbors of wind turbines are bothered “very much” or “somehow”.
Source: Energy Spply that certainly are not against wind power.
At another side I have tried to elaborate on the facts.

Nuclear power – Damage

The only serious accident that is relevant in this discussion was at
Three Mile Island.
There was paid compensation ($ 40 million) for loss of earnings due to enforced but unnecessary evacuations.
There were major economic damage but no injuries.

Usually you assess the risk of core damage (core meltdown).
For the much talked about EPR it is is set to 4 x 10 -7 per plant per year. (Or a return period of two million years.)
For the nearest competitor APR-1400, having significantly lower cost, return period is (only) one hundred thousand years.

Such a core damage would be an economic disaster.
But as all relevant reactors are provided with a reactor containment, the risk of injury associated with such a core meltdown is very small.
This is seen by assessing the difference between accidents at
Tree Mile Island and at Chernobyl.

To proceed, I must emphasize that the reactors as we know them today have a much better safety than at Three Mile Island.
And that the reactors, that sooner or later will be built – even in Denmark – will have an even greater security.
As already mentioned, the Return Period for the reactors that were built been a long time, be well over 15,000 years.
—— Of course, it is possible to fantasize to a reactor accident
—- – with major release of radioactive material.
—— However, the one who looks at the realities regard this as I, little —- —— churlish, call a typical Greenpeace hoax.
—— It is understood that about 5,000 meteors of football-size
—— hit the earth each year.

—— Of course it can not be excluded that such a meteor falls,
—- – exactly on a nuclear reactor.

But even a terrorist with a Jumbojet will not open up for radioactive materials – only fear and damage.


When assessing the building of, for example, a dam we asses as income the value of electricity produced and / or value of future irrigation.
Actually also the value of the savings achieved by avoiding future flooding.
Expenditure will include the damage caused by a collapse divided by risk (return period) of this collapse.
Both will be measured in €/year.

Similarly, damage from potential sources of energy should be weighed against the value of the
pollution-free electricity that will be produced.

With the above-mentioned reactor and a return period of 15,000 years refearing to this only one relevant accident, it is relatively easy to make a meaningful analysis of nuclear power safety:
—— Very large economic damage divided with a return-period of
– —- over 15,000 years.

Newer reactors, such as those now being built, will have a significantly better safety.

Globally, there are thousands of people who are bothered by noise from wind turbines.
Return period for these genes is probably less than ten days
Here it is reasonable to assess the following:
—— Number of people affected times the damage per person divided by —- – return-period.
—— (Also € / year)

I am not able to price the human suffering and ask any readers help to make the necessary calculations when it comes to wind turbines.

“Renewable” Energy

Too often we see that cheating on the weight in such a way that the contribution of solar and wind calculated over a longer period.
However, electricity is the most perishable commodity that exists.
Unfortunately, one must therefore conclude that renewable energy does not fit for the requirements of the modern world.


The above can best be understood as the assessment of nuclear power versus wind.
When assessing the differences between power from coal and oil to renewable energy (wind, solar, nuclear) should try to take account of pollution.
Here I will only mention the following:
– Over 2000 people die annually from accidents in coal mines.
– Over two million die because of air pollution from burning coal.
– A looming climate catastrophe.

For the one who is worried both for people’s health, the climate and mankind access to reliable energy, maybe this is the real question.

Black Swan Theory

black swan Extreme and “unpredictable” accidents has been treated at this link.
It dominates in this assessment is the financial crash and the like.
Worst possible man-made disaster will probably be associated with a dam failure.
Of course there are international experts who assess nuclear safety.
In the context of Nuclear the actual Black Swan Risk is associated with politically motivated measures.
Such as when, in Germany, without notice and without adequate compensation, it was “just” decided to phase out nuclear power.

A needed comparison

Of course, people have tried to compare the damage from a disaster at a nuclear power plant with other injuries.
The closest I have come is the following:
—— “If you count the pollution would be a disaster, as at
—— Chernobyl, every ten years is to preferable compared to
—— the current. “

—— “We can only look at the statistics. We have had nuclear power
—— since 1954, but in the western world, we have only experienced
—— one meltdown on the Three Mile Island in the United States.
—— It was the worst we have experienced, and no one was harmed. “

For the record, I repeat that talking about a future Chernobyl accident is outside all realistic assessment.
A core meltdown as at Three Mile Island is a possibility and, as mentioned, it will have a Return Period of over 15,000 years.
New reactors that are realistic for the expansion of nuclear power, will have a Return Period, some ten times as much.
Thus, with the future expansion of nuclear power, it will take far more than 50 years between any similar accidents, as already mentioned, are unlikely to cause damage to humans.

Final notes

In an attempt to botch the discussion, it has been argued that if there are 1000 nuclear power plants would return period for a serious accident not be 15,000 years but 15 years.
If you go for this, it must be counted to the expected benefits will be correspondingly increased. Thus the outcome of considerations will not change.
Furthermore, I would emphasize that an accident in South America not to have effects in Europe. – In addition to the psychological.

CO2-free energi.png But why is the general assessment of risk a lack of logic?
Maybe some of the answer is found here.

Greetings and good reflection
Thorkil Søe

If you have the strength and will see my attempt to assess the troublesome reality.
So see another entry:
(Unnecessary) Safety of Nuclear

Klik på det der er med gult for referencer eller detaljer.

The evacuations at Chernobyl and especially Fukushima caused major injuries and many unnecessary deaths.

The tsunami-flooded reactors at Fukushima overheated and released radioactive materials.
Residents were evacuated from areas with more than 20 mSv/year.
– – —mSv is the usually used unit for the biological effect of radiation.
— – –And the natural background radiation is about 2 mSv/year.
This limiting doze (20 mSv/y) is well below what thousands of people have been exposed to every year through their lifespan.
To highlight the “over-safety” I mention that 20 mSv/y is some ten times less than the recommended limit set by IAEA
on the Danish web-site it is explained that 1000 mSv per year will not harm if it is received evenly over the year.

A UN panel of expert scientists concluded that radiation caused no attributable health effects and likely none in the future.
Radiation killed no one.
But the evacuation stress did kill over a thousand.
Most refugees could have safely returned home.

Not only that:
Children from areas that were not evacuated got their childhood broken because of an agitated fear.
See Mor er der radioaktivitet i maden?
In my opinion, a heavy burden of guilt rests on the shoulders of Greenpeace and other scare-mongores.

How justified ?

Later it has been tried to give a realistic assessment of the evacuations using J-value or Justification Value.
The result was that 75 % of the evacuations at Tjernobyl and ALL of the evacuations at Fukushima could not be justified.

  • To round off the picture, it is mentioned that UNSCR has downgraded the number of “later deaths” at Chernobyl from about 4000 to “around zero


  • In the spring and summer of 1986, 116 000 people were evacuated from the area surrounding the Chernobyl reactor to non-contaminated areas.
    Another 230 000 people were relocated in subsequent years.
  • Currently about five million people live in areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine with levels of radioactive caesium deposition more than 37 kBq/m2.
    Among them, about 270 000 people continue to live in areas classified by Soviet authorities as strictly controlled zones (SCZs), where radioactive caesium contamination exceeds 500 kBq/m2.

1 Bq er et radioaktivt henfald per sekund og er en meget lille enhed.
Et voksent menneske indeholder ca. 4.500 Bq fra naturlige kilder.
Således vil 500 kBq/m2 trods alt vise sig at tilhøre “Småtingsafdelingen”.

Medical use of radiation

Therapeutic doses are high.
A rotating X-ray beam focused on cancer tissue delivers up to 80,000 mSv.
To minimize the risk of causing cancer in nearby tissue, radiologists divide the radiation dose into fractions, administered daily rather than all at once, giving healthy tissue time to recover.
If the Linier No Treshold hypoteses was valid, this fractionated radiation therapy wouldn’t work.

Ingeniørens netavis,

der normalt er imod kernekraft, skriver at de mange
Evakueringer var unødvendige og derigennem skadelige.