A-bomb survivors warn against nuclear power

As well as his burns, Tsuboi has also suffered intestinal cancer that may be linked to radiation exposure, and says he sees little difference in the dangers posed by atomic weapons and atomic power.

Or the radiation could have nothing to do with it. However, from exposure strong enough to cause burns, he likely received more radiation in one week than a whole family in Fukushima ever will.

On another note, stomach and GI track cancers are high in Japan, so it may be unrelated. He should look at his family history for cancer to figure out if it was incident related or genetic related, as that would help his family know if they should check for cancer more often.

While he sees little difference, there are huge differences scientifically. The scales are vastly different (a thousand times more radiation released in a small time, all of it in the air rather than to the sea), the fallout is completely different (high neutron flux means certain isotopes are non-existent, while others form quickly), and the health care is completely different.

What is the same though, is that cancer rates will be small. Even for the dual bombing victims, cancer rate increases are tiny, under 5%. For low dose victims (Fukushima would be similar, but lower), there is practically no distinguishable increase, especially for women where there is no difference under 150mSv eqiv.

He should look at his family history for cancer to figure out if it was incident related or genetic related, as that would help his family know if they should check for cancer more often.

He won't, he blames nuclear power.

I read a report that the survivors of the blast lived longer than those who were not exposed.

Supporters of the nuclear attacks on Japan maintain they brought a quick end to the war by speeding up Tokyo’s surrender, preventing millions more casualties from a land invasion planned for later in the year.

Which is true. A necessary evil.

As well as his burns, Tsuboi has also suffered intestinal cancer that may be linked to radiation exposure, and says he sees little difference in the dangers posed by atomic weapons and atomic power.

There is a BIG difference. He just doesn't want to see it. That's like not wanting to go to a public pool because tsunamis are deadly...

“Nuclear technology is beyond human wisdom… I still want to see a nuclear-free world while I’m alive,” he said.

No. It is the product of human wisdom.

Sachiko Sato, a Fukushima evacuee who was among tens of thousands of people attending an annual Hiroshima commemoration event on Monday, said: “I think we can share the same sadness with people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You've all had something horrible happen to you, but to compare the two events is wrong. Very wrong in my opinion.

stavros69Aug. 08, 2012 - 03:14PM JST

I read a report that the survivors of the blast lived longer than those who were not exposed.

That one is likely not true, or simply giving the high end of estimates. Compared to their peers, atomic bomb victims have a lower life expectancy, though it may be a bit skewed due to early deaths from infection and other preventable illness. The rate for radiation cancers (leukemia, thyroid cancer, etc) was high at first and then leveled off, though most of those cancers are now fairly easy to treat in early stages, and thanks to regular checkups the children will have, we can assume they will all be caught stage 1 or stage 2 (roughly 100% survival rate). The rate for hard cancers is roughly in line with the linear model at high dose rates (above 150mSv), with rates between 1% and 5% above normal (42% is normal, so 42.5-44% having cancer by the time they die).

Lower dose rates (nowhere near enough to leave burns) have been the subject of some debate though, as below 150mSv the increase in cancer rate for women is non-existant, and the rate for men has been flip-flopped depending on the study (some support linear, others don't). The man in the photo here would not be considered low dose, but those in fukushima likely are in the low dose section.

Probie: "There is a BIG difference. He just doesn't want to see it. That's like not wanting to go to a public pool because tsunamis are deadly..."

There is a big difference between nuclear weapons and NPPs, indeed, but his point is that the DANGERS -- ie. radiation if/when there's a meltdown -- are same for those exposed to radiation.

"You've all had something horrible happen to you, but to compare the two events is wrong. Very wrong in my opinion."

I agree with you there. The atomic bombings were war crimes, with the intent to kill (and study), whereas the Fukushima incident came about because of incompetence and corner-cutting.

I believe one of the reasons why survivors of the blast are living longer is because of the generous medical care they receive from the Japanese government.

So instead of nuclear power they should keep opening up all of these old moth-balled fossil fuel plants and actually give people cancer and pollute the environment more. Great.

Which is true. A necessary evil.

Neither is true. Nukes didnt end the war and it was simply a massacre of civilians. Not necessary, and more like retribution.

There is a BIG difference.

There are plenty of similarities.

No. It is the product of human wisdom.

It is the product of human intelligence. Wisdom is something else, and he is right. Humans dont have enough to be trusted with nukes.

to compare the two events is wrong.

I think you mean equate rather than compare. But again, I think there are enough similarities to see a common bond.

smithinjapanAug. 08, 2012 - 03:58PM JST

Probie: "There is a BIG difference. He just doesn't want to see it. That's like not wanting to go to a public pool because tsunamis are deadly..."

There is a big difference between nuclear weapons and NPPs, indeed, but his point is that the DANGERS -- ie. radiation if/when there's a meltdown -- are same for those exposed to radiation.

The analogies are actually quite accurate, as the dangers are the same, but scales are different. Tsunami victims drown (mostly), as do pool victims. Likewise, both nuclear accidents and nuclear bombs produce radiation. But the chances of dying from tsunamis and nuclear bombs are much higher than from pools and reactors. While this survivor has obvious and justified dislike for radiation, he is not justified in calling Fukushima accident and atomic bombings the same.

I would also be very interested in knowing what treatment this man is undergoing for his cancer. Intestinal cancer is sometimes treated with radiation therapy, where doses are locally as large as what cause the permanent scaring. If he is undertaking radiation therapy, he should either support the use of reactors (no other way to make the stuff) or stop introducing massive amounts of radiation into his body.

Neither is true. Nukes didnt end the war and it was simply a massacre of civilians. Not necessary, and more like retribution.

More would have died if the landings had happened.

(Also, the "massacre of civilians" is something the Japanese knew a lot about, and one of the reasons they got 2 bombs dropped on them.)

There are plenty of similarities.

Radiation... and...???

It is the product of human intelligence. Wisdom is something else, and he is right. Humans dont have enough to be trusted with nukes.

Whatever you say doesn't change the fact that he's talking about nuclear power and nuclear weapons as if they are the same thing. They aren't.

I think you mean equate rather than compare. But again, I think there are enough similarities to see a common bond.

So what, equate/compare, whatever. They're still completely different, as Basroil pointed out, a lot more eloquently than I could have.

It is sad that he had to live through the nuclear bombing, but having done that in itself gives him no authority to opine about nuclear power. None, Zero. It is totally unrelated and simply an appeal to emotions, not a rational argument.

basroil: "The analogies are actually quite accurate, as the dangers are the same, but scales are different. Tsunami victims drown (mostly), as do pool victims."

The analogies are ludicrous, actually, unless you want to take in a few more aspects. A pool should have at least one lifeguard and the owners and operators of the pool should be solely responsible for those swimming in it. If they are cutting corners and not paying attention -- instead hiring amakudari to watch over the people swimming -- the company is to blame and the pool should be shut down for lack of safety measures. So you admit that the NPPS should be shut down?

What's more, people don't just drown in tsunami -- in many cases they are crushed by he weight and force of the waves, slammed against object, and/or torn apart by the floatsam caught in the wake of the tsunami. How does that relate to your analogy? And of course, when you really look at it, you also have to go to the grass roots and realize that, hey! tsunami are a natural phenomenon -- nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not. I could go on in ripping apart the silly comparison, but it's just that -- too silly. Now, go on and tell us again how accurate the analogy is.

basroil: "On another note, stomach and GI track cancers are high in Japan, so it may be unrelated"

Or they may be completely related. The science seems to indicate moreso that it is than it isn't. But I suspect people from the nuclear village will 'argue' the same thing when a bunch of people from around the Fukushima plant start getting sick.

I guess I'm the only one who is amazed, impressed, and happy that the survivors have lived this long. And I find much of this discussion ironic: in past times Asian cultures have honored the wisdom of their elders, way more than Western cultures. Apparently that's disappearing.

Photoman: "And I find much of this discussion ironic: in past times Asian cultures have honored the wisdom of their elders, way more than Western cultures."

Used to be the case in Western cultures in some respects as well, but the bottom line is that it affects the bottom line if the nuclear village has to listen to people like Tsuboi -- the get less profit. It's a lot like former Imperial Army members coming forward and apologizing to victims in Nanjing or where have you only to be told by people who were never there that the old people have 'foggy memories' and that they are lying. Respect for one's elders gets in the way of money making for the government and big nukes, and gets in the way of politics. Ignorance abounds, apparently.

Hoe being bombed makes an expert of him is unclear. Like being in a car accident making one an expert on the internal combustion engine.

As well as his burns, Tsuboi has also suffered intestinal cancer that may be linked to radiation exposure, and says he sees little difference in the dangers posed by atomic weapons and atomic power.

“Nuclear technology is beyond human wisdom… I still want to see a nuclear-free world while I’m alive,” he said.

He is right ofcourse. Still no way to dispose of the used fuel rods that remain poison for 40,000 years and u people are saying its a great thing? Selfish to not think of the future of the world but our generation is ok so never mind the next.

A meltdown at a nuclear power plant would lead to more carnage than a puny atomic bomb. There was darned near a meltdown at Fukushima Dai Yon, and it's roof is only a major quake away from collapsing and causing exactly that. How many of you nuke apologists would want a plant in YOUR backyards??? If you would, land is pretty cheap in the affected area. Let's see you put your money where your mouths are. As for the concomitant increase in fossil fuel power sources, that's been estimated at a modest 2.5%. Let's get off our rear end heating bidet toiiets etc. and get behind some serious conservation and production of renewables

PhotomanAug. 08, 2012 - 08:00PM JST

I guess I'm the only one who is amazed, impressed, and happy that the survivors have lived this long.

Why wouldn't they?

Radiation is either a fairly quick death or a small chance of getting cancer at some later point. With proper treatment, radiation doses up to about 1.5Sv are perfectly survivable, and your chances for higher doses double. Main issue is usually bacterial infection, after that it's leukemia. Neither are an issue below 500mSv which most people got. The chance a victim that lived more than 20 years (after which hard cancer rates take hold, most of those with radiation cancers either died from it or died in unrelated events) will die from the radiation is at most 10% (sublethal dose), and likely under 1%. You can expect many of them to live well into their 90s even considering that.

smithinjapanAug. 08, 2012 - 06:57PM JST

Or they may be completely related. The science seems to indicate moreso that it is than it isn't. But I suspect people from the nuclear village will 'argue' the same thing when a bunch of people from around the Fukushima plant start getting sick.

Please explain to me how 1%-5% chance it's radiation related is more so than 95-99% it isn't. Statistics seem to indicate that it is unlikely for the cancer to be radiation related, the article is the only place to indicate that, without any evidence.

Robert RooAug. 08, 2012 - 08:35PM JST

“Nuclear technology is beyond human wisdom… I still want to see a nuclear-free world while I’m alive,” he said.

He is right ofcourse. Still no way to dispose of the used fuel rods that remain poison for 40,000 years and u people are saying its a great thing? Selfish to not think of the future of the world but our generation is ok so never mind the next.

He is wrong by word choice, as are you by mistaken numbers. First, nuclear technology is a technology because we understand how it works. It's not theory, and nuclear accidents don't just happen unexpectedly. While there are engineering issues to solve, they are no different than issues at other power plants. If he were to say "nuclear reactions" are beyond human wisdom, he may have a chance of defending the argument, but not with "nuclear technology".

As for your 40k years, using what math? Spent nuclear is only more radioactive than the ore it comes from for about 600 years. The uranium itself will be around for billions of years, and the major things people are worried about are gone within 200 years. The engineering practice is there to keep it safe for 600 years until it is no different than the soil it came from, people just get so hung up on hype that they forget a small thing called a baseline. Tsuboi likely also ignores this issue when stating his comments, either from ignorance or heavy bias (likely the latter).

More would have died if the landings had happened.

It does not matter. You dont intentionally kill innocent person A to save the life of B and C. You kill guilty person D or no one. If a kid at school steals your lunch money, you dont go punch his sister, even if it ensures your lunch money is never stolen again. To do so is cowardice and evil.

And if the landings had happened, people would have the option to run from battles. People deserve such an option.

and one of the reasons they got 2 bombs dropped on them

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not massacre anyone. They are not guilty of what other people did, anymore than all Americans are guilty for what Americans did at the Mai Lai Massacre. Or are you saying that if anyone has a legit beef with America, they can kill all the Americans they want?

Radiation... and...???

You speak of radiation of this intensity like its an everyday thing. Its not. You are intentionally oversimplifying the whole radiation problem. The survivors have many things in common. Increased rates for all sorts of cancers, radiation sickness in general, loss of homes and substantial material wealth (even if for different reasons), intense stress over this invisible enemy of which most people are ignorant, and being shunned by others fearing radiation. And that is just the dangers to the actual survivors in these events that actually happened. NPPs can also explode, and both NPPs and nuclear bombs can be used by terrorists or others with malicious intent to do major damage, much more so than say a petroleum refinery getting attacked. They can also both cause major damage through negligence.

They are not the same. I already said that. But there are more similarities than you want to admit, and more to it than just summing it up with the word radiation. All the effects of radiation count for something, and without NPPs and nuclear bombs, our radiation concerns would be pretty much limited to sun exposure and radon in the basement.

basroil

With proper treatment, radiation doses up to about 1.5Sv are perfectly survivable, and your chances for higher doses double.

Lawl, how would you treat radiation exposure of 1.5Sv when it has destroyed a chunk of your DNA? The fact is that radiation exposure is not treatable and that is why it is so dangerous.

There is one thing about cancers induced by ionising radiation, which gets lost (or omitted?) by pseudoscientific arguments of nuclear proponents. Victims of ionising radiation are typically in a closely monitored test group. They get regular medical checkups and lots of provisional health care for cancers. Therefore, in their case, cancers are quite simple to cure, since the discovery of the cancer happens in the early stages. But all these statistics about the danger are concerned with "fatality rates". Here we have the cheat. The atomic bomb victims were closely monitored and received significant medical assistance paid for by the Japanese government. Therefore, the sample has a very strong bias.

If I generate an ensemble, where I know that I have a higher occurence of some stochastic event (like cancer) and I take regular measurements and alter the sample (in case of cancer detection medical treatment thereof), I can naturally produce a sample with artificially lower occurence rates of a secondary stage (like fatality rates from cancer) in comparison to what I would normally get (without close monitoring and treatment). The cancer fatality rates do not reflect the cancer occurence rates. There is a significant bias between these two rates and the fatality rates gravely underestimate the occurence rates.

This bias is something true scientists call a systematic error. True science requires understanding and removal of the systematic errors from the result. Something, that is never been done in this pseudoscience. Which is why these "cancer studies" are not worth to be called science.

Thomas AndersonAug. 08, 2012 - 10:19PM JST

Lawl, how would you treat radiation exposure of 1.5Sv

Usually the same as any burn combined with stomach flu, as the main issues are more or less the same. Bacterial infections are very common, and the main cause of preventable death, but is usually irrespective of radiation received (though at higher doses immunodeficiency creates problems). You can check wiki for other information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bombs_and_health

To get burns, he was very likely to have received burns by direct exposure to just part of his face, and thus likely little (in comparison) to the rest of his body.

Johannes WeberAug. 08, 2012 - 10:34PM JST

So you want to ignore the increase due to systematic error in the discovery of cancer? By your same arguments, there is no such thing as radiation affecting cancer, since the increase is likely due to more checkups rather than cancer.

Come on basroil, being exposed to 1.5Sv means that IT HAS DESTROYED A SMALL CHUNK OF YOUR DNA. Sure you may survive, but that is due to PURE CHANCE. Who knows whether you'll die tomorrow or you'll develop cancer in 10 years.

It's so sad that the pro-nuclear folks have now started to underplay and undermine the serious and harmful effects of radiation just because their wretched technology that they advocate is associated with radiation...

''Basroil : ''he is wrong by word choice, as are you by mistaken numbers'' As for your 40k years, using what math? Spent nuclear is only more radioactive than the ore it comes from for about 600 years. The uranium itself will be around for billions of years, and the major things people are worried about are gone within 200 years. The engineering practice is there to keep it safe for 600 years until it is no different than the soil it came from, people just get so hung up on hype that they forget a small thing called a baseline. Tsuboi likely also ignores this issue when stating his comments, either from ignorance or heavy bias (likely the latter).''

Radioactivity diminishes over time, so waste is typically isolated and stored for a period of time until it no longer poses a hazard. The period of time waste must be stored depends on the type of waste. Low-level waste with low levels of radioactivity per mass or volume (such as some common medical or industrial radioactive wastes) may need to be stored for only hours, days, or months, while high-level wastes (such as spent nuclear fuel or by-products of nuclear reprocessing) must be stored for thousands of years

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

And even of the waste was good in 600 years - that's at least 6 lifetimes. Poisoning the earth is not a good idea.

Japan has had 3 nuclear lessons is what the survivoir is saying whether it be power generation or other he knows the danger is there. You want to see a fourth. Sunlight and wind are natural and both plentiful in Japan. Hurry up! It Should be Law for every building to have at least one or the other. The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time. All radioisotopes contained in the waste have a half-life—the time it takes for any radionuclide to lose half of its radioactivity—and eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements (i.e., stable isotopes). Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds or thousands of years. Other radioisotopes remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia.****

Robert RooAug. 08, 2012 - 11:13PM JST

I'll retract the 600 year part, as it was actually for 99% of radioactivity to vanish, the 40k year was for mined uranium. However, that does not mean it is poisonous for that amount of time, and in fact the chemical toxicity will exist and be far more important than the radiological one for a good amount of time before it. It also does not excuse the consideration of nuclear technology being something not understood.

Robert RooAug. 08, 2012 - 11:39PM JST

Japan has had 3 nuclear lessons is what the survivoir is saying whether it be power generation or other he knows the danger is there. You want to see a fourth. Sunlight and wind are natural and both plentiful in Japan.

Sunlight is also the biggest cause of cancer among radiation types.

Also, check out http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html , where you can see the actual calculations that everyone keeps repeating but mis-using.

Basroil : ''Sunlight is also the biggest cause of cancer among radiation types.''

Sunlight as in solar power. It is free From the sun doesn't cause anything but free electricity!

Very interesting discussion of a very "emotional" outburst by a person probably "selected" to be in the news for what ever "convenient" reasons by the media to fill the public need for furthering the nuclear debate.

I am glad that most of you have kept it less emotional than usual.

The fact is there are Many more nuclear power plants throughout the world and somewhat unaccounted number of nuclear weapons spread among reliable and unreliable military forces with more being prepared and made. So the threat is not only within Japan. A single person making an announcement at this time will not stop the potential danger for mankind. It just creates a short frenzy within Japan among the population now excited and worried by the TEPCO disaster and reminded by the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing some 67 years ago.

Many of my relatives have died or were exposed to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Some are still alive and their words are "Not so much a problem with nuclear power, as much as a dislike of War." Wars are fought by decisions made by powerful leaders of countries and common people pay the price with their lives. Those so called leaders "do not" do the fighting and the dying" DO THEY?

The bombs were dropped because of "decisions" made by such leaders. The nuclear plants are being built by "decisions" made by such leaders.

In the past, in most countries, people could not decide who those leaders will be. Today we can, supposedly.

But do we actually decide who our leaders will be?

People all over the world are still trying to find out who their leaders should be.

Robert RooAug. 09, 2012 - 12:40AM JST

Sunlight as in solar power. It is free From the sun doesn't cause anything but free electricity!

And 10-100% more CO2 than nuclear, at 70-150grams per KWh depending on the type, location, and operational lifetime. As well as many toxins from manufacturing that can seep into drinking water, including known carcinogens of course. The only thing more dangerous than what can't be seen is the stuff people refuse to see.

kazetsukaiAug. 09, 2012 - 12:51AM JST

The bombs were dropped because of "decisions" made by such leaders. The nuclear plants are being built by "decisions" made by such leaders.

And the decision to not allow new plants to be built to replace aging ones like Fukushima was made by the people, not once but twice. The denied the building of new sites and delayed approval for new reactors at old sites several times, and then when faced with cutbacks or rate hikes, they chose neither. Had the people not made the decisions they did, Fukushima would have been replaced a decade ago by a plant in a far safer location, or simply allowed to be decommissioned. The people should not forget their part in the problem, as their actions are not insignificant.

At the same time, people should not exaggerate issues caused by something with positive results, like nuclear, in comparison to personal lifestyle preferences that are hundreds of times more likely to cause problems to themselves and others.

@Probie

Supporters of the nuclear attacks on Japan maintain they brought a quick end to the war by speeding up Tokyo’s surrender, preventing millions more casualties from a land invasion planned for later in the year.

Probie: Which is true. A necessary evil.

The Atomic bombs were the world biggest terror attacks EVER

DenonAug. 08, 2012 - 04:59PM JST Nukes didnt end the war and it was simply a massacre of civilians. Not necessary, and more like retribution.

Go ahead and wish for a nuclear-free world, but pray that you don't get what you wish for. A world without nukes would be even more dangerous than a world with them. If, by some miracle, we were able to eliminate nuclear weapons, what we would have is a number of countries sitting around with breakout capabilities or rumors of breakout capabilitie for intimidation purposes and probably, a number of small concealment stockpiles. This would make the U.S. and their allies more vulnerable. The U.S. still needs to deter Russia, which has the largest nuclear capability of any potential adversary, and the Chinese, who have a growing capability. U.S. should have a dialogue with Japan about strategic capabilities in order both to help understand and provide reassurance that they will be protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella. In the past, that has not been the case. Now that the Chinese forces have been growing into the many hundreds of weapons, it's necessary to talk to the Japan in the same way that U.S. have talked to the Europeans over the years.

More would have died if the landings had happened.

It does not matter. You dont intentionally kill innocent person A to save the life of B and C. You kill guilty person D or no one. If a kid at school steals your lunch money, you dont go punch his sister, even if it ensures your lunch money is never stolen again. To do so is cowardice and evil.

So, many times the number of people would have died in the landings, but that "does not matter"?? Your analogy about lunch money is ridiculous and doesn't even make sense.

And if the landings had happened, people would have the option to run from battles. People deserve such an option.

When everyone is forced into being a soldier? Really?

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not massacre anyone. They are not guilty of what other people did, anymore than all Americans are guilty for what Americans did at the Mai Lai Massacre.

War is war. Japan was the aggressor. Sow the wind, reap he whirlwind. America wanted to stop the war before having to invade, which would have killed FAR MORE people than what died during the bombings and after from the effects. They dropped the bombs, and the war ended. If Japan had the bomb, they would have used it too, I'm sure.

Or are you saying that if anyone has a legit beef with America, they can kill all the Americans they want?

No. And I would hardly equate the massacring and raping civilians all over Asia for over a decade, to a "legit beef".

Radiation... and...???

You speak of radiation of this intensity like its an everyday thing. Its not. You are intentionally oversimplifying the whole radiation problem.

What is the similarity between nuclear bombs, and nuclear power? Radiation. That is all.

The survivors have many things in common. Increased rates for all sorts of cancers, radiation sickness in general, loss of homes and substantial material wealth (even if for different reasons), intense stress over this invisible enemy of which most people are ignorant, and being shunned by others fearing radiation. And that is just the dangers to the actual survivors in these events that actually happened.

They both have radiation directly in common, everything else isn't.

NPPs can also explode, and both NPPs and nuclear bombs can be used by terrorists or others with malicious intent to do major damage, much more so than say a petroleum refinery getting attacked. They can also both cause major damage through negligence.

Airplanes can be used by terrorists or others with malicious intent to do major damage, much more so than say a petroleum refinery getting attacked. They can also both cause major damage through negligence.

Do the people who survived an air-crash want the space program stopped?

zichiAug. 09, 2012 - 04:14AM JST

Nuclear energy uses massive amounts of fossil fuels, oil, gas, coal, plastics from oil, steel, iron, copper, concrete, water, aluminium, rubber, gold, rare earths, silver, wood, textiles, mercury, -the list is actually very long. All of those are producing various amounts of greenhouse gases.

The figures per kWh would be much greater than that for solar panels, wind turbines, biomass, biogas, geothermal, hydro.

You think the other options don't? All the options other than hydro (which instead destroys rivers and local ecology ) produce more CO2 per KWh produced than nuclear. Do you seriously want to ignore the Vattenfall study, which actually considered the case specifically for Japan?

What is the similarity between nuclear bombs, and nuclear power? Radiation. That is all.

What the man said, again:

“In terms of being nuclear victims, we are the same,”

and

he sees little difference in the dangers posed by atomic weapons and atomic power.

So what are the myriad differences in dangers you hint at but dont bother to list?

One is designed to produce an explosion in mega-tons and the other isnt. Thats it. See, I can play that game too. Is it honest? No its not.

He says little difference. So he admits there are differences, but not as many as similarities. Both use heavy metals and they are not even safe when depleted. They both produce other similar toxic materials as well. And the tech of one lends itself to the other which is why Iran is getting so much crap right now.

Face it. You just dont want to admit that you skewed his words and ideas to try and score a home run. He is talking mostly about the dangers faced by survivors, not equating bombs with NPPs across the board. Survivors of these two types of events have more in common with each other than they do survivors of any other type of event.

what we would have is a number of countries sitting around with breakout capabilities or rumors of breakout capabilitie for intimidation purposes

Such paranoia. Is it something in the tap water? The state of non-nuclear military technology is so high that the paranoid's great fear, China, is like 30 years behind and no sign of catching up! With stealth bombers, satellite surveillance, laser guidance, cruise missiles, etc, etc what could you possibly have to fear? Indian and Pakistan going at it? Let them!

We dont need nukes!

he sees little difference in the dangers posed by atomic weapons and atomic power.

One is designed to produce an explosion in mega-tons and the other isnt. Thats it. See, I can play that game too. Is it honest? No its not.

That's a pretty BIG difference.

So what are the myriad differences in dangers you hint at but dont bother to list?

One is a weapon, the other isn't.

One is a power source, the other isn't.

One is designed to kill people, the other isn't

One is designed to destroy buildings, the other isn't.

One is designed to heat water to produce steam to power turbines, the other isn't.

One is carried by airplanes, the other isn't.

One is a building, the other isn't.

I could go on more, if you need me to?

Face it. You just dont want to admit that you skewed his words and ideas to try and score a home run. He is talking mostly about the dangers faced by survivors, not equating bombs with NPPs across the board.

No. I'm pointing out that just because he had a nuclear bomb dropped on him, he shouldn't be asked his opinion on nuclear power, because they're two different things.

Survivors of these two types of events have more in common with each other than they do survivors of any other type of event.

I would go as far to say that he has more in common with a survivor of the Dresden bombings, or the firebombing of Tokyo, which were also called "war crimes" by some; than with someone who lost their home because of the Fukushima accident.

Probie

No. I'm pointing out that just because he had a nuclear bomb dropped on him, he shouldn't be asked his opinion on nuclear power, because they're two different things.

We're talking about nuclear radiation, of course they're the same thing.

We're talking about nuclear radiation, of course they're the same thing.

By that logic, is a car the same as an airplane? They both have engines and move.

He said that "he sees little difference in the dangers posed by atomic weapons and atomic power.". Where are all the destroyed buildings blown up by the huge explosion and mushroom cloud that happened in Fukushima? There aren't any, because that didn't happen.

Probie

By that logic, is a car the same as an airplane? They both have engines and move.

What logic, Probie? What do an atomic bomb survivor, and a guy who was involved in a criticality accident, have in common? They both have experienced excessive exposure to radiation. They both know what that is like, because they both have experienced it.

What logic, Probie? What do an atomic bomb survivor, and a guy who was involved in a criticality accident, have in common? They both have experienced excessive exposure to radiation. They both know what that is like, because they both have experienced it.

They have "radiation" in common. That's all.

One of them experienced a large explosion and blinding light, the other didn't.

They have "radiation" in common. That's all.

Right, and we're talking about nuclear radiation. You can't say "that's all", because that's exactly what we're talking about and that's exactly what they have in common.

They have "radiation" in common. That's all.

Right, and we're talking about nuclear radiation. You can't say "that's all", because that's exactly what we're talking about and that's exactly what they have in common.

He said that "he sees little difference in the dangers posed by atomic weapons and atomic power."

This is going round in circles.

Readers, car engines are not relevant to this discussion.

This is going round in circles.

It is, because you refuse to accept the totality of what the man is saying, and further, injecting what you want to say into the discussion.

This is not a comparison of bombs and NPPs. This is a comparison of the dangers. Bombs and NPPs are different yes. But they share many of the same dangers to people, not only in their use or misuse, but also in their construction, having nuclear materials at their core, most unlike anything else in the world. And as materials from NPPs can be used to build nuclear bombs, and materials from both can be used to build dirty bombs, I should think those should be enough of similar dangers right there for you to leave it alone.

Probie, you can sum up most, but not all of the dangers, as having to do with radiation. But I can sum up your argument as being about explosions, difference being, I can sum up your argument totally. Further, those who truly experience atomic explosions do not survive, and we are talking about survivors here.

And another danger posed by both not mentioned yet is extreme heat. That is in addition to toxicity separate from radiation. That plus the ability to ruin square kilometers of land and render hundreds of thousands homeless like no other man-made tragedy.

DenonAug. 09, 2012 - 01:03PM JST

This is not a comparison of bombs and NPPs. This is a comparison of the dangers. Bombs and NPPs are different yes. But they share many of the same dangers to people, not only in their use or misuse, but also in their construction, having nuclear materials at their core, most unlike anything else in the world. And as materials from NPPs can be used to build nuclear bombs, and materials from both can be used to build dirty bombs, I should think those should be enough of similar dangers right there for you to leave it alone.

There is a comparison, everyone agrees. The thing is though, that the comparison is pointless, as you can make the same comparison everywhere. Fighter/bomber aircraft vs civil aviation, back year weed killers and agent orange, fireworks and mortars, poisons and medicine, the list goes on and on. To compare the two on one aspect which scientifically is quite different, is a mistake and he should have never stated that, and likely would never have if he had known the difference.

DenonAug. 09, 2012 - 01:11PM JST

That plus the ability to ruin square kilometers of land and render hundreds of thousands homeless like no other man-made tragedy.

Agent orange use, Love Canal (oil based), Valley of the Drums (oil/ other toxic chemicals), and if Japan had a TOXMAP like list you would see massive losses of land in the hundreds of sq kilometers (some of which were simply built over). But of course the nuclear survivors aren't interested in these tragedies because they don't feature bright lights and media coverage.

The thing is though, that the comparison is pointless, as you can make the same comparison everywhere.

Its not pointless. These people are/will suffer many of the same diseases from the same rare causes. Your desire to separate them makes about as much sense as putting the leukemia suffers in a separate ward from the lymphatic cancer patients, even though they are going to get much the same chemotherapy. Your examples hardly fit. The survivors of Fukushima are going to be needing much the same specialists as the survivors of the A bomb massacres. They are going to be taking the same drugs, enjoying the same ostracization, and fighting the same invisible enemies. Nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs share the same word nuclear, and its not a coincidence. Surviving (key word) victims have a lot in common. More than they do with anybody else.

Agent orange use, Love Canal (oil based), Valley of the Drums

I meant destroying LIKE NUKES, in other words, very quickly and as a result of the work or mess ups of very few people. What you are talking about took years and many man hours of intentional carelessness and/or evil to accomplish.

Probie, maybe we can agree that when he was translated as saying "little difference" he meant "there are few differences" rather than "almost no difference". Fission explosions are one big difference, but its still only one. Radiation comes in a variety of forms and are produced by a variety of materials and produce a variety of negative effects on the human body. I believe this is what he meant, and we should not let semantics and possibly poor translation destroy his message.

DenonAug. 09, 2012 - 02:37PM JST

Nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs share the same word nuclear, and its not a coincidence. Surviving (key word) victims have a lot in common. More than they do with anybody else.

So do nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (which does not need to introduce radioactive isotopes in many cases), nuclear DNA (which has nothing to do with radiation no matter how much Anderson will think it does, it simply means the DNA in a cell nucleus), and nuclear family. To say that those things are the same as fission bombs simply because they share the word nuclear is just absurd.

As for "surviving", so far 100% of people affected by radiation from Fukushima are still alive (unless they died in an accident, pre-existing conditions, old age, etc). If everyone survives then saying they are surviving victims is roundabout at best, usually just plain old fear mongering.

I meant destroying LIKE NUKES, in other words, very quickly and as a result of the work or mess ups of very few people. What you are talking about took years and many man hours of intentional carelessness and/or evil to accomplish.

Well, Fukushima didn't destroy anything. And fission bombs with 20kton yield are not that strong, and air detonation means structural damage but no land damage, most brick structures even directly under the blast were not taken down entirely. The main issue was fire, not the blast or radiation, and while it was likely started by radiation, there have been plenty of other cases of far larger destruction. Conventional firebombs leveled a much larger area (roughly twice the area) and killed just as many in Tokyo. So between conventional bombs from the US and poisonous chemicals from both sides, Japan suffered far more overall. It just happens to be that people are fixated on singular events rather than slower but much larger issues.

Probie, maybe we can agree that when he was translated as saying "little difference" he meant "there are few differences" rather than "almost no difference".

But, there aren't "few differences". And even if there were just a "few differences", there are just a "few differences" genetically between a man and a dog, and they are completely different.

Here's just a few of the more important differences:

-the nuclear fission process at a power plant is controllable while that in an atomic bomb is not.

-A nuclear power plant utilizes a controlled fission reaction to produce energy. A nuclear bomb may be fission or fusion.

-the uranium used in power plants is usually natural or slightly enriched while that in the uranium atomic bombs are very highly enriched.

-the plutonium, if used as fuel (mixed oxide or MOX fuel), in power plants, is used in low plutonium concentration with depleted, natural, or low-enriched uranium and the plutonium is of low isotopic purity. The plutonium used in a plutonium atomic bomb is of high concentration and much higher isotopic purity.

But, anyway.

Probie, you can sum up most, but not all of the dangers, as having to do with radiation. But I can sum up your argument as being about explosions, difference being, I can sum up your argument totally.

No. My argument is that that they are completely different things. Not just "being about explosions".

Your argument seems to be that because they both have the word "nuclear" in them, they must be the same thing. Which is wrong.

Mr. Tsuboi went through a lot, and a wish him all the best, but I wish they'd just stop trying to get every angle they can on the anti-nuclear side.

Up until last year, the a-bomb survivors always spoke about how nuclear weapons were bad. I don't even think nuclear power was even mentioned.

basroil, do you know why I mentioned why nuclear radiation was so harmful and how it's basically incurable...? It is because when the energy from the radiation passes through the DNA cell, it cuts off the DNA chain and kills the damn thing! Jesus Christ do you know how horrifying that actually is!?!? YOUR DNA DIES AND YOU CAN'T REVERSE IT!

basroil

Well, Fukushima didn't destroy anything.

Well let's see... 160,000+ people had to be relocated and lost their homes. 8% of Japan’s land is poisoned by radioactive cesium. Farming industries have been destroyed. Fishing industries have been destroyed. It has managed to destroy a whole lot of things.

Thomas AndersonAug. 09, 2012 - 06:11PM JST

do you know why I mentioned why nuclear radiation was so harmful and how it's basically incurable...? It is because when the energy from the radiation passes through the DNA cell, it cuts off the DNA chain and kills the damn thing! Jesus Christ do you know how horrifying that actually is!?!? YOUR DNA DIES AND YOU CAN'T REVERSE IT!

Do you even know what DNA is?

'' Basroil : And 10-100% more CO2 than nuclear, at 70-150grams per KWh depending on the type, location, and operational lifetime. As well as many toxins from manufacturing that can seep into drinking water, including known carcinogens of course. The only thing more dangerous than what can't be seen is the stuff people refuse to see.s well as many toxins from manufacturing that can seep into drinking water, including known carcinogens of course. The only thing more dangerous than what can't be seen is the stuff people refuse to see.''

what can't be seen - like u mean radiation? Yes more dangerous.... Making sar panels makes waste - What do u think Making a nuclear plant wouldn't make waste? CO2 is made CO2 is also produced by breathing also.

"the nuclear fission process at a power plant is controllable"

Indeed. And the blokes at TEPCO showed us all how controllable it is, didn't they?

The immediate death toll from blast and heat was obviously enormous in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But another major difference is that TEPCO managed to release 4,023 times more caesium than the Hiroshima bomb did (and 4 times that of Chernobyl, incidentally). And that's only from March the 12th to March the 31st, 2011.

If atom bomb survivors wish to equate the horror they experienced to what many Japanese experienced and continue to experience as a result of three nuclear plant melt-throughs, (a world record I hope remains unbroken) it is their privilege to do so.

Basroil : check it on wiki before you write anything. Type DNA in google search type DNA effects from radiation etc for example. Sun light ... Radiation etc Maybe u know but it doesn't seem as though you do. Radiation has some medical benefits it seems but even for treating cancer it is doubtful. They need to be sure before they use it but they just jumped in there and thought it would save them money from importing oil? Very dangerous for future generations and we know frlm this gentlemams history what radiation did to previous generations - some like him are still current and wants to share his message. He is telling us - you all of us it is dangerous - don't do it! Solar, wind and explore other avenues for safe clean power. Try the site http://thrivemovement.com It also has some interesting ideas and information....please

Zichi Good to c someone who has his head screwed on thank you. So insensitive some people are. Bombs and nuclear power ofcourse the survivor knows the difference. And he knows they are both dangerous. Maybe necessary perhaps but at least try to phase it out slowly. Tesla was trying to invent free power and was shut down by JPMorgan Stanley - why? Because Morgan Stanley wanted to sell copper wire and the new technology didn't require it. $$$ same as the nuclear power and oil industry. $$$ no more oil Imports no more rockerfella Enron Shell BP a lot of people put $$$ before ethics. No RISC to the Owners but high RISC to those who live near to it such as the people of Fukushima. Japan needs to lead.

Atomic Bomb anniversary? Ask Truman why he ordered dropping the Atomic bomb or best search History Channel so you will know the truth.

basroil.

There is a good discovery program covering this and why japan outlawed it. It consists of dehydrating the body over years while ingesting water that contains arsenic. Than being entombed alive for some time.

You can still see some remaining mummies at some shrines, maybe 1 in 10 made it.

I agree with the author of the article as my country rejected nuclear energy and we still got enough power 30yrs later. Don't mean we are nuclear free as some Universities got test-reactors, etc,

basroil

Do you even know what DNA is?

basroil, it's time you stopped pretending to know everything, because it'll just be embarrassing for you when once again I prove you wrong with facts. You didn't know that radiation has enough energy to destroy the DNA when it passes through the cell? No? Well of course not, since you're not a freaking radiologist.

May 2nd, 2012

Japanese Ambassador Murata is joining in the growing chorus which include US Senators who are warning the he problem at Fukushima nuclear reactor 4 is the single greatest short-term threat to humanity and has the potential to destroy our world and civilization as we know it.

The Ambassador puts it very bluntly saying the warnings about reactor 4′s threat to end human civilization are no exaggeration.

He is joining forces with human rights groups from around the globe in calling for the UN to step in and end the crisis in Fukushima that TEPCO is planning on taking decades to resolve after repeated warnings that even a minor earthquake could cause the spent fuel pool to collapse which would result in a radiation release so massive it could end life on earth.