My favorite quote:
Q: Why is the French giving different advice?
Sir John: Their advice is not based on science.
Q: Is there any chance of contamination in Tokyo?
Sir John: Implications to people in Tokyo - none.
Q: You now advise to "consider leaving" - at what stage would you change that to "leave"?
Sir John: Only in the worst case scenarios. The reason we said "consider leaving" - there are major disruptions to transportation and supply chain in the whole of Japan. We are NOT advising that people leave due to the risk of radiation. Even IF a plume were to reach Tokyo, it would not pose major health risks.
Q: What does plausible worst case mean? Is there an implausible worst case?
Sir John: Implausible - all reactors and all ponds go up at the same time and extreme weather conditions bring the plume to Tokyo; it's not sensible to consider this.
Q: How do we know if the Japanese government is telling the whole story?
Sir John: There would be a series of explosions at the reactors - the Japanese government cannot hide that if it were to be the case.
Sir John: Implications to people in Tokyo - none.
Q: You now advise to "consider leaving" - at what stage would you change that to "leave"?
Sir John: Only in the worst case scenarios. The reason we said "consider leaving" - there are major disruptions to transportation and supply chain in the whole of Japan. We are NOT advising that people leave due to the risk of radiation. Even IF a plume were to reach Tokyo, it would not pose major health risks.
Q: What does plausible worst case mean? Is there an implausible worst case?
Sir John: Implausible - all reactors and all ponds go up at the same time and extreme weather conditions bring the plume to Tokyo; it's not sensible to consider this.
Q: How do we know if the Japanese government is telling the whole story?
Sir John: There would be a series of explosions at the reactors - the Japanese government cannot hide that if it were to be the case.
Read the entire briefing here: https://www.bccjapan.com/asp/general.asp?contentid=108
A marvelous round of applause to Marc Abela!
3 comments:
Q: Is nuclear power unsafe?
A: No. It is far safer than chemical power and renewable power. Look at the burning refineries and gas lines. There are no burning reactors. People are scared of "radiation" and don't understand what it means. The media makes little attempt to tell them. I am trying to be a resource to help explain because I have had some training in this area. A dam gave way due to the earthquake. That's not safe either.
The above is an excerpt from the following site:
http://energyfromthorium.com/
Most private sources seem to prefer (by far) "thorium" as a potential source for energy. More information directly on the web site.
Cheers,
Marc
News in the U.S. has shifted away now from the potential "nuclear meltdown" in Japan to events in Libya. Attention spans in America are short.
And yet Tokyo has rising radiation in water, the northern region has rising radiation in the food chain.
The people saying there is no worry are just as bad and as dangerous as those shouting for panic.
It is clear that there are far reaching implications here that have yet to play out. And I for one am not trusting of any one source. We must weigh the science and the politics to get at the truth. Something I wish we did not have to do. A straight answer from a trusted government is what is needed. But Japan and Tepco have a less than trust worthy record on this same issue.
Post a Comment