My perception of reality was somewhat shaken today by an article by George Monbiot which I would struggle to disagree with:
Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.
If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work.
Indeed, not only is it a rather rational analysis of the Fukushima situation
(although the email consensus here at Slug towers would disagree on the 'poor design' bit; some parts are sub-optimal but unless you’re psychic you only find out from trying it. We’d say the plants were just old. And the Japanese are not noted for cutting corners to save a few Yen; you only have to look at the place and interact with their nuclear industry to see that. But I digress)
but also a rather robust sandbagging of the oft-suggested green candidates for alternative energy production. The article is really rather brilliant.
He better get back to normal soon, or my world may well come off it’s axis.