# There was no nuclear disaster at Fukushima **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2023, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796 "2023-09-27T22:10:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/81 "2023-09-29T00:48:24Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’d be curious who here would have stayed in their home, a few miles from Fukushima, when this was happening I don’t see how that’s relevant. If the entire rest of the population evacuated due to traces of puppy DNA, I’d evacuate also. It would be hard to eat and get access to other essentials otherwise. Not to mention the possibility of the police simply kicking me out. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/82 "2023-09-29T00:59:08Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > The final one was [in 2022](https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/30/asia/futaba-fukushima-nuclear-evacuation-order-intl-hnk/index.html). That was two years after radiation levels went below 20 mSv/year (and I expect that was already a worst-case measurement). …I’m aware of that. But if we are going to quibble about “disaster” then I’m going to quibble about “continued evacuation.” And there is no continued evacuation right now. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > In contrast, US occupational limits are [generally 50 mSv/year](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/Radiation_in_Perspective.pdf). And illustrating the scale we’re talking about: > > > By example, for a cumulative occupational dose of 1,000 mrem (10 mSv), the chance of eventually developing a fatal cancer can increase from 25% (as noted above) to 25.05%. > > So we are talking very small risks already. And the US occupational limits are not balancing relative risk. There’s little downside to setting very conservative limits, especially since the exposure should be nearly zero in a normally operating facility. > > But for Fukushima we have to consider relative risk; people dying early (for a variety of reasons) because they’ve been displaced from their homes. That warrants a much higher threshold than what they actually used, since the tiny increased risk of cancer has to be balanced against the harms of continued displacement. I don’t really care about the US occupational limits, and a document produced by the US Department of Energy titled “radiation in perspective” kinda makes me think of this: [![](https://media.makeameme.org/created/you-have-radiation.jpg) ](https://media.makeameme.org/created/you-have-radiation.jpg) I think what’s more relevant here are the assessments of the local authorities, which, from your cite: > [@](#): > > Residents have been allowed to enter the northeastern area of Futaba – but not live there – since March 2020, when experts said radiation levels did not exceed 20 millisieverts per year. That level is equivalent to two full-body CT scans and international safety watchdogs recommend it should be the limit of an individual’s annual exposure to radiation. You’ve given me no reason why I should trust your risk assessment here over the ones the local authorities have made. And if you want to characterize it as “dumb” you really need something stronger and more specific than a line-item from a pamphlet. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/83 "2023-09-29T00:59:23Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Whatever you think of the alleged over-evacuation of the community (and I’d want to see data on that), the fact remains that the evacuation was required because it was unclear whether the outcome would be on a Chernobyl scale. Do you have a cite for the idea that serious engineers who had actually run the numbers (ie, not pundits or politicians speaking out their ass) seriously feared a Chernobyl scale disaster at any point? I read through the IAEA log for March 11-14th and never saw mention of such a fear. [https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/fukushima-nuclear-accident-update-log-12](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/fukushima-nuclear-accident-update-log-12) ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/84 "2023-09-29T01:18:36Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Do you have a cite for the idea that serious engineers who had actually run the numbers (ie, not pundits or politicians speaking out their ass) seriously feared a Chernobyl scale disaster at any point? If you want to quibble over mention of “Chernobyl”, I understand, it’s that type of thread. But what I actually said is that evacuation was required because it wasn’t clear how bad things would get. Uncontroversially, the initial days were dominated by intense efforts to contain the disaster, as well as uncertainty as to how successful the containment would be. Broader point being - evacuation was necessary. The core wasn’t exposed and spraying graphite into the sky, that much was known, but neither could anyone say it was safe to remain in the area. Of course evacuation was necessary, I don’t see on what basis anyone can suggest otherwise (if that’s what I’m hearing). ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/85 "2023-09-29T01:40:56Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > I don’t really care about the US occupational limits, and a document produced by the US Department of Energy titled “radiation in perspective” kinda makes me think of this: > [Https://media.makeameme.org/created/you-have-radiation.jpg](Https://media.makeameme.org/created/you-have-radiation.jpg) Seriously? I mentioned earlier that it seemed to me that most of the arguments for the severity of the Fukushima situation were aesthetic in nature, not rational analysis. I didn’t think I’d get such a fantastic example. Despite the fact that the Fallout series exists, there is in fact nothing wrong with looking at radiation and the dangers sorrounding it in perspective. Failure to do so leads to being this guy: > **[Is it true that bananas are radioactive, and if you eat too many they can...](https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-bananas-are-radioactive-and-if-you-eat-too-many-they-can-kill-you)** > > Answer (1 of 61): Your entire body is made of a lot cells, which are made of a lot of organic molecules, the framework of each of which is made of a lot of carbon. > A carbon atom (generally speaking) is found to possess either twelve particles in it's... Don’t be that guy. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/86 "2023-09-29T01:47:25Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > If you want to quibble over mention of “Chernobyl”, I understand, it’s that type of thread. It’s not a quibble, damn it. Multiple posts in this very thread demonstrate, again and again, how many of us suffer from an irrational fear of radiation and nuclear power. The fear demonstrated is orders of magnitude out of proportion to the danger posed, because people’s sense of proportion when it comes to these matters is all out of whack. Proportion is the issue, and that’s why I’m so adamant that proportionality be kept in mind. Comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl is like comparing an ant to an elephant. It’s a difference of degree so great that it becomes a difference of kind. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/87 "2023-09-29T01:52:54Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Seriously? I mentioned earlier that it seemed to me that most of the arguments for the severity of the Fukushima situation were aesthetic in nature, not rational analysis. …“it seemed to me” doesn’t really appear to be an objective measure of anything. It seems to me that the municipal office of Futaba would have much more evidence and data on which to make important decisions than either you or I with our “reckons.” > [@Babale](#): > > Don’t be that guy. Fortunately, nobody here is being “that guy” here in this thread. But lets not pretend that the pamphlet that was cited was, in essence, essentially propaganda. I’m not claiming that any of the science or the numbers were incorrect. But it had a very clear and open agenda, and it shouldn’t be used to dictate (even in hindsight) what the correct response should have been during a disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/88 "2023-09-29T01:53:23Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > But if we are going to quibble about “disaster” then I’m going to quibble about “continued evacuation.” And there is no continued evacuation right now. Quibble acknowledged. I will say “the integral of evacuatedness over time scaled by population and differential harm” from now on. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > I think what’s more relevant here are the assessments of the local authorities, which, from your cite: Well yes, that’s what they chose. That isn’t under debate. The question is if their threshold makes sense. Evidence suggests that it was set far lower than is reasonable, and they experienced both human and economic harm as a result. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/89 "2023-09-29T02:02:18Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Proportion is the issue, and that’s why I’m so adamant that proportionality be kept in mind. Hindsight is the issue. You are talking with 2023 knowledge. They did not know what you know in 2011. They HAD to err on the side of caution. How many reactors melted…three? That is not a small or minor thing. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/90 "2023-09-29T02:08:41Z")
They had to keep people out of the area for a short time afterwards, if nothing else because the tsunami damage itself left a lot of uncertainties. The reactor uncertainties were resolved before the tsunami damage uncertainties were. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/91 "2023-09-29T02:10:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The reactor uncertainties were resolved before the tsunami damage uncertainties were. One could read this as the plant operators thinking: - We are certain all is well Or… - We are certain we are screwed I’d think they thought the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/92 "2023-09-29T02:27:56Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Evidence suggests …the decisions made by the Japanese municipal authorities was based on the evidence. I’ve seen very little evidence in this thread that suggest they got things wrong. Your own cite shows that the threshold the experts were working too weren’t the same as the “US occupational limits.” There would be a reason for that. Perhaps the Japanese authorities got it wrong. But I’m not an expert. So I’m really not in the position to argue that the Japanese authorities have gotten it right or wrong. But if you are going to argue that they not only got it wrong, but the entire thing was “dumb”, (which is a different thing from “set far lower than reasonable”) and this is what _the evidence suggests_, then that evidence better be more than what you’ve presented here. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/93 "2023-09-29T02:28:29Z")
There was a crisis for a while. Then the crisis was fixed, and wasn’t a crisis any more. This happened very quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/94 "2023-09-29T02:35:50Z")
…there was a crisis for a while. After the crisis the Japanese municipal authorities had a relatively minor exclusion zone, that got increasingly smaller over time, that they maintained until experts deemed it was no longer required. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/95 "2023-09-29T02:46:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > Proportion is the issue, and that’s why I’m so adamant that proportionality be kept in mind. > > Hindsight is the issue. > > You are talking with 2023 knowledge. > > They did not know what you know in 2011. They HAD to err on the side of caution. The sentence you quoted wasn’t referring to Japanese officials in 2011, it was referring to the way people _today_ describe the so-called “nuclear disaster”. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/96 "2023-09-29T02:54:22Z")
Here’s the thing: The thread title says “There _was_ no nuclear disaster at Fukushima”. Emphasis mine. There most definitely _was_ a disaster in 2011. If the title had said “There _is_ no nuclear disaster at Fukushima” then I think a lot more would be agreeing with you. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/97 "2023-09-29T03:05:30Z")
> [@Terminus\_Est](#): > > The thread title says “There _was_ no nuclear disaster at Fukushima”. Emphasis mine. The correct emphasis is, “There was no _nuclear_ disaster at Fukushima”. > [@Terminus\_Est](#): > > There most definitely _was_ a disaster in 2011. I’ll do you one better. There most definitely were _two_ disasters at Fukushima in 2011, and both were catastrophic, worst of their kind in modern Japanese history. First there was a massive earthquake. Then there was a massive tsunami. Two catastrophic _natural_ disasters. What did _not_ happen was a _nuclear_ disaster, as the OP claims. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/98 "2023-09-29T03:15:42Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > The sentence you quoted wasn’t referring to Japanese officials in 2011, it was referring to the way people _today_ describe the so-called “nuclear disaster”. Do you think the people in 2011 thought a nuclear disaster was a distinct possibility? Maybe why they ordered evacuations? ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/99 "2023-09-29T03:27:23Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Do you think the people in 2011 thought a nuclear disaster was a distinct possibility? Maybe why they ordered evacuations?. Sure! And if significant enough damage was caused as a result of their panic, you could even describe it as a disaster! But that would be a human-caused logistical disaster, not a _nuclear_ disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2023, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796/100 "2023-09-29T03:34:36Z")
So, you would not evacuate people in 2011 after the tsunami and when the power plant was headed for a meltdown? Really? No 2023 hindsight. You are in 2011…the reactors are overheating with no fix in sight. You’d tell people nearby to stay put? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-was-no-nuclear-disaster-at-fukushima/990796.md?page=6)