--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 10/22/14, Kenneth Barns <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] Fusion by 2025?
 To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 12:31 AM

 On 22 October 2014 07:08, Bruce Johnson <xxxxxx@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
 wrote:

 On Oct 21, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Anthony Jackson <xxxxxx@iii.com>
 wrote:

 >

 > This is comparable to *2 months* of casualties from
 coal power, and is the worst accident in decades. It really
 is bad risk assessment.

 Agreed, aside from “oh yeah we cannot inhabit this
 large chunk of Japan for a thousand years or so”

 Immediate casualties aren’t the only costs from a nuclear
 accident. <http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/chernobyl-ghost-cities>

 Latest National Geographic has an
 article about "disaster tourism".  The author
 spent a weekend in and around the Pripyat/Chernobyl area,
 wearing a geiger counter the whole time.  He received a
 significantly higher radiation dose during to flights to and
 from than he did over the whole weekend on site.  To be
 sure, some local hotspots (eg. adjacent to the blade of a
 bulldozer used in decontamination efforts) had a higher
 mSv/hr dose than the flights, but most did
 not.
 Cheers,Ken "not that
 I'd want to live there yet"
 Barns

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As far as "living there goes", I saw a show on PBS 3-4 years ago that detailed some of the work that biologists were doing wrt studying the wildlife that has flourished there since the people left.

They found that the rate of birth defects was about double the rate outside. (about 4%vs2%)

As they put it, "That's OK for animals, but not for people".
====================================================================