| There is no consensual definition of a "negligible" radiation, as, for example, some induce solid cancers 10 to 15 years after exposition. Risk calculus is heavily tainted by hypothesis, mainly about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis The amount of victims of the Chernobyl disaster may be up to 965,000, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Think also of radionucleides in groundwater, drank by millions during many years... Nuclear waster repositories must, by law, be sealed for 1 million years. AFAIK all Fukushima's plant reactors were either inactive or scramed (shut down) when the disaster happened, the outcome with fully active reactors may be different. Fuku cleanup is not neglectable, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup Don't forget nuke hot waste, left as a gift for future generations. Officially 'managed', yet there is no exploited repository. Add combustible dependency (not so much known uranium reserves, no mastered way to obtain it w/o mining, in a not-so-distant future some may have to wage war in order to obtain some...), and nuclear proliferation (weapons). Add the NIMBY effect. Then consider that many other approaches alleviate all those burdens while showing an IMHO much better and more realistic vision, for example:
https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(19)30225-... |