http://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/106458/anglesey-farmer-refuses-to-sell-land-to-wylfa-b-developers.aspx
Check this article out
Sunday, 20 November 2011
Farmers bullied!
http://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/106458/anglesey-farmer-refuses-to-sell-land-to-wylfa-b-developers.aspx
Check this article out
Check this article out
Horizon up to their horrible tricks again! Farmers Bullied!
Horizon employing bully boy tactics by getting compulsory rights from Ofgem to investigate the land of a farmer in wylfa, north Wales even though he and his son do not want to sell their land.
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?docid=189&refer=Licensing/Work
Please pass this message on to all you know.
Apparently, this is the first stage before compulsory purchase.
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?docid=189&refer=Licensing/Work
Please pass this message on to all you know.
Apparently, this is the first stage before compulsory purchase.
Saturday, 8 October 2011
RWE to pull out of nuclear in the UK
Hi All,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/07/rwe-uk-nuclear-power
This article confirms what SANE and Urgewald knew in April following the RWE Shareholders Conference in Essen in April.
German involvement in nuclear worldwide is dead!
Bring on Gazprom to invest in new nukes in the UK!
We feel insecure buying gas of Russia but I am sure the government will feel quite content about having a Russian compny building and operating new nukes in the UK......
Looks as though we will not be making out trip back to Essen in April unless it is to thank the Boards of RWE for wise decisions to terminate the construction of new nukes.
We thank the German public, investors in RWE and E.on and the government of Angela Merkel for offering the leadership that is not being offered in the UK.....SANE Thanks You!
Get ready for the Shepperdine Renewables Festival next year!!
Best Wishes
Reg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/07/rwe-uk-nuclear-power
This article confirms what SANE and Urgewald knew in April following the RWE Shareholders Conference in Essen in April.
German involvement in nuclear worldwide is dead!
Bring on Gazprom to invest in new nukes in the UK!
We feel insecure buying gas of Russia but I am sure the government will feel quite content about having a Russian compny building and operating new nukes in the UK......
Looks as though we will not be making out trip back to Essen in April unless it is to thank the Boards of RWE for wise decisions to terminate the construction of new nukes.
We thank the German public, investors in RWE and E.on and the government of Angela Merkel for offering the leadership that is not being offered in the UK.....SANE Thanks You!
Get ready for the Shepperdine Renewables Festival next year!!
Best Wishes
Reg
Sunday, 18 September 2011
Hinckley Point, Somerset
Hello all,
This update:
Preparing for the blockade
Camp 1st-3rd Oct
Bus from Bristol
Bristol City Council
& Letter to Chris Huhne
We have just two weeks before the big blockade of Hinkley point power station. It is also a few weeks before Edf are allowed to start to trash the site, they may sit on their hands for a while however with economic and political uncertainty about new nuclear as it is... lets keep up the pressure and stop them for good!
It is time to sit down with your friends and affinity groups and figure out what you are going to wear/play/do on the day, is it street theatre, singing, painting? We have been chatting about knitting a roadblock/woolen reactor sarcophagus/circle of futility/ squares for Fukushima, (you had to be there) if you want to join in bring some wool and needles with you! At least we'll be nice and warm : )
If you plan to be at the weekend camp; Saturday to Monday, please register here:
or you wont know where to go, and we wont know to expect you.
If you want to take the coach from Bristol on Monday morning, (8.30 am, outside @Bristol £10/£6 waged/unwaged) please let us know as soon as possible so we know how many seats we need. Tickets will be on sale at Booty, 82 Colston St, Bristol from the end of next week. The coach will arrive at the blockade around 10am as part of the second wave of blockaders.
We have received a sympathetic response from Bristol city council about the city's evacuation plan. It seems they don't approve of nuclear new build either, however they feel powerless to do anything about it. We think they should become a nuclear free local authority, (NFLA) which would give them the support of a national network and resources to fight on issues like the shipment of nuclear waste through the city. Several councillors approached us and offered to help guide us through the system to get our questions heard and get effective responses. If you are interested in joining a working group to pursue this please contact Ali:
Whats the evacuation plan? has been echoing around the world as different campaigns seek clarification on the responsibilities and preparedness of the nuclear industry for accidents such as Fukushima. See the attached letter to Chris Huhne, energy secretary. Please personalise and send it to him at:
It was originally written by Pete Rowberry of Suffolk.
See you soon
SWAN
Letter to Chris Huhne:
To: Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP,
You will see from the attached link that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the United States are insisting that estimated for timescales for evacuation of areas around nuclear power stations need to be provided
I live within 6 miles of a nuclear power station, i.e. well within the evacuation zone imposed after Fukushima and significantly closer than the areas polluted by high levels of long lived radioactive caesium following both Chernobyl and Fukushima
(see Wall Street Journal http://www.facebook.com/l/oAQBEAHpnAQCZRtzD1EniJ6ziQ01gInT3IYhjMrj7P2tFbA/online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904332804576540131142824362.html.
If faith in the nuclear industry following Fukushima is to be restored the public need to be reassured that, in the case of a nuclear accident, resilient contingency plans are in place. There is no evidence that such plans for the Sizewell power station in Suffolk have every been tested and there is great doubt whether the proposed evacuation plan is realistic or achievable. There is also doubt about the provision of iodine for young children and uncertainty in the minds of the public about what the evacuation procedures are and where stocks of iodine tablets are held. I believe that the UK should follow the US in insisting that the industry examines these evacuation timescales and commits to achieving them and that these plans should be linked to the provision of iodine, which, after a radiation release can save many young peoples' lives. Does the Department for Energy and Climate Change, who are such strong advocates of nuclear technology, agree that this should be the case and if so how are they going to ensure that the relevant action is taken.
Tuesday, 30 August 2011
Hinkley starts legal proceedings against government
To Reg Illingworth,
Stop Hinkley Legal Challenge Appeal
We need your support! With a number of important decisions being made in relation to the Hinkley C plans, Stop Hinkley is considering whether to challenge these in the courts. Greenpeace recently decided to mount a legal challenge to the government’s national policy on nuclear power, which is excellent news, but we also need to be aware of decisions being made locally on preparatory works for Hinkley C, particularly by West Somerset Council.
With this is mind, and to be well prepared, we have decided to invite members and supporters to contribute to a Legal Challenge Fund. Any donation, large or small, will be welcome, and put to good use in fighting Hinkley C. http://www.stophinkley.org/LegChallAppeal.htm
Please send your donations, made payable to “Stop Hinkley”, to:
Stop Hinkley Legal Challenge Fund,
8 The Bartons, Yeabridge, South Petherton TA13 5LW.
Or you can send a donation direct to the Stop Hinkley bank account:
Account name: Stop Hinkley
Account number: 19041903
Sort code: 09-01-52
Please Quote: Legal Challenge
Or you can donate online via PayPal at www.stophinkley.org/LegChallAppeal.htm or log in to PayPal and send payment to admin@stophinkley.org (please quote Legal Challenge)
PLEASE PASS THIS INFO TO ANYONE WHO YOU THINK MIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR LEGAL CHALLENGE APPEAL.
************************************
Stop Hinkley Legal Challenge Appeal
We need your support! With a number of important decisions being made in relation to the Hinkley C plans, Stop Hinkley is considering whether to challenge these in the courts. Greenpeace recently decided to mount a legal challenge to the government’s national policy on nuclear power, which is excellent news, but we also need to be aware of decisions being made locally on preparatory works for Hinkley C, particularly by West Somerset Council.
With this is mind, and to be well prepared, we have decided to invite members and supporters to contribute to a Legal Challenge Fund. Any donation, large or small, will be welcome, and put to good use in fighting Hinkley C. http://www.stophinkley.org/LegChallAppeal.htm
Please send your donations, made payable to “Stop Hinkley”, to:
Stop Hinkley Legal Challenge Fund,
8 The Bartons, Yeabridge, South Petherton TA13 5LW.
Or you can send a donation direct to the Stop Hinkley bank account:
Account name: Stop Hinkley
Account number: 19041903
Sort code: 09-01-52
Please Quote: Legal Challenge
Or you can donate online via PayPal at www.stophinkley.org/LegChallAppeal.htm or log in to PayPal and send payment to admin@stophinkley.org (please quote Legal Challenge)
PLEASE PASS THIS INFO TO ANYONE WHO YOU THINK MIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR LEGAL CHALLENGE APPEAL.
************************************
Monday, 29 August 2011
Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl
Why the Fukushima disaster is worse than Chernobyl
Japan has been slow to admit the scale of the meltdown. But now the truth is coming out. David McNeill reports from Soma City
Monday, 29 August 2011SHARE PRINTEMAILTEXT SIZE NORMALLARGEEXTRA LARGE
AP
Some scientists say Fukushima is worse than the 1986 Chernobyl accident, with which it shares a maximum level-7 rating on the sliding scale of nuclear disasters.
ENLARGE
SPONSORED LINKS
Ads by Google
Get $75 Free Advertising
Try Google AdWords.
Claim Your $75 Coupon Now!
www.Google.com/AdWords
Medical Waste Autoclaves
Bondtech Autoclave Systems
Commercial or on-site autoclaves
www.bondtechautoclaves.com
/answers Magazine
How can a small island become
energy-independent within a decade?
siemens.com/answers/islandinthewind
AppSumo -Geek Daily Deals
The Fattest Deals for Web Geeks!
Check Out Today's Deal.
AppSumo.com/Web-Deals
Yoshio Ichida is recalling the worst day of his 53 years: 11 March, when the sea swallowed up his home and killed his friends. The Fukushima fisherman was in the bath when the huge quake hit and barely made it to the open sea in his boat in the 40 minutes before the 15-metre tsunami that followed. When he got back to port, his neighbourhood and nearly everything else was gone. "Nobody can remember anything like this," he says.
Now living in a refugee centre in the ruined coastal city of Soma, Mr Ichida has mourned the 100 local fishermen killed in the disaster and is trying to rebuild his life with his colleagues. Every morning, they arrive at the ruined fisheries co-operative building in Soma port and prepare for work. Then they stare out at the irradiated sea, and wait. "Some day we know we'll be allowed to fish again. We all want to believe that."
This nation has recovered from worse natural – and manmade – catastrophes. But it is the triple meltdown and its aftermath at the Fukushima nuclear power plant 40km down the coast from Soma that has elevated Japan into unknown, and unknowable, terrain. Across the northeast, millions of people are living with its consequences and searching for a consensus on a safe radiation level that does not exist. Experts give bewilderingly different assessments of its dangers.
Related articles
Japanese leadership ballot set to split ruling party
Search the news archive for more stories
Some scientists say Fukushima is worse than the 1986 Chernobyl accident, with which it shares a maximum level-7 rating on the sliding scale of nuclear disasters. One of the most prominent of them is Dr Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician and long time anti-nuclear activist who warns of "horrors to come" in Fukushima.
Chris Busby, a professor at the University of Ulster known for his alarmist views, generated controversy during a Japan visit last month when he said the disaster would result in more than 1 million deaths. "Fukushima is still boiling its radionuclides all over Japan," he said. "Chernobyl went up in one go. So Fukushima is worse."
On the other side of the nuclear fence are the industry friendly scientists who insist that the crisis is under control and radiation levels are mostly safe. "I believe the government and Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco, the plant's operator] are doing their best," said Naoto Sekimura, vice-dean of the Graduate School of Engineering at the University of Tokyo. Mr Sekimura initially advised residents near the plant that a radioactive disaster was "unlikely" and that they should stay "calm", an assessment he has since had to reverse.
Slowly, steadily, and often well behind the curve, the government has worsened its prognosis of the disaster. Last Friday, scientists affiliated with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the plant had released 15,000 terabecquerels of cancer-causing Cesium, equivalent to about 168 times the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the event that ushered in the nuclear age. (Professor Busby says the release is at least 72,000 times worse than Hiroshima).
Caught in a blizzard of often conflicting information, many Japanese instinctively grope for the beacons they know. Mr Ichida and his colleagues say they no longer trust the nuclear industry or the officials who assured them the Fukushima plant was safe. But they have faith in government radiation testing and believe they will soon be allowed back to sea.
That's a mistake, say sceptics, who note a consistent pattern of official lying, foot-dragging and concealment. Last week, officials finally admitted something long argued by its critics: that thousands of people with homes near the crippled nuclear plant may not be able to return for a generation or more. "We can't rule out the possibility that there will be some areas where it will be hard for residents to return to their homes for a long time," said Yukio Edano, the government's top government spokesman. "We are very sorry."
Last Friday, hundreds of former residents from Futaba and Okuma, the towns nearest the plant, were allowed to visit their homes – perhaps for the last time – to pick up belongings. Wearing masks and radiation suits, they drove through the 20km contaminated zone around the plant, where hundreds of animals have died and rotted in the sun, to find kitchens and living rooms partly reclaimed by nature. "It's hard to believe we ever lived here," one former resident told NHK.
Several other areas northwest of the plant have become atomic ghost towns after being ordered to evacuate – too late, say many residents, who believe they absorbed dangerous quantities of radiation in the weeks after the accident. "We've no idea when we can come back," says Katsuzo Shoji, who farmed rice and cabbages and kept a small herd of cattle near Iitate, a picturesque village about 40km from the plant.
Although it is outside the exclusion zone, the village's mountainous topography meant radiation, carried by wind and rain, lingered, poisoning crops, water and school playgrounds.
The young, the wealthy, mothers and pregnant women left for Tokyo or elsewhere. Most of the remaining 6000 people have since evacuated, after the government accepted that safe radiation limits had been exceeded.
Mr Shoji, 75, went from shock to rage, then despair when the government told him he would have to destroy his vegetables, kill his six cows and move with his wife Fumi, 73, to an apartment in Koriyama, about 20km away. "We've heard five, maybe 10 years but some say that's far too optimistic," he says, crying. "Maybe I'll be able to come home to die." He was given initial compensation of one million yen (£7,900) by Tepco, topped up with 350,000 yen from the government.
It is the fate of people outside the evacuation zones, however, that causes the most bitter controversy. Parents in Fukushima City, 63km from the plant, have banded together to demand that the government do more to protect about 100,000 children. Schools have banned soccer and other outdoor sports. Windows are kept closed. "We've just been left to fend for ourselves," says Machiko Sato, a grandmother who lives in the city. "It makes me so angry."
Many parents have already sent their children to live with relatives or friends hundreds of kilometres away. Some want the government to evacuate the entire two million population of Fukushima Prefecture. "They're demanding the right to be able to evacuate," says anti-nuclear activist Aileen Mioko Smith, who works with the parents. "In other words, if they evacuate they want the government to support them."
So far, at least, the authorities say that is not necessary. The official line is that the accident at the plant is winding down and radiation levels outside of the exclusion zone and designated "hot spots" are safe.
But many experts warn that the crisis is just beginning. Professor Tim Mousseau, a biological scientist who has spent more than a decade researching the genetic impact of radiation around Chernobyl, says he worries that many people in Fukushima are "burying their heads in the sand." His Chernobyl research concluded that biodiversity and the numbers of insects and spiders had shrunk inside the irradiated zone, and the bird population showed evidence of genetic defects, including smaller brain sizes.
"The truth is that we don't have sufficient data to provide accurate information on the long-term impact," he says. "What we can say, though, is that there are very likely to be very significant long-term health impact from prolonged exposure."
In Soma, Mr Ichida says all the talk about radiation is confusing. "All we want to do is get back to work. There are many different ways to die, and having nothing to do is one of them."
Economic cost
Fukushima: Japan has estimated it will cost as much as £188bn to rebuild following the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis.
Chernobyl There are a number of estimates of the economic impact, but thetotal cost is thought to be about £144bn.
Safety
Fukushima: workers are allowed to operate in the crippled plant up to a dose of 250mSv (millisieverts).
Chernobyl: People exposed to 350mSv were relocated. In most countries the maximum annual dosage for a worker is 20mSv. The allowed dose for someone living close to a nuclear plant is 1mSv a year.
Death toll
Fukushima: Two workers died inside the plant. Some scientists predict that one million lives will be lost to cancer.
Chernobyl: It is difficult to say how many people died on the day of the disaster because of state security, but Greenpeace estimates that 200,000 have died from radiation-linked cancers in the 25 years since the accident.
Exclusion zone
Fukushima: Tokyo initially ordered a 20km radius exclusion zone around the plant
Chernobyl: The initial radius of the Chernobyl zone was set at 30km – 25 years later it is still largely in place.
Compensation
Fukushima: Tepco's share price has collapsed since the disaster largely because of the amount it will need to pay out, about £10,000 a person
Chernobyl: Not a lot. It has been reported that Armenian victims of the disaster were offered about £6 each in 1986
Aid
Fukushima: The UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported bilateral aid worth $95m
Chernobyl: 12 years after the disaster, the then Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma, complained that his country was still waiting for international help.
Japan has been slow to admit the scale of the meltdown. But now the truth is coming out. David McNeill reports from Soma City
Monday, 29 August 2011SHARE PRINTEMAILTEXT SIZE NORMALLARGEEXTRA LARGE
AP
Some scientists say Fukushima is worse than the 1986 Chernobyl accident, with which it shares a maximum level-7 rating on the sliding scale of nuclear disasters.
ENLARGE
SPONSORED LINKS
Ads by Google
Get $75 Free Advertising
Try Google AdWords.
Claim Your $75 Coupon Now!
www.Google.com/AdWords
Medical Waste Autoclaves
Bondtech Autoclave Systems
Commercial or on-site autoclaves
www.bondtechautoclaves.com
/answers Magazine
How can a small island become
energy-independent within a decade?
siemens.com/answers/islandinthewind
AppSumo -Geek Daily Deals
The Fattest Deals for Web Geeks!
Check Out Today's Deal.
AppSumo.com/Web-Deals
Yoshio Ichida is recalling the worst day of his 53 years: 11 March, when the sea swallowed up his home and killed his friends. The Fukushima fisherman was in the bath when the huge quake hit and barely made it to the open sea in his boat in the 40 minutes before the 15-metre tsunami that followed. When he got back to port, his neighbourhood and nearly everything else was gone. "Nobody can remember anything like this," he says.
Now living in a refugee centre in the ruined coastal city of Soma, Mr Ichida has mourned the 100 local fishermen killed in the disaster and is trying to rebuild his life with his colleagues. Every morning, they arrive at the ruined fisheries co-operative building in Soma port and prepare for work. Then they stare out at the irradiated sea, and wait. "Some day we know we'll be allowed to fish again. We all want to believe that."
This nation has recovered from worse natural – and manmade – catastrophes. But it is the triple meltdown and its aftermath at the Fukushima nuclear power plant 40km down the coast from Soma that has elevated Japan into unknown, and unknowable, terrain. Across the northeast, millions of people are living with its consequences and searching for a consensus on a safe radiation level that does not exist. Experts give bewilderingly different assessments of its dangers.
Related articles
Japanese leadership ballot set to split ruling party
Search the news archive for more stories
Some scientists say Fukushima is worse than the 1986 Chernobyl accident, with which it shares a maximum level-7 rating on the sliding scale of nuclear disasters. One of the most prominent of them is Dr Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician and long time anti-nuclear activist who warns of "horrors to come" in Fukushima.
Chris Busby, a professor at the University of Ulster known for his alarmist views, generated controversy during a Japan visit last month when he said the disaster would result in more than 1 million deaths. "Fukushima is still boiling its radionuclides all over Japan," he said. "Chernobyl went up in one go. So Fukushima is worse."
On the other side of the nuclear fence are the industry friendly scientists who insist that the crisis is under control and radiation levels are mostly safe. "I believe the government and Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco, the plant's operator] are doing their best," said Naoto Sekimura, vice-dean of the Graduate School of Engineering at the University of Tokyo. Mr Sekimura initially advised residents near the plant that a radioactive disaster was "unlikely" and that they should stay "calm", an assessment he has since had to reverse.
Slowly, steadily, and often well behind the curve, the government has worsened its prognosis of the disaster. Last Friday, scientists affiliated with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the plant had released 15,000 terabecquerels of cancer-causing Cesium, equivalent to about 168 times the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the event that ushered in the nuclear age. (Professor Busby says the release is at least 72,000 times worse than Hiroshima).
Caught in a blizzard of often conflicting information, many Japanese instinctively grope for the beacons they know. Mr Ichida and his colleagues say they no longer trust the nuclear industry or the officials who assured them the Fukushima plant was safe. But they have faith in government radiation testing and believe they will soon be allowed back to sea.
That's a mistake, say sceptics, who note a consistent pattern of official lying, foot-dragging and concealment. Last week, officials finally admitted something long argued by its critics: that thousands of people with homes near the crippled nuclear plant may not be able to return for a generation or more. "We can't rule out the possibility that there will be some areas where it will be hard for residents to return to their homes for a long time," said Yukio Edano, the government's top government spokesman. "We are very sorry."
Last Friday, hundreds of former residents from Futaba and Okuma, the towns nearest the plant, were allowed to visit their homes – perhaps for the last time – to pick up belongings. Wearing masks and radiation suits, they drove through the 20km contaminated zone around the plant, where hundreds of animals have died and rotted in the sun, to find kitchens and living rooms partly reclaimed by nature. "It's hard to believe we ever lived here," one former resident told NHK.
Several other areas northwest of the plant have become atomic ghost towns after being ordered to evacuate – too late, say many residents, who believe they absorbed dangerous quantities of radiation in the weeks after the accident. "We've no idea when we can come back," says Katsuzo Shoji, who farmed rice and cabbages and kept a small herd of cattle near Iitate, a picturesque village about 40km from the plant.
Although it is outside the exclusion zone, the village's mountainous topography meant radiation, carried by wind and rain, lingered, poisoning crops, water and school playgrounds.
The young, the wealthy, mothers and pregnant women left for Tokyo or elsewhere. Most of the remaining 6000 people have since evacuated, after the government accepted that safe radiation limits had been exceeded.
Mr Shoji, 75, went from shock to rage, then despair when the government told him he would have to destroy his vegetables, kill his six cows and move with his wife Fumi, 73, to an apartment in Koriyama, about 20km away. "We've heard five, maybe 10 years but some say that's far too optimistic," he says, crying. "Maybe I'll be able to come home to die." He was given initial compensation of one million yen (£7,900) by Tepco, topped up with 350,000 yen from the government.
It is the fate of people outside the evacuation zones, however, that causes the most bitter controversy. Parents in Fukushima City, 63km from the plant, have banded together to demand that the government do more to protect about 100,000 children. Schools have banned soccer and other outdoor sports. Windows are kept closed. "We've just been left to fend for ourselves," says Machiko Sato, a grandmother who lives in the city. "It makes me so angry."
Many parents have already sent their children to live with relatives or friends hundreds of kilometres away. Some want the government to evacuate the entire two million population of Fukushima Prefecture. "They're demanding the right to be able to evacuate," says anti-nuclear activist Aileen Mioko Smith, who works with the parents. "In other words, if they evacuate they want the government to support them."
So far, at least, the authorities say that is not necessary. The official line is that the accident at the plant is winding down and radiation levels outside of the exclusion zone and designated "hot spots" are safe.
But many experts warn that the crisis is just beginning. Professor Tim Mousseau, a biological scientist who has spent more than a decade researching the genetic impact of radiation around Chernobyl, says he worries that many people in Fukushima are "burying their heads in the sand." His Chernobyl research concluded that biodiversity and the numbers of insects and spiders had shrunk inside the irradiated zone, and the bird population showed evidence of genetic defects, including smaller brain sizes.
"The truth is that we don't have sufficient data to provide accurate information on the long-term impact," he says. "What we can say, though, is that there are very likely to be very significant long-term health impact from prolonged exposure."
In Soma, Mr Ichida says all the talk about radiation is confusing. "All we want to do is get back to work. There are many different ways to die, and having nothing to do is one of them."
Economic cost
Fukushima: Japan has estimated it will cost as much as £188bn to rebuild following the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis.
Chernobyl There are a number of estimates of the economic impact, but thetotal cost is thought to be about £144bn.
Safety
Fukushima: workers are allowed to operate in the crippled plant up to a dose of 250mSv (millisieverts).
Chernobyl: People exposed to 350mSv were relocated. In most countries the maximum annual dosage for a worker is 20mSv. The allowed dose for someone living close to a nuclear plant is 1mSv a year.
Death toll
Fukushima: Two workers died inside the plant. Some scientists predict that one million lives will be lost to cancer.
Chernobyl: It is difficult to say how many people died on the day of the disaster because of state security, but Greenpeace estimates that 200,000 have died from radiation-linked cancers in the 25 years since the accident.
Exclusion zone
Fukushima: Tokyo initially ordered a 20km radius exclusion zone around the plant
Chernobyl: The initial radius of the Chernobyl zone was set at 30km – 25 years later it is still largely in place.
Compensation
Fukushima: Tepco's share price has collapsed since the disaster largely because of the amount it will need to pay out, about £10,000 a person
Chernobyl: Not a lot. It has been reported that Armenian victims of the disaster were offered about £6 each in 1986
Aid
Fukushima: The UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported bilateral aid worth $95m
Chernobyl: 12 years after the disaster, the then Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma, complained that his country was still waiting for international help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
