Was Evacuating Fukushima a Mistake?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2024
- I explored the Fukushima Exclusion Zone for 10 days in the April of 2023. When I was there, I was honestly shocked by the amount of contamination. But when I got home, I was challenged by a concerning question: was the evacuation of Fukushima worth it? This is Part 3 of [EXPEDITION FUKUSHIMA].
Watch the rest of the series here: • [EXPEDITION FUKUSHIMA]
00:00 Intro
01:10 Part 3
05:19 Communication Meltdown
08:35 More Harm Than Good
13:36 The Complicated Conlcusion
💪 JOIN [THE FACILITY] for members-only live streams, behind-the-scenes posts, and the official Discord: / kylehill
👕 NUCLEAR WASTE WARNING MERCH OUT NOW! shop.kylehill.net
🎥 SUB TO THE GAMING CHANNEL: / @kylehillgaming
✅ MANDATORY LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, AND TURN ON NOTIFICATIONS
📲 FOLLOW ME ON SOCIETY-RUINING SOCIAL MEDIA:
📷 / sci_phile
😎: Kyle
✂: Charles Shattuck
🤖: @clairemax
🎨: Thorsten Denk www.z1mt.com/
🎼: @mey
🎹: bensound.com
🎨: Mr. Mass / mysterygiftmovie
🎵: freesound.org - Наука та технологія
*Thanks for watching.* This piece was the hardest to make in the series. I was truly confused and troubled by the radiation rates that I saw, having calibrated myself to lower ambient rates as in the CEZ. But when I got back home and took a deep breath, I believe the bigger picture -- this video -- revealed itself. Not one of the evacuations in response to the three most famous nuclear meltdowns was justified by cost-benefit.
They probably need a design revamp. They're units are constantly threatened by jellyfish.
Hey, is there any way you could make this series into a audio podcast? I really enjoy these pieces and would like to be able to access them while driving/walking etc.
Sometimes I think we as a society are so eager to "do the right thing" that we overlook what the actual right thing is. Evacuate them for the day - then be open and honest and ask yourself if this is really the best thing for them, or would allowing them to continue with the life they know and accept be the best thing. Children can't make a decision on the safety of their lives because they haven't lived it yet, but the elderly should be afforded that choice. I'll be honest - if I was in the situation presented, knowing that I'm in the "twilight phase" of my life, chances are I'd want to go back to the life I know and understand. Starting over is hard, and even harder for older generations because they have to relearn their whole world. Huge, huge kudos to you Kyle for presenting this - while it was hard for you to do it, you do so in a manner that is open and honest, and hopefully opens some serious lines of discussion.
Thanks for these videos. With these kind of disaster responses (or any government response for that matter), where scientists can objectively show that the steps taken are actually worse than the problem they are trying to solve, I always wonder, why? If we know the solution doesn't work, why do it anyway? I know in some cases it's hindsight. Research done after the fact. But if I understood your video correctly, the research has been done, it has shown it wasn't worth it years ago, the problem definitely hasn't gotten worse, yet the "solutions" are still in place, making things worse. There has to be a reason, even if it's ignorance, laziness or corruption.
It also makes me think of legal responsibilities and accountability. Let's say they didn't evacuate, and people had gotten sick. Who would be responsible? Could the responsible party even be held accountable? Can the government be held accountable for the damage caused by what should have been a safety measure?
I think the biggest issues nuclear energy faces right now are socio-political in nature rather than scientific. So I hope someday we can find the answers to the questions above and work on solving those.
I have a question about the average and the highiest rates of radiations there. Even if the average is safe, couldn't there be smallers places or objetcs that could damage the health of the citizens that choose to return? Is there a way to be sure that none of those possibily dangerous places and objects are fully safelly guarded or stored outside of public avaliable areas? I'm think about the accident that happend in Goiania with just a small quantity of glowing material, how much damage a insuspect place or object could do?
There was this thing with thyroid cancer in that area until somebody suggested "you check this very rigorously but do you have a control group from an area that is not contaminated?". When they introduced a control group/area that was checked as rigorously they found the same levels of thyroid cancers in the not contaminated area, they only reason they found elevated levels was because of rigorously testing.
“Doctors shocked at record levels of illness after rigorously checking a population for illness”
😮
(I wish shocked Pikachu was an emote)
Ho hoo, don't let them see that one radioactive apartment building where 1 old guy got leukemia and everyone else never got any cancer, ever, to the point that it made routine radiation baths seem like a highly effective cancer preventative that's one day going to be considered equivalent to brushing our teeth. "But that would cost money!" screamed the HMO. Yes, it would, it would probably cost lots of money. But less money than oncology so you can guess who will be paying the lobbyists saying "we've always lived with cancer and this fad won't cure it" right up until it basically does cure it. Cancer never gets "cured" because it's not a disease just like not brushing your teeth isn't a disease.
What's the source of this? Sounds like you just made it up.
@@vredneckv Better tests can find more of a thing? Can't explain that!
@vredneckv you'd be surprised. Not that I know if this *specific* event happened
My heart breaks when the elderly begged the government to let them return home soon.
you have to express some sort of agony so the courts give you a bigger pay check, the elderly know this young one
When the guy said that he was closer to the US then home, I legit started tearing up. These people are in a state of limbo, forced to move far away while the hope of returning harms them as much as it helps.
@@MrPaxio It's Japan, not the USA. You can't just sue for everything in Japan like you can in the USA. Also, Japan 100% cares more about family, tradition, the environment and everything than America does. All you care about are guns, freedumb, and your feelings.
@@MrPaxio Lots of old people are very attached to their homes and towns...
@@gothix5868AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!
This series taught me that radiation is both not as dangerous as and way more dangerous than I ever thought, the latter being specifically in cases where people deliberately mess around with it.
That is the interesting conundrum with radiation isn't it? It is both far more save than people realize it and stupendously dangerous when fucked around with. Where I work we have radiation sources for penetrating cameras for plastic film. There are a lot of safety features to ensure that you can no stand under the camera when the source is exposed and or in use. It automatically closes when not it use. The only times you come close to the thing even when closed is when you run a new film over the rollers when you start a line. You normally stand 2 meters from the thing while you walk around the line. It really is not at all dangerous when handeled sanely, however I have seen people treat it like it is the damned Elephants foot. Those same people then happily put there hands in Plasticizer which I guarantee you is NOT good for you, but is not scary radiation.
The dose makes the poison.
@@emilysmith6897 Yep. Even water can kill you if you drink too much.
@@grumbeard
radiation is just like guns, it's only "dangerous" to the uneducated but is safer than what most people think and will only really be dangerous especially on a wide scale if humans are the ones weaponizing and utilizing it.
@@HeartlesSv420but you can sit right next to a thousand gallons of water for a lifetime and have no ill effects, unless you actively ingest it to excess.
It's been mentioned in the comments that "abscense of an evacuation order does not mean people will relax and feel safe." This highlights the importance of public education.
It would be extremely difficult to change the government's stance on this. The political backlash they'd receive for not being overcautious would be far too great, as most people wouldn't recognise an "acceptable amount of radiation" no matter how much evidence you'd provide that it's theoretically safe.
The fossil fuel industry has seen to that.
The NRC hasn't done any favors, either.
Invisible stuff scary. I agree.I'm very pro-nuclear, but you can't see the radiation. I also lived near TMI.
I think it's time to start considering whether the modern democratic state also falls into the "more harm than good" category. A system that rewards politicians who cater to the preferences of an often uniformed and fearful electorate simply isn't suitable for the complexities of a technological civilization.
More and more, we see the challenges facing the world have obvious, easy solutions that have been ignored because they are not politically viable. People starve while GMO crops that could have ended hunger 20 years ago remain banned in much of the world. Novel drugs that could save millions of lives per year spend decades awaiting regulatory approval, or are locked behind outdated intellectual property rules that leave them underproduced and out of reach of those that need them most. Rising sea levels threaten half the world's major cities when we could have already transitioned to clean, safe, zero-carbon nuclear a generation ago, etc.
😂😂😂 stfu lmao literally nobody actually cares
"The real pain and suffering in Japan is not radiation sickness, its homesickness". That's so good Kyle, I'd like to see Voyager try to write poetry like that.
yeah, your priorities aint right if you want to return somewhere thats gonna hit you with a CT scan worth every 1-2h. "my house is further than the usa right now" thats...... mind boggling..... what does it even mean
It means that he lives closer US border than he's old home, I guess
@@MrPaxio He's speaking metaphorically, saying, "It is easier for me to get to the US than to get back home." His home is physically very close, but comparing the red tape preventing him from returning home to the red tape involved when migrating to another country, his home might as well be on another planet.
@@MrPaxio didn't Kyle say in the video that it was around 1 CT per year?
@@MrPaxio Did you watch the video? He said a CT scan every year, then less overtime
I'm a 55 year old guy (military vet) and a science geek, I find your productions engaging, succinct and professional. You make fact based videos, not emotion based and you obviously do your homework. Few UA-camrs travel to such (potentially) hazardous places to get a first hand account and do so much time consuming research before making videos and presenting material. Please keep up the outstanding work and stay safe sir.
not emotion based. Last segment is literally "the fear kills babies" without fully exploring the issue like if birth rates bounced back in the later years.
You should check your bias cause this video is made to appeal and influence
@@klonkrieger43Maybe you should watch and maybe engage with the vidoe a little bit more. In the last segment Kyle was talking about how the mothers in Greece and Italy were aborting their children as a false preception was brought up with the radiation from Chernobyl. Radiation can cause birth defects and the mothers were scared something would happen to them or their soon to be children due to the fact the radiation wasnt at all what the governments thought it was, atleast not in western europe. And Im sure the birth rates bounced back up but not by a lot. The fear of radiation and nuclear accidents are still a very common thing even to this day, so seeing how people were tramatized by others saying a reactor exploded in 1986 somewhere in Ukraine, I feel like an uninformed populous would react like was said in the video.
@@Peanut08522 I did watch the video and I get the message and I see where he comes from, but he uses bad methods and deception to arrive at a narrative he wants.
Do you think it's a coincidence he always uses the absolute lowest number for deaths from radioactive accidents. Other studies put them much higher, those numbers weirdly find no mention.
How about the adverse mental health effects from returning to irradiated homes? Most people can't afford to just leave.
Why the need to repeat the mSv values so much and displaying how they are far below 100 per year and then neglecting to mention that people living in that area will receive much more than the number recorded from environment because people don't only live somewhere. They take flights, they get CT scans and they eat the food grown there.
Must be just a lot of coincidences. Kyle would never be dishonest, right?
Yes and no. The problem is, that people in general, ESPECIALLY in large crowds, react mostly emotional when the shit hits the fan. Remember the last "big thing" just barely 1 year ago? Where was the rational acting of govnments, media and people? Do you think this will be any better, when the next big thing hits?
As someone who watches documentaries like this on a frequent basis, I have to say that this is one of the most moving ones I've ever watched. Amazing work bringing this truth to the public eye.
The one thing we can't measure is the stress injuries that people would have gotten if they were not evacuated. If they had stayed in place, they could still have gotten PTSD and other traumas from the incident. There is always the stress from "am I going to die because nobody told me to flee?"
This is the thing that concerns me the most, since I don't think there is a case where we can compare. Plus, some of the solutions are not without its consequences. Won't allowing the elderly to return home but not the young cause families to be split up? And who shall take care of those that need care? And even if we took long-tern evacuations out of the picture (which seems to be the actual issue rather than evacuations in itself), there are other factors mental health studies take into account, like stigma for living in that area.
As someone who was close to a fire evacuation zone from a huge fire a couple years ago, I have diagnosed PTSD from it. I wasn't told to evacuate, but I loaded my car anyways. I was ready. I didn't sleep for nights because I wanted to make sure that if the fire got closer, I would see it. It was terrifying. I didn't end up having to evacuate, and I still have nightmares about being told not to evacuate only to end up getting trapped by the fire and burning.
@@youremyfavoritesong9868 The fire will come back one day. I hope you know that
You would have the choice.
This point also came to mind. It’s why I have deep issues with scientists at times because you made a very reasonable point here, same one that came to my mind, and yet he didn’t even mention it in the video.
I mean just think the nocebo effect coupled with a nuclear meltdown close to you, and the government told you not to leave? The paranoia would drive people insane
I feel like this is one of the biggest problems we face. The lack of education in media is a bummer. It exists, but it's buried under reactionary content. I really appreciate you taking the time to teach us. 👍
The news has always been half made up.
This is one of those things. Like ecosocialism is great and all, but people in this camp have exaggerated effects of low level nuclear meltdowns. Michael Shellenberger, before he grifted the grift of a culture war reactionary, was right about the overreaction to such nuclear meltdowns. Now, every responsible academic (of whom Shellenberger sadly doesn’t belong) knows the data about harm is a result of evacuations themselves, consistent with the socioeconomic features of forced displacement.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Like any disaster, do you err on the side of caution, or do you meter the response.
You can never know which is the right response until after the threat has passed.
Hard to believe that someone I started watching for the science of "Mortal Kombat" is now making what I think are some of the most interesting, and even important videos populating my feed.
Seriously, I appreciate the work you're doing here.
This is generally just such a fascinating trend with youtube
it started with "silly stupid video haha" and now we've got videos that make you go "Dude how the hell is this up online for free?"
It's difficult to make people think neutrally about a form of energy connected with cancer, radiation poisoning and the worst weapons we have ever built. The first reaction is fear, and logic flees in the face of fear. So thank you for making us think about this.
i like the line "logic flees in the face of fear." as it's so true
considering that nukes most probably stopped ww3 just by existing in enough quantities makes them for me by far the best weapon we ve created yet
@@ace_of_laze it didn't stop WW3, it just made sure super powers would use proxy wars instead of engaging each other directly. if you sum up all the deaths caused by proxy wars and revolutions you would get a number that puts it in the top 10 most deadly wars. the difference is that if anyone dare to press a button, the world ends.
you are describing coal and oil
@@ace_of_laze Nukes postponed ww3.
This was... interesting to listen to. I was stationed at Yokota AFB, located in the city of Fusa, at the time the earthquake/tsunami hit. I still remember being awoken by the shaking, as even as far inland as we were it was still registered as a 5.0 quake, and shrugging it off. We had just gotten off a week long exercise and I had been on night shift. I remember being issued iodine tablets in case we needed them. To being told to have 72 hr bags ready with any important documents ready to go in case the base needed to be abandoned. That anything I couldn't take with me would be written off. We were told we couldn't even travel through a 50 mile radius of the plant, not even on rail. The stress levels were as you can imagine, very high.
And I was just stationed there.
I disagree with your initial accessment of the evacuation order.
Yes, hind sight is 20/20. And maybe people could have returned sooner.
But evacuating people out of the unknown risk or fear of more melt downs or radiation seems to me to be a smart move.
I want to protect my fellow man. So I ask them to leave their home for protection.
But, again, I strongly agree that the return was mismanaged.
The Fukushima meltdown wouldn't affect you just standing a few hundred meters from the plant building. The Fukushima radiation releases were gas and water. The water was dilluted into the Pacific ocean, and gas was released into the air.
@@ChucksSEADnDEADyou are saying this from perespective where you know how the events proceeded in days, weeks and months after the incident started. people making the decisions were not in that position. they made decisions that would benefit most people in worst case scenario. there is nothing wrong with that.
those kind of incidents are not sonething that happen on regular basis so we need to learn from the few that happened and adjust future decisions.
I have always enjoyed these half-life videos so much. They are measured, more quiet and sombre, but they resonate louder than any other kind of videos you make. Keep up this amazing effort.
Society and people need to hear these and ponder.
While the data has made it clear that the evacuation caused more harm than good in hindsight, I find it hard to lay any blame on the leaders who greenlit the evacuation. The tension between being able to act on reliable information versus making a timely one in an unclear situation is an extremely difficult balancing act.
I am reminded of the time when one of the biggest typhoons in recorded history, Haiyan (Yolanda) struck Tacloban City in the Philippines in 2013. The locals weren't familiar with "storm surges" as a meteorological term but were familiar with "tsunamis". The government, insisting on using the correct technical term, issued warnings to evacuate these areas due to incoming storm surges. The result was that people became confused on how dire the situation was and led to slow, reluctant evacuations. Thousands died in a single night. Had the government used the word "tsunamis", it could've saved a lot more lives even if it was factually incorrect.
I still believe that most of the Japanese leaders had their hearts in the right places when they gave the order to evacuate. It takes a true leader to act decisively given the circumstances when others are more interested in being right than being effective.
But will they ever admit the mistakes that take lives? No especially if they're still in power!
Yes this is something Kyle never brought up in this video. The evacuations were done because the reactors were not under control and risked further explosions. Sure when the reactors were under control (months later) they could have removed the evacuation. And this was the main point of this video.
Wasn't it already critized a short time after that the evacuation was way too much? Yet they kept people away
@@andykillsuthank you!
I was living in Japan and was a part of the evacuation effort. The potential for the run away event to further escalate was the main reason for the evacuation, and the government tried to lift the exclusion zone multiple times but protests prevented them. The general public is weary of nuclear anything, and political pressure is what's actively preventing people from moving back in
That is a failure of education not messaging.
Simply putting storm surge videos on TV would fix most of it.
"Everyone is a genius in hindsight" - I say this often. This is a situation where the govt would have just been overcautious, because if they hadn't, and things became catastrophic for those that weren't evacuated - the govt would get slammed and sued for that. It makes a lot of sense in a panicked situation to just evacuate - be safe more than sorry.
The ramifications are terrible, with all the mental anguish, but it was for the greater good.
As I said at the start - it's super easy to criticise decisions made in the moment, where we're these people criticising the govt when they were making the decisions, I ask?
Its also significantly safer to criticize after the fact, while doing it at the time could have been professional suicide after the public backlash they would have received
@@agafaba exactly. Agree.
The issues in my mind are (i) the large amount of time for which the government forced people to relocate - in fact, right after the accident there is will be a big worry about short-term iodine-131 radiation, but that's gone after a month or so. There's a big difference between a 3-week evacuation and a 3-year evacuation! (ii) the fact that it was forced, not a choice. People could have been informed of the risks and allowed to make their own choices. (iii) Slow decision-making and bias toward believing the very highest estimates regarding radiation harms (iv) The elderly had the lowest risk of radiation-induced cancer but the highest risk of health impacts from relocation, yet they were treated the same as everyone else (v) reasonable evacuation plans could and should have been made in advance, and I don't know if such plans were made/followed but if they were, they must have been biased by antinuclear assumptions such as "the highest conceivable harms from radiation should be assumed to be true".
the point of discussing this is to let everyone know "overly cautious is not good lets not do it again."
not just critisise whatever they did 13 years ago
A responsible government would evacuate a zone larger than probably necessary, for a longer time than absolutely necessary. Once scientists have gotten to check things out and make reasonable determinations, residents should have been given the option to repopulate, after providing notification that they understand, or at least accept the risks.
Also factor in the _active_ danger of a "shelter in place" order. Had anything more happened, and very well could have, then you would've had thousands of people sitting in a highly radiated area. 20/20 hindsight. The worst didn't happen, and now everyone wants to second guess things.
Exactly my thoughts. This whole video is premised around 20/20 hindsight. I have no skin in the game to argue for Japan but even I can see the argument that had cooling efforts not been successful, the containment vessels could have exploded and we would have a completely different video here.
Particularly since it's not like we had many previous reactor-hit-by-tsunami incidents to predict what would have happened at the time
I'm so glad there's a few of us who aren't falling over ourselves to blurt out 'nuclear good, evacuation bad' off the top of their heads. I think it's great to have honest discussions about radiation but it's extremely irresponsible for this video to have a title implying 'maybe everybody woulda been fine to stay home' just to capitalize on the egotism of the modern idiot. Got thousands of those here, using all the fancy words they can to slobber praise on Mr. Ignore-Disasters.
This video proved to me that anyone can portray data to prove their point regardless of what that point may be, all while claiming transparency and promoting the idea they understand the nuances of a situation. We can be led to believe anything as long as someone presents it in a way that validates our own preconceived notions. For example, i came away from this video believing that a segment of concerns regarding the disaster was hyper-focused on and done in a way that didn't acknowledge the immediate concerns at that time (e.g., possible further breakdown of the cores, further damage from aftershocks, etc.). Things that were unknown at the time. Additionally, with such a large evac, governments take time to make major decisions once something like that is in place. There are other real world considerations that can't be ignored.
I'm glad to hear another view and will certainly keep this in mind while researching this topic further. However, I am questioning the motivations of this presentation as well as its conclusions. I am also disturbed by so many others immediate praise and acceptance of this one short video on the topic as the gospel truth that would apply to all affected. I get the message from some of the comments that a contrarian should be lauded for their stance for that sake alone or for the fact they show data to support their claims. If there's one thing that can be learned from statistics, it's that scientific data can be used to support just about any conclusion.
@@FlamboyantOctopus It's pretty well known among media analysts that bias is common in media, but in Kyle's defence:
1) most bias is unconscious and usually doesn't have a dramatic effect
2) Kyle's analysis at least seems to be pretty accurate and fair *if we only focus on the prolonged phase of the evacuation*, which seems to be his intent
3) Kyle typically includes quite a lot of nuance in his videos on radiation related incidents
I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here - I suspect his intent was to criticise the extended phase of the evacuation orders and that his criticisms were developed genuinely based on the evidence collected during this research trip, but at the same time it's still valid and important to call out the absent discussion of the initial decision making process including a risk of further catastrophe that we only know now, with hindsight, didn't wind up happening.
I'm not saying this to *excuse* the error because the result is that the video is spreading significant misinformation, only to note that there's a big difference between accidental bias and misleading communication (what we see here), and the much more sinister negligent or actively deceptive media we tend to think of when discussing misinformation and bias
Thank you for doing things like this, Kyle, with all the respect such sensitive matters deserve. Life is never clear cut, easy, or simple - it is complicated and full of nuance, and understanding these things can help dispel some of the smoke, mirrors, and illusions that fear, doubt, and misguided self-interest can cast.
I will have a lot to consider regarding this incident that I may have treated less seriously then I should have in the past, and every bit of information (or an incentive to research further) helps.
You better believe in the sht he's talking in his vids, which have been factually false several times. He's heads first in the nuclear lobby's butt.
You did NOT watch the full vid when you made this stfu
Your videos truly make me sit down, stop, and think about how the actions of the world governments have such an impact on not only their citizens but of the rest of the population of surround countries. This needs to be spoken about more. Thank you for the video
Kyle, While I agree that the current evacuation is not required in most areas. The main reason the evacuation happened in the first place was because the fear of more reactor explosions. This is something you fail to mention in this video. The reactors were not fully secure/stable for months after the explosions. Once they were stable, the evacuation could have been lifted in most areas.
One of my biggest complaints about Kyle's ongoing nuclear series, is this.
I enjoy his videos and agree with most points, but he does exclude some very important nuance, and for this in particular it was EXTREMELY important for the Japanese government to be proactive.
Had the situation gotten much worse, and people get hurt from a delayed response from them, we quite literally would have seen Japanese leaders taken to the stake for allowing people to get hurt when they had more than enough time to issue the evacuation order. Luckily it didn't get worse, and luckily they did react in a way that would have prevented more harm to people.
@@MustachioFurioso9134 i agree he should have mentioned that, yet i dont see his video as a full on protest against the japanese goverment and more so an informative video about the risks of bad comunication/ the results of these evacuations wich we need to look at and learn from. wich fukushima is a "great" example.
This!
Also he failed to mention that one of the plant workers died from lung cancer after the meltdown, and that the estimate for the number of increased cancer related deaths ranges from between 160 and 1,300, not even close to the 0.7 figure from Three Mile Island that he misleadingly makes a comparison to.
Don't get me wrong that's still less than the 2,200 that died from the evacuation, but if he had just presented all the facts as they are he could have told just as convincing of an argument without having to bend the facts.
I agree.
While I know it's important to talk and think critically about nuclear energy, you can't do that without being realistic about the human element involved, too.
Japan has a scary, scarring history with nuclear problems. You have to be overly cautious because people remember stuff like the Marshall islands. People were poisoned with knowledge being withheld. There is a real lack of trust involved.
Quote all the science you want, the reaction at the time was just, and responsibly handled. The follow up was iffy.
Kyle is doing a good job but he is avoiding a large part of the conversation on the topic.
The "reactor explosions" were hydrogen build up in the roof area of the plant. The actual reactor was fine, the roof of the building was blown off.
H2 is pretty violent when it goes off. But it's more of a deflagration than detonation.
It’s easy to look back and make these determinations but in the immediate aftermath there are too many unknowns not to take action. Will the situation with the plant become worse? Is there contaminated water? Is there contaminated rain/snow? How will weather patterns affect the distribution of contaminants? Etc. etc.
But this is also a huge opportunity to inform future evacuations, now that we know how we ended up messing up
Dude did you even watch the video.
Urgh, in principle you're right, but i honestly dont think the harm could be entirely avoided by not evacuaring people. I dont think the average person is particularly well equipped to do a dry maths based calculation like this. Theyre going to be scared depressed, panicked ptsd whether theyre evacuated or not.
If many won't return even though the government says it's now safe, what would meaningfully change if the government had told them to change in the first place?
I mostly agree with this comment, except the very last bit. It's entirely possible people haven't returned because it's been long enough that they've rebuilt their lives somewhere else, and they don't want to leave those lives. Also, they may have finally healed their trauma/found a way to manage it, and worry that returning would bring that back. Theoretically, these things could be avoided if they hadn't been evacuated in the first place or, what I think is more reasonable, been allowed to return much sooner
@@stuffinsthegreat To expand upon this, Japan has a history of radiophobia, due in part to the nuclear bombings of ww2, which has informed their government level policies. Its perfectly possible that if the public was properly informed and policy was better matched to reality, people would not have been so worried about going back or leaving. Its also difficult to return when half of your local town hasnt either.
There were plenty of people who didnt want to or didnt think it was necessary to leave, or wanted to return earlier as well.
@@stuffinsthegreatwho would want to live in a exclusion zone? A lot of it is still.contaminated. don believe this "it is dafe bullshit". Kyle would not live there even if he was paid to!
This was one of the most enthralling videos I have watched in a LONG time. The thinking, combined with your wonderful story telling made these 17 minutes feel like they were gone in mere moments. Thank you, for another great video.
i thought one of the reason for evac was a possibility that more hydrogen could go BOOM.
we could talk about contamination now, but at the moment, not everything was under control.
so in the context of limited info, was the large scale evac a correct action?
The roofs could not explode again (without roofing, hydrogen that caused the explosions would float into the sky) so after 3 explosions, at worst there could only be one more - on the shut-down reactor that was least likely to have a problem. Also, the hydrogen itself isn't the problem, I don't think it's even radioactive. Isotopes like cesium and iodine are the issue, but Japan has an emergency alert system that could have quickly told residents in case of another leak.
No. The question is whether no evacuation or a small evacuation would have been better. We know (and knew at the time) that a big evacuation was a dumb idea.
I think it's easy to say in hindsight, after more than a decade of studies, that the evacuation did more harm than good, but at the time people were operating under limited information. We may live in a world where evacuating did more damage than the radiation, but there's equally a world where they didn't evacuate, only to find out they miscalculated.
So this is why you should learn from it instead of keep fearing nuclear power
There was a very real fear that the plant would explode in the immediate aftermath, and I think that influenced the government’s decisions even after the risk of a total meltdown lowered. I’m not sure any government, with limited information and disastrous consequences if they’re wrong, would act much differently in that situation. 🤷♀️
Kind of hard to when what we learned from this incident is that TEPCO was incompetent, didn't implement basic safeguards against predictable threats and their statements to the public were wrong and hamfisted. @@a7G-82r
People will be saying the same thing in 2030. Whoopsie, we went fully tyranny for a good reason :3
Precisely. A subtle but important distinction between "mistake" versus "turned out not to be necessary".
I appreciate the way that you present information like this, and as someone in their mid 60's, I can begin to see more and more how your comments about allowing the elderly to return is important. Younger families can often times bounce back from bad situations like this, but to the elderly that haven't got that ability any longer, it's a situation that truly does need exploring further. As crass as this may sound to some, what have they got to lose by allowing them to return to the lives they left behind? If we can't show proof positive that they are facing immeasurable risk, why not allow them to spend their golden years as they desire?? Maybe we need to learn from nature.
Exactly. Giving people the choice to live freely as they dictate is so important. Over and over we see choice, dignity, and agency create positive health effects all across the spectrum. (and by choice I mean, they are funded and safe either way. Not forcing them to return because resettlement is so hopeless and distressing that they are forced to return to a place where they perceive danger).
and the fact there are more likely to live longer home then as evacuees
@ablaze1154 Absolutely! The data happens to support going back right away (which is a super interesting observation and i am so glad this video was made)! These elders would have had a better quality of life even if it was somewhat bad for their health to return.
People allowed to age-in-place thrive more than being put in hospital or group health care settings, even if technically hospitals can support their health better.
If only seniors return, who then cuts the grass, operates the stores, delivers takeout, provides health care...
@@specoflint There are definitely details to he worked out in the planning.
Thank you for attempting to set the bar with honest science and coverage of important topics. I hope your work sets forth a new wave in science communication and literacy
Well, to be honest, being overly safe is likely better than the chance that thousands of people get high doses of radiation. The situation was uncontrollable due to the flooding.
As to the increase of suicide rates, thats something common across Japan atm. If you google the declining birth rate occurring there, people are going through a hard time all around there.
Wasn't there a statistically significant increase in the rates of illnesses like cancer and birth defects in the shadow of the plume after Chernobyl? Given that, wouldn't it have been a real risk to stay in what is now the CEZ?
Kind of a tricky question. If you're downwind you're getting fallout, but the area around the plant was cleaned up so it might actually be safer there.
The issue would be construction or people who want to have their small farms/gardens because digging would resurface contaminants that were buried back then.
I'm so glad you've incorporated this topic into your series. The older I get the more of reality I see is governed by the mind rather than matter. I love that you acknowledge the personal biases you have to overcome before making conclusions worth sharing, and I believe with time you'll help to push science communication towards those much-needed principles of transparency and holistic thinking.
It's hard to think of what I'd do in that situation.
I feel like I could never again be comfortable in an area that was underneath the plume cloud.
Even if there wasn't an Evacuation order, I'd have picked up my bags and left, my family has done so before, simply to search for work.
But for those who've lived their entire lives in those towns and cities, it's understandable how staggering it could be.
The end of the HBO series Chernobyl shows a graphic explaining that the official death toll according to the Soviet (and now Russian) government was 28, and the viewer throws up their hands in frustration, knowing that many more deaths were the result of the late evacuation. Now, that same figure is given, and we're supposed to think, "Golly, that's not so bad."
Much as I'm in favor of newer and safer nuclear technology, I'm highly wary of how many people are acting ignorantly enthusiastic about pretending there's no danger whatsoever.
The takeaway should be that risk is relative. We will realistically need firm electricity generation, and we have a choice between (A) power sources that are widely agreed to cause millions of premature deaths AND global warming, and (B) a power source that is widely agreed to have likely caused thousands of cancers - most of which were caused by just one kind of reactor that has never been legal outside the Soviet Union - and doesn't cause global warming. (I know many people believe 100% renewable is affordable, but this is mainly because of one single litigious individual named Mark Z Jacobson who reached his conclusion with a flawed software model that permitted unlimited instantaneous power generation from hydro-electric stations.)
The biggest take away you should have from Chernobyl and Fukashima is if you’re going to build a nuclear reactor you shouldn’t cut corners or build it cheaply
@@SizzleCorndog Outside the USSR, that takeaway was learned more than a decade before Chernobyl Unit 4 was built. That's why none of the reactors operating today (which were mostly built in the 1970s) go without containment buildings, or use the unstable combination graphite+light water+natural uranium that Chernobyl did. As for Fukushima ... I think the takeaway is that regulators just need to do their job. They should have noticed at some point that there was a significant risk of tsunami, and (just for starters) could have added/moved emergency generators outside the basement. But for all the shortcomings of Fukuishima's early-1970s design, they had containment buildings (which stayed intact) and stable fission, so all 3 meltdowns together were a smaller disaster than Chernobyl's single-unit failure.
I would say radiation is not a thing to mess around with.
But it could be easily used in other planets where it has radiation whatsoever
12:20 New studies find there is no threshold below which radiation is safe. The 100 mSv dose used to be the lowest radiation dose that older epidemiological studies were able to detect an elevated risk of cancer, because they used smaller sample sizes. They did not prove radiation was safe below 100 mSv, they simply weren't able to detect rare cases of cancer, masked by other causes. Epidemiological studies into radiation risks have to compensate for levels of smoking (one of the biggest factors), obesity, diet, chemical exposure, viruses etc., and for nuclear workers, they also have to correct for the Healthy Worker Effect (nuclear workers have a higher socioeconomic status and receive close medical monitoring, this means their risk of cancer is lower than average).
Many newer studies that properly compensate for various lifestyle factors and the Healthy Worker Effect, and use very large sample sizes (>100,000 people), found that there is safe no threshold for radiation exposure i.e. studies detected an elevated risk of cancer below 100 mSv e.g. the 15-country study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry, recent studies of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The risk is small, but it is there.
Also, a new study was just published (involving 309,932 nuclear workers sand 10.7 million person years) that once again found there is no threshold below which radiation is safe, but additionally they suggest that the risk of developing cancer might be higher at lower doses (
This should surprise noone
I was part of a large scale evacuation (Town of approximately 7000 permanent residents) due to wildfires (so, very immediate, very real threat of death) and was able to return with my family after 12 days. I cannot imagine what it would have been like for a much longer period.
Currently living in japan. That part where the bell sounded really made it feel real. That same bell sounds across the country at noon. It was really weird to hear in Fukushima.
it must be huge.
Also don't forget that many people would have experienced mental health harms from staying in place. They'd be falsely convinced of grave danger and be convinced they were going to get cancer etc. etc
And this would lead to many volountary evacuations undertaken without support which would mean things weren't the same for those who stayed.
Yes, in an ideal world it would have been volountary but the problem is that often various kinds of assistance and payment depend on it being non-volountary.
I see no reason the government would be unable to assist/pay people who left voluntarily (or who stayed, for that matter)
@@davidpiepgrass743 In theory, of course not. But often there is a giant bureaucracy that is hard to move and change. It's all well to say make it different but in practice this often takes a long time and moving quickly creates problems and oversights.
But that is something we should look into being prepared for in case it happens again. Make sure that in these cases there is a status which grants access to all the same kind of assistance as forced evacuation.
@@davidpiepgrass743 To make this more concrete, I don't know about the Japanese context but in the US context if the government issued an order condemning your property and denying you all use of it you'd be able to sue for fair compensation under the 5th amendment.
In contrast, if they don't legally force you to give up use of your property then you'd lack such a right.
Ideally, congress would pass a law saying that anyone in the volountary evacuation zone gains the same rights to fair compensation for their property and can sue to enforce those rights (eg if they think the compensation wasn't fair) but getting things past the legislature is hard.
@@petergerdes1094 I would think there's a standard accident insurance policy that would help pay for nuclear accidents - but since they are very expensive, the government may need to provide additional funding. I remember that the US Congress refused to give health coverage to 9/11 first responders, so yeah that's a potential problem, but I find it odd to _expect_ one part of the government to intentionally break the constitution (that people not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") in order to activate a legal remedy in another part of the government. Or maybe you mean the part about "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" even though technically the government isn't taking the property (for public use or otherwise).
@@davidpiepgrass743 Courts have held that if government action extinguishes virtually all value in a piece of land it qualifies as a taking (so they can zone it if they want, limit how you can use it but if they try and say it's now zoned a nature preserve and you can't touch anything it's a taking). It's a bit fuzzy but i'm pretty sure an order that you basically can't use that land for any purpose because it's in the zone would qualify.
I'm not saying constitutional provisions would be the primary issue. It's just an example to point out how we often have rules which say: if the government makes you do something you get such and such and less frequently have similar ones for cases where they say you may do something.
This video is a stunning depiction of the calamity that still looms over Fukushima post-disaster. It's both fascinating and heartbreaking to see the impacts, beyond the immediate destruction, which are still being felt years later.
Thank you for all the time and care you did in creating this video. Not only has it kept me informed about all things nuclear, but it has increased my perception on the miscommunication between the people of Fukushima, Japan and government.
Love the content, Mr. Hill. Please keep up the awesome work!
Im loving this series. It is very insightful and well researched. One area I think needed more attention was the impact on infants and children. Even after watching this series, I would be very concerned about the impact on my child if I lived in an area with 100mSv excess ambient radiation.
I feel like a big reason people arent returning
Look at the house.
Half the windows are gone. The place is trashed. The Shrine outside is rubble.
So what reason to move back?
It would be a lot of effort to fix that house back up, and its been more than a Decade. Theyve found a place to live elsewhere.
For most. Its going to be more conveinient to just stay where they are.
And then the Radiation rates being higher than base, even if its not dangerous, is going to drive away even those that would want to return. Theres no benefit now.
As for evacuating in the first place.
Frankly. Its better to be overly cautious.
Sure in this case you can look back and say it wasnt needed.
But at the time. You have to expect the worst. Otherwise youll be blamed for every person harmed
Funny coincidence that this was uploaded right now- I just finished a school project on nuclear energy, and now I wish I had this earlier to throw in more details.
There's a lot of conflicting talk on linear no-threshold model vs threshold model, but Kyle offhandedly showed a preference for threshold model.
I'm raising my eyebrow.
Yep. This is concerning. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and EPA both endorse this model. But he favors one and brushes over it with no discussion.
The notion that the death toll is “zero” is laughable. What would that toll be without evacuation? I love Kyle’s content but I found this piece journalistically flawed.
Same kind of logical paradox as “helmets cause more head injuries”. Yes but they’re not dead!
More people will suffer from mental illness than die when evacuated. If we didn’t evacuate, they could be ill. I don’t get why he harped on that point so hard when it’s really not a point at all.
My guess is he did that on purpose so we can spot it, coz we're nerds in training... When he kept saying "zero.." I was like 🤔🧐
This series is one of my favorites in science communication. I'm hoping to start college soon to work on an Environmental Science degree and this series is a huge part of that. Incredible work as always.
Dude you’re such a legend for the way you communicate the reality of nuclear energy/disasters. Thanks for being so consistent 😊
Amazing content More educational then my highschool science class and I can actually pay attention to this
You are an inspiration to and many thank you for doing this kind of research and sharing it with all of us❤
This is a wonderful piece that opens a very necessary conversation around disaster response.
Really appreciate this series and this content. I hope information like this makes it out to the public at large. Keep up the good work.
excellent video, but i do not agree that Chernobyl disaster is not directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of first responders such as firefighters and countless men who were cleaning up the graphite rods of the reactor roof.
Nvm, I just reread what you said 2 more times. I agree as well.
Yeah that was a really dumb take.
Evacuation orders extending too far and having no plans for returning people isn't the same thing as "Da comrade, you are bio-robot now, shovel this core graphite into the pit".
there were several firefighters that died, but definitely not hundreds. Rather around 10 people who were the first firefighters there before the actual risk was known. Later on, they only allowed people to go to the roof for about half a minute and would take turns. There were not nearly as many deaths as we were made to believe.
Unfortunately the groups against nuclear power will always have a stronger voice than the science because people are fearful of policies around nuclear. We need more information like your videos.
This video popped up on my feed as something that might interest me, and it’s the first I’ve seen of your videos. I must say, VERY WELL DONE Kyle! Very well done! I’ll be subscribing and watching some of your previous videos.
Thank you for being a beacon of knowledge on this sea of radiation uncertainty. I knew the displacement of people during a disaster takes its toll on the people and their mental health, but I did not realize the totality of the numbers over the course of the decade plus it has been since Fukushima.
I have never been this early. Keep up the great content 👑
This series of videos have become one of my favourites in all of youtube, thank you very much for spreading such great information and messages
Have you thought about adding captions in different languages to hopefully spread them even farther?
"Until next time"
I get shivers every time. Another great video going into my favorite playlist on UA-cam.
I really appreciate your work on this, but I would like to hear more on the side of "we don't know yet..." An evacuation is almost always a good idea when still gathering information. What point did scientists have a good enough grasp on the fallout from this incident to make a reliable call on if people should return home?
As far as I remember: before the evacuation was complete. Before the big one actually started, actually. What wasn’t clear was whether the correct choice was a small evacuation or no evacuation.
This is a masterpiece Kyle! Thank you for showcasing these so important studies that otherwise would've not reached the same amount of people.
Top quality as always, Kyle. Thank you for going the extra mile on this series.
Love all the effort you put into these videos
Thanks for explaining milli-sieverts. There’s a dizzying array of units of measure related to radiation, and while it’s beneficial to explain them as they crop organically in these documentaries, I have to wonder if a dedicated episode explaining them wouldn’t be beneficial in the long run.
agreed, so many people get their feet wet in the radiation topic from his videos. and i feel like some basics would be apreciated by loads of people.
Love this series.
Allowing the elderly to return seems like a humane decision, but out of curiosity, I wonder if they would be able to enjoy their lives as they were before? How do you offer services (stores, healthcare, services, etc.) to them if they're the only population interested in going back? Where will they shop for groceries? Where will they they get healthcare? Where will they go to the bank?
If there was more trust into the population that radiation has no effects over 20+ years, maybe younger populations could return and fill these jobs but otherwise it is more complex than just telling people to go back.
You are a absolute gold reporter. You learned me so much new thing in a subject I thought I knew a little bit about, actually learning me more than I thought I knew.
What a great video! This was really eye opening and the way information was presented was super engaging!
The opposite of evacuating isn't a peaceful stay at home
The opposite of evacuation stress is the stress of being around a faulty reactor, not knowing if the threshold will increase and you'll be forced to leave home without notice, living in fear of the radiation damage despite assurances from the government which might get worse if communication is as poor as it was in the evacuation scenario
Fukushima was a disaster in disaster handling but the equation isn't that simple to balance
This episode hit deep. You outdid yourself on this one. Absolutely amazing work. The world needs this information more than ever as we progress into a more nuclear-powered world. Shattering misconceptions is what it's all about.
your serious videos always make me want to cry by the end yet i love each and every one of them
That video was amazing man. Eye opening. Thanks for what you do
The evacuation was a success in protecting what it was meant to protect: Whatever was left of the public opinion at the time.
Nope. That government was replaced within a year, the political party never returning to power.
Can't agree enough with you, sir.
evacuation is necessary in preventing the anticipated bigger disasters, but if the perceived disaster is managed carefully, then evacuation should be lifted...
Basically, the video is saying that the evacuation order was pretty great at the time, even though nowadays it's seen as a shortsighted bureaucratic overreaction, and the indirect mental health issues from the evacuation orders has done more harm to the evacuees than the radiation did to them.
Personally, although it's a different circumstances from a different country with a different government and a different society, I see this in the same way as to how China handled the Pandemic, the government is keen on putting entire cities in lockdown and testing population so thoroughly, though a bit too much, it was great for them, it was necessary and justifiable for the early stages of the pandemic back in 2020, but continuing that policy for years? counter-productive... the broader economic strain it put itself in with those measures has done more harm to more of the population than the virus did.
im confused. Aren't there like dozens of documentaries about the birth defects of kids around Chernobyl and Fukushima? how can you say there are no health effects from the fallout.
Yes. He is spreading propaganda. I wonder how much he is paid.🤔
Yeah something's not right here. This video conveniently left out some things. Also.. it's hard to prove WHY someone got cancer.. but nevertheless studies do show and increase of thyroid cancer in young children around Chernobyl so saying nothing happened is problemetic. Also.. not dying doesn't mean that your health wasn't negatively affected at all. I've personally survived a cancer diagnosis and needed massive amounts of radiation in order for my tumour to shrink. And while I survived I still have negative health effects from the radiation I received (GI and skin issues mostly) and an increased risk of Leukemia. Better safe than sorry..no extra radiation is "safe" and who's to say your mental health wouldn't also suffer if you still lived in that area.
Why was my comment deleted
@@svenja5596 Yeah. Look up "leucemia cluster elbmarsch".
There was an nuclear facility in elbmarsch, germany and an increased number of children diagnosed with leucemia. I wonder what the relationship between these two facts are🙄
Thanks for continuing this impactful series, Kyle! :D
These are genuinely fantastic videos . I love them. Please keep making them
I appreciate the effort that went into this video. I can agree with your thesis too, but I think it could set an alarming precedent for the future. A nation might take longer to respond to a more serious threat, as it is often difficult to gauge the severity of a disaster in the immediate aftermath. It just seems to leave the door open to a more massive nuclear disaster that could have been contained better/faster/whatever. I’m speaking in hypotheticals, who knows what’ll actually happen.
My main problem is that we don’t have a good control scenario to demonstrate the effects a no-evacuation plan could have had. That being said, I have absolutely no qualifications, experience, or practical knowledge to bring to the table here. Please feel free to disregard this comment if you wish, and have a lovely day :)
this feels like one of the darkest episodes of this series yet, especially towards the end.
more deaths caused by homesickness than a bloody tsunami. now THAT is heartbreaking
Just to clarify, the tsunami and earthquake absolutely killed more (around 20k) than the homesickness and fear, but the latter 2 led to more deaths than the radiation did or likely could have if people had stayed.
Your use of tone and intonation is really well done imo. Great content and vid, very compelling
These episodes never miss, keep up the great work. Always an immediate watch when i see you have posted.
Great video however in Ukraine after Chernobyl there were a great many health defects however USSR suppressed and hid them away because they were ashamed, they originally tried to hide the meltdown in its entirety.
That's why I have a really hard time with the arguments saying 'the evacuation was so damaging' when business as usual in the nuke industry is 'nope there's no problem at all but don't look behind that curtain'. How tf are people ignoring this so hard and pretending like 'those companies are just waiting for the opportunity to disrupt our lives at their whim and it's so mean'. It's scary to see how many people really believe that crap.
The thing with blaming the Soviet Union is that it ended in 1991. We kept studying the rates of radiation-related disease for the following decades.
@@jamescarter3196yeah except the companies aren't the ones doing all this research, the international scientific community are the ones doing it, and they have no financial interests involved
Incredibly informative as usual, awesome work Kyle!!!
This series has me so hooked every time i watch an episode. The research and time this man puts into the videos is insane
Chernobyl did have a great impact in Norway. Because Norway is mostly mountains, and the winds blew that direction, most of the nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl disaster ended up in Norway, causing thousands of miscarriages due to radiation poisoning, both for humans and other animals. My own family was affected by this, as my oldest sister (my mother's first child) died a few days before they were to do the caesarean section on my mom. They found she had died due to my mom having consumed contaminated greens. Her ligaments, and body in general, was so weakened by the radiation poisoning that when they opened my mom and found her dead, she literally fell apart as they tried to get her out.
My moms, when I was younger, would sometimes tearfully reminisce about how beautiful her eyes were. Apparently they had become almost purple...
Yes. I used to think that too, but there seems to be a surge of videos recently indicating radition is safe now as long as you aren’t inside the meltdown chamber of a reactor.
@@templarroystonofvasey Yet I don't trust those videos fully, as they had evidence of radiation sickness in my sister's case, and my mom was never inside a reaction chamber...
We still don't know everything, but Norway does have the geography to catch most everything that blows across Europe.
They say all roads lead to Rome, but all winds lead to Norway, in a sense
@@thorsteinnorman7133 I apologise for being insensitive. 🙏
@@templarroystonofvasey No need to apologize. I never knew her and have no attachment to her outside my mom's stories, and it's highly unlikely that you were behind the reactor explosion
@@thorsteinnorman7133 I hope there's nicer stories too. No easy thing to go through for the whole family. I wish you well . I can't really rant the way I want to due to SenSoreSheep.
You would have to compare the rates of PTSD in the general population who survived an earthquake against those who were evacuated around Fukushima. There is always going to be an increase after a major natural disaster. It’s not like the area was perfectly fine and people were forced to leave for no reason. Even if you ignore the radiation it was still hit by an earthquake the quake and tsunami. That tends to have an impact on people’s psyche.
Always with the super interesting and extraordinarily researched pieces. Thank you Kyle for trying to educate the world on these things!
Dear Kyle.
Thiese videos are so important.
I have followed you from befor you were with the facility.
The half live series is not only among my most beloved and compelling documentary series I follow
I feel very priviliged and happy that I have the opportunity to see someone as comitted and as educated as you giving me these very important insights and perspectives from someone who went through the troube of conducting a thorough and on sight investigation, carefully juxtaposed with data ans science, in a calm and thoughtful manner.
these show deserves a price.
Every sience calls should show them in schools.
Thank you for your work.
I highly appreciate it. (even if i am not in a position to contribute on patreon, please accept my lieks and emotional support)
This is a case of "hindsight is 20/20". From the perspective of the government, a mandated evacuation is always better to be safe than sorry. Put yourself in the their shoes, and remember the last time this happened was Chernobyl. If I were a resident, I would seriously mistrust the local government if they told me "everything is fine", given TEPCO's notorious history. There are so many other issues, too. Within a year, *any* cancer would be 100% blamed on the radiation. Residents wouldn't be eligible for life insurance. And goods or packages shipped from the city would probably trigger radiation alarms. So there are just too many "what-ifs", and the most reasonable decision at the time was to evacuate.
Today, bringing people back would require a superfund style cleanup first, followed by structural inspections and repair or replacement of buildings, homes, bridges, underground pipes and sewage, etc. Not because of radiation, but because of being abandoned for so long.
In the end, it's the cost. Is it worth it for Japan to spend tens (or hundreds) of billions of dollars to restore a city? That can only be answered by the Japanese people.
Im not trying to troll. I love your videos. And you educated me on radiation, which I knew nothing about before.
But Stockton Rush, CEO of Ocean Gate, says in one of his interviews that most submarine accidents are pilot error and not mechanical failure. but he didn't take into account that because the pressure is so high, the pressure chambers are over engineered, and that's why mechanical failures are so rare.
I'll ask the same here. May be because we overreact. That's why death and long term affects of radiation are close to none?!
I want to point out that there's a reason that no company other than Ocean Gate used carbon fiber composite construction. It was known in advance that pressure-cycling could lead to progressive weakening of those materials and eventual failure, and that carbon fiber behavior was poorly-understood when used in compression. Yet Stockton Rush put people in his sub after doing only a single test dive! I think any reasonable person would've known the risks, but Stockton Rush was like SBF, perversely attracted to big risks, and this is the exact opposite of most people. I think that's why he wouldn't acknowledge the risks and got himself killed.
"Interstellar travel is the safety form of travel. 0 deaths so far." -nuclear advocates
Kyle, you're a wonderful creator and I'm super stoked you spent the time to make this expedition.
incredible video, the nuanced take on such a complex issue is very needed
Since I'm working in the nuclear industry (Radiopharma production) I realized how the dangers of radiation are unbelievably overestimated and the fear of radiation is actually a phobia (irrational fear)
No, don't start acting stupid about this, radiation can kill people and being afraid of things which can kill you isn't irrational. It's irrational to pretend 'everything's fine' in an industry full of lies about dangerous things which has caused easily billions of dollars in damage around the world over decades. It's sad how many mindless pro-nuke arguments are cropping up here out of total ignorance.
It is not irrational if over 90% of mainstream media coverage on radiation/nuclear technology is how damaging and horrible it is.
It says this comment has 2 replies, but I can't see them, they don't load. dfuq?
Unless I got the info wrong, Japan finally lifted the ban on one of TESCO's nuclear plants a few days ago
tepco? i dont believe my previous employer tesco had any fingers in the power generation pie
@@philnoMy bad, it's TEPCO yeah
wow - that gave me the shivers, great production again Kyle
Thank you as always, Kyle, for your passion for spreading knowledge about nuclear energy. This video is really impactful and sheds light on an issue even I was unaware of. Your videos are definitely invaluable tools in the fight for nuclear energy.
Hindsight is 20/20. At the time no one knew if the meltdown was even under control (maybe still isn't up to this day) and the fear of aftershocks that could cause another tsunami was very real.
Add upon that the fact that just the idea of what was happening was terrifying to the local public (very understandable), so they probably wouldn't have responded well to a more "sensible" and measured evacuation strategy. If the government/TEPCO did that at the time, they would probably be accused of negligence in a public outcry.
So to me it's too easy to say in hindsight that they shouldn't have evacuated the the way they did at the time!
I would like some clarity on the data on radiation dose that were known when evacuation order where given. The threshold of 20 mSv is the one use in the lifting of evacuation (using data aquired one year later), was it also the one which determinated evacuation? Did they have good meseaures or only estimation when the orders were given?
Once the evacuation has happened it become very hard to reasure people enought for them to come back. But if you are not sure of the doses can you wait and risk not evacuating?
came from the community post, very worth it ty
Thank you for your videos Kyle, keep up the good work!
I think there's one aspect about this that's important, though.
This analysis has the benefit of hindsight.
At the time of each incident, the evacuation concerns were valid, because the situations were developing, in Fukushima's case, it took a while to reach a state where further failures were unlikely.
Should the evacuation orders sttill be in place now? Probably not, but the temporary evacuations do seem justifiable.
Determining when return authorizations should have begun seems the argument to be made.
Seriously, I'm a little weirded out by how much ignorance there is among most people commenting here. All the 'nuke is fine, radiation doesn't exist' morons are rallying around here like they really can't imagine why you'd evacuate people from the area where there's a double nuclear disaster and the scope is unclear. The clickbait-headline here is so irresponsible, pretending like maybe there shouldn't have been an evacuation as though nuclear disasters are known for being really well-contained and nobody ever downplays the danger.
Honestly, I feel like the evacuation was still warranted. Looking back, it's easy to say that the cost, both human and financial wasn't worth it. But for three disasters (earthquake, tsunami, and meltdown) hitting a populated area like they did, but the situation could have been way worse. There were so many unknowns in the moment that the loss of life could have been significantly higher had things gotten worse and had they not evacuated. The sample size for meltdowns is very low and the universe is a chaotic place. I think evacuation was the right call.
Thirty kilometers, though...?
@@ChucksSEADnDEADmany things that led to the stabilization of the reactors wette luck. Yhey estimated the high chance of going to a metldown and when it does, the Half of Japan will be covered jn Radiation. People thst were there at the time estimated that it wpuld be a disaster worse than Chernobyl