Japan crisis - the worlds economic outlook?

vivatifosi

sellaconcepts wrote: »

Nicky if you had to guess what do you think Japan will be like in 6 months time? Millions dead?

Why? Millions didn't die after Chernobyl and Kiev was more than twice as close to Chernobyl as Tokyo is to Fukushima.

Silverbull

vivatifosi wrote: »

Why? Millions didn't die after Chernobyl and Kiev was more than twice as close to Chernobyl as Tokyo is to Fukushima.

Estimations are now well over a million dead as a result of Chernobyl. The radioactive plumb covered all over Europe.

In a few decades time I wonder what the death toll will be as a result of this nuclear fallout?

chucky

Silverbull wrote: »

Estimations are now well over a million dead as a result of Chernobyl. The radioactive plumb covered all over Europe.

In a few decades time I wonder what the death toll will be as a result of this nuclear fallout?

maybe in Lala Land the deaths were over a million people

Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers. Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously; the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest it could reach 4,000 while a Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. The 2011 UNSCEAR report places the total deaths from radiation to date at 64.

none of these are anywhere close to over a 1,000,000 people

i'd try again if i was you

Generali

chucky wrote: »

maybe in Lala Land the deaths were over a million people

Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers. Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously; the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest it could reach 4,000 while a Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. The 2011 UNSCEAR report places the total deaths from radiation to date at 64.

none of these are anywhere close to over a 1,000,000 people

i'd try again if i was you

According to these guys there were over 50,000 Chinese coal miners that died between 2000-2009.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

According to these guys there were over 50,000 Chinese coal miners that died between 2000-2009.

yes but has any mine accident written off an entire previously populated areas for decades to come?

see the footage of a reporter who drives into the 20km exclusion zone. really brings it home. those devestated by the tsunami can now start to rebuild but there is no end in sight in the nuclear evacuation zone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371103/No-mans-land-Residents-refuse-leave-nuclear-exclusion-zone-crippled-Japanese-reactor.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

ninky_2

a very sad story of a fukushima farmer who committed suicide after the land his family had farmed for generations was written off by the nuclear disaster. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5df7847e-5a07-11e0-ba8d-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1Hz3Fw4cm

For many years, Hisashi Tarukawa used to worry about the nuclear power plant 70 kilometres away from his farm in Sukagawa, Fukushima prefecture.
The 64-year-old Fukushima native, who tended his ancestral land after graduating from the local agricultural high school, knew that some day radioactive substances would leak from the plant, contaminating his farm and destroying his livelihood.
Mr Tarukawa’s nightmare came true this month, when the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was crippled by a huge earthquake and tsunami waves that devastated Japan’s north-eastern region, and started leaking high levels of radioactive material.

“When that happened, my father knew that it meant he would no longer be able to grow things here,” recalls Kazuya Tarukawa, 35, his son.
“He was strongly opposed to the plant and warned something like this would happen. He said his homeland might disappear,” the younger Mr Tarukawa says wistfully.
For the older farmer, the thought was apparently too much to bear. On the morning of March 24, Mr Tarukawa committed suicide by hanging himself

vivatifosi

I've been trying to keep an open mind on Fukushima and what the degree of devastation will be long term. However I'm quite disturbed to see that while the UN nuclear watchdog and the Japanese nuclear safety agency have said that the exclusion zone should be widened, the Japanese government has said that there is no need:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Japan-Ignores-UN-Over-Widening-Exclusion-Zone-Around-Fukushima-Nuclear-Plant/Article/201103415963367?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_4&lid=ARTICLE_15963367_Video%3A_Japan_Ignores_UN_Over_Widening_Exclusion_Zone_Around_Fukushima_Nuclear_Plant

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

I've been trying to keep an open mind on Fukushima and what the degree of devastation will be long term. However I'm quite disturbed to see that while the UN nuclear watchdog and the Japanese nuclear safety agency have said that the exclusion zone should be widened, the Japanese government has said that there is no need:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Japan-Ignores-UN-Over-Widening-Exclusion-Zone-Around-Fukushima-Nuclear-Plant/Article/201103415963367?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_4&lid=ARTICLE_15963367_Video%3A_Japan_Ignores_UN_Over_Widening_Exclusion_Zone_Around_Fukushima_Nuclear_Plant

perhaps not suprising when you think of the mathematics of the added lost land with an increased circle. i'm can't quite remember the equation for calculating square metres of a circle but i do know that each time you increase the radius slightly you increase the area massively.

ninky_2

i've just done the maths ....actually a handy site did it for me.

an exclusion zone with a radius of 20km (current) has an area of 1257 square km.

and exclusion zone with a radius of 80km (UN suggestion) has an area of 20, 106 square km.:eek::eek::eek:

you can see why the japanese govt might be reluctant to write off all that land / sea.

ninky_2

what seems a little unscientific to me is having the same exclusion zone on water as on land.

presumably the land based one is worked out as an area it would be unsafe to live. the sea is different - no one lives there.

i'd also assume (but maybe i'm wrong) that radiation would spread differently through water and marine life compared to on land.