This text is published today (March 18) in Diario de Navarra
Pamplona is a city known worldwide for the running of their parties, an event in which young men risk their lives having fun in the transfer of the bulls from the corral to the square. No doubt that this activity entails a risk, a risk of death than runners voluntarily assume change is enjoy them. From a technical point of view you can define risk as the probability of harm, in this case death or serious injury. Moreover, the perception of risk does not correspond directly with the calculated probability. One of the most typical examples is the risk of death due to transportation, is well known that the probability of dying in a plane crash almost a thousand times less than in a car crash and yet the perception does not correspond to the data. Almost no one fears get in the car and many people fear the plane. Fear does not have to match the risk probability understood as art.
The accident at Japanese nuclear plant in Fukushima, the population has woken up in nuclear fear, but not only in the population can reasonably be affected by the event, but in the world. As they say the fear is free, but more details about the risks we face can help us better sobrellévalo.
When we think of nuclear energy, the risk we face is the risk of death from radioactive contamination. With the name of radioactivity we refer to a set of radiation with enough energy to affect the ionized matter. Radioactivity is a natural phenomenon with which we live every day, the sun, cosmic rays, rocks, soil and atmospheric gases bombard our body with radiation. In the case of radioactivity apply the aphorism that no poison but doses. People who receive a very high dose of radiation suffer widespread cellular damage leading to multiple disorders and rapid death, as were the "liquidators" that mitigated the Chernobyl accident at its peak or that of Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian exespía Wall in 2006 poisoned by radioactive polonium. Between this level so terrible and natural radioactivity in which we live every day what can we expect if Fukushima?
The accident is still evolving, and weather conditions also play an important role, but I think we risk a scenario in which roughly three different areas. A central area close to, say, about 5 km, in which the radioactivity is, it seems that it already is, very intense and should be avoided at all costs. A second perimeter of high radioactivity that if these people remain long times would be affected so that the likelihood of cancer throughout his life in a clearly noticeable increase. The extent of the area is heavily dependent on the details and not less than 20 km (bearing days and evacuated) nor more than 150 km Further exposure to radioactivity would generate a slight increase in risk of the likelihood of cancer throughout life. What is mild, 2, 15, 35 times? Do not think anyone can answer at this time, and depend very much on the details.
how you perceive the risk of increasing the likelihood of a cancer is a very personal matter, and the efforts to be done to help compensate each other in different ways. This explains the different approach of governments Japanese, French or American about the affected population.
And the risk of living to 180 km Garoña? The risk of death consequently be calculated by multiplying the probability of a severe accident at the plant by the consequences of that distance, without elaborating the result is extremely low. But advanced societies we are concerned about small risks, as evidenced by the recent law banning smoking in bars. Calibrate the tolerable level of each risk is a complex issue, but we must agree that closures and prohibit them run knowing that none of them are risk free because there is zero risk.
The accident at Japanese nuclear plant in Fukushima, the population has woken up in nuclear fear, but not only in the population can reasonably be affected by the event, but in the world. As they say the fear is free, but more details about the risks we face can help us better sobrellévalo.
When we think of nuclear energy, the risk we face is the risk of death from radioactive contamination. With the name of radioactivity we refer to a set of radiation with enough energy to affect the ionized matter. Radioactivity is a natural phenomenon with which we live every day, the sun, cosmic rays, rocks, soil and atmospheric gases bombard our body with radiation. In the case of radioactivity apply the aphorism that no poison but doses. People who receive a very high dose of radiation suffer widespread cellular damage leading to multiple disorders and rapid death, as were the "liquidators" that mitigated the Chernobyl accident at its peak or that of Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian exespía Wall in 2006 poisoned by radioactive polonium. Between this level so terrible and natural radioactivity in which we live every day what can we expect if Fukushima?
The accident is still evolving, and weather conditions also play an important role, but I think we risk a scenario in which roughly three different areas. A central area close to, say, about 5 km, in which the radioactivity is, it seems that it already is, very intense and should be avoided at all costs. A second perimeter of high radioactivity that if these people remain long times would be affected so that the likelihood of cancer throughout his life in a clearly noticeable increase. The extent of the area is heavily dependent on the details and not less than 20 km (bearing days and evacuated) nor more than 150 km Further exposure to radioactivity would generate a slight increase in risk of the likelihood of cancer throughout life. What is mild, 2, 15, 35 times? Do not think anyone can answer at this time, and depend very much on the details.
how you perceive the risk of increasing the likelihood of a cancer is a very personal matter, and the efforts to be done to help compensate each other in different ways. This explains the different approach of governments Japanese, French or American about the affected population.
And the risk of living to 180 km Garoña? The risk of death consequently be calculated by multiplying the probability of a severe accident at the plant by the consequences of that distance, without elaborating the result is extremely low. But advanced societies we are concerned about small risks, as evidenced by the recent law banning smoking in bars. Calibrate the tolerable level of each risk is a complex issue, but we must agree that closures and prohibit them run knowing that none of them are risk free because there is zero risk.
0 comments:
Post a Comment