Uploaded September 2011 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
About a year after this video was posted, BBC blocked it for copyright violation: iangoddard.com/journal/fukushima/Screen%20shot%202012-08-24%20at%207.27.57%20PM.png I appealed on Fair Use and won.
Sources cited
The BBC Program
bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014s49z
youtube.com/watch?v=8vywZ84mixs
@ 1:04 CNN Report Quoted
articles.cnn.com/2011-06-06/world/japan.nuclear.meltdown_1_nuclear-reactors-fuel-rods-tokyo-electric-power?_s=PM:WORLD
@ 1:29 Meltdown timing table form Yomiuri Daily
web.archive.org/web/20130323014750/http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110607005367.htm
@ 2:32 Atomic-Bombing Survivors Study
dmphp.org/cgi/reprint/5/Supplement_1/S122
In light of that study, it's worth noting that the Japanese government calculated that the Cesium-137 alone emitted from Fukushima as of late August was 168 times more radioactive than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima: telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8722400/Fukushima-caesium-leaks-equal-168-Hiroshimas.html
@ 2:55 IAEA Report Quoted
www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/meetings/PDFplus/2011/cn200/documentation/cn200_Final-Fukushima-Mission_Report.pdf
@ 7:10 NYAS Review by Yablokov, Nesterenko & Nesterenko (2009)
nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1
strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
NOTE: I'm now skeptical of the 985,000 death-toll figure in the NYAS review. The figure has been criticized for lacking a clear or standard methodology. It's okay to propose new non-standard analytical methodologies, but as the basis for a study which thereby comes to an extraordinary conclusion, no, that's suspect of being wrong on its face. In short, the extraordinary predictions of Yablokov et al are even more likely to be evidence that their unique untested methodologies are faulty. That said, their 327-page report is an important review of Russian research most of which is off limits to the west due to language barriers.
In contrast, the European Environmental Agency, using standard dosimetry (ICRP and BEIR) -- predicts between 17,000 to 68,000 Chernobyl-induced deaths over 50 years. A figure that also counters Al-Khalili's implication that estimated death tolls above a mere handful are wild rumors.
The European Environmental Agency's prediction of 17,000 to 68,000 deaths over 50 years is based on better-established radiobiology. See: Late lessons II Chapter 18 - Late lessons from Chernobyl early warnings from Fukushima @ http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2, which lays out the EEA's straightforward methodology:
"Given that UNSCEAR (1993) and IAEA (1996)
estimate a total world-wide collective dose
of 600,000 person‑Sieverts over 50 years from
Chernobyl fallout, and the standard risk
estimate from the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP, 2005) is 0.057 fatal
cancers per Sievert, this suggests an estimate of
about 34,000 fatal cancers over that time period
(Ramana, 2009). Given the widely accepted linear
no-threshold radiation risk model may overstate
or understate risks by a factor of two (BIER VII,
2006) — then estimates for post-Chernobyl cancer
mortality extrapolation may range from 17,000 to
68,000 over 50 years."
#
Extra: detailed complaint submitted to BBC over the program critiqued in this video :
nfznsc.gn.apc.org/docs/news/NFLA_BBC_Fukushima_final_complaint.pdf
#
@ 1:53 I cite a false analogy Al Khalili commits, which takes this form:
1. Fukushima and the tsunami are similar in that both were disasters.
2. The tsunami's harm is measured by its death toll before 9/14/11.
3. Therefore, Fukushima's harm is measured by its death toll before 9/14/11.
That argument from analogy is assumed implicitly in his comparison aired on Sept 14, 2011. We cannot conclude, as he wishes us to, that the tsunami was far worse unless we accept that analogy as true. However, it's a false analogy on account of the fact that the harm of radiation exposure is also measured by the deaths it causes years and decades later.
.
About a year after this video was posted, BBC blocked it for copyright violation: iangoddard.com/journal/fukushima/Screen%20shot%202012-08-24%20at%207.27.57%20PM.png I appealed on Fair Use and won.
Sources cited
The BBC Program
bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014s49z
youtube.com/watch?v=8vywZ84mixs
@ 1:04 CNN Report Quoted
articles.cnn.com/2011-06-06/world/japan.nuclear.meltdown_1_nuclear-reactors-fuel-rods-tokyo-electric-power?_s=PM:WORLD
@ 1:29 Meltdown timing table form Yomiuri Daily
web.archive.org/web/20130323014750/http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110607005367.htm
@ 2:32 Atomic-Bombing Survivors Study
dmphp.org/cgi/reprint/5/Supplement_1/S122
In light of that study, it's worth noting that the Japanese government calculated that the Cesium-137 alone emitted from Fukushima as of late August was 168 times more radioactive than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima: telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8722400/Fukushima-caesium-leaks-equal-168-Hiroshimas.html
@ 2:55 IAEA Report Quoted
www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/meetings/PDFplus/2011/cn200/documentation/cn200_Final-Fukushima-Mission_Report.pdf
@ 7:10 NYAS Review by Yablokov, Nesterenko & Nesterenko (2009)
nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1
strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
NOTE: I'm now skeptical of the 985,000 death-toll figure in the NYAS review. The figure has been criticized for lacking a clear or standard methodology. It's okay to propose new non-standard analytical methodologies, but as the basis for a study which thereby comes to an extraordinary conclusion, no, that's suspect of being wrong on its face. In short, the extraordinary predictions of Yablokov et al are even more likely to be evidence that their unique untested methodologies are faulty. That said, their 327-page report is an important review of Russian research most of which is off limits to the west due to language barriers.
In contrast, the European Environmental Agency, using standard dosimetry (ICRP and BEIR) -- predicts between 17,000 to 68,000 Chernobyl-induced deaths over 50 years. A figure that also counters Al-Khalili's implication that estimated death tolls above a mere handful are wild rumors.
The European Environmental Agency's prediction of 17,000 to 68,000 deaths over 50 years is based on better-established radiobiology. See: Late lessons II Chapter 18 - Late lessons from Chernobyl early warnings from Fukushima @ http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2, which lays out the EEA's straightforward methodology:
"Given that UNSCEAR (1993) and IAEA (1996)
estimate a total world-wide collective dose
of 600,000 person‑Sieverts over 50 years from
Chernobyl fallout, and the standard risk
estimate from the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP, 2005) is 0.057 fatal
cancers per Sievert, this suggests an estimate of
about 34,000 fatal cancers over that time period
(Ramana, 2009). Given the widely accepted linear
no-threshold radiation risk model may overstate
or understate risks by a factor of two (BIER VII,
2006) — then estimates for post-Chernobyl cancer
mortality extrapolation may range from 17,000 to
68,000 over 50 years."
#
Extra: detailed complaint submitted to BBC over the program critiqued in this video :
nfznsc.gn.apc.org/docs/news/NFLA_BBC_Fukushima_final_complaint.pdf
#
@ 1:53 I cite a false analogy Al Khalili commits, which takes this form:
1. Fukushima and the tsunami are similar in that both were disasters.
2. The tsunami's harm is measured by its death toll before 9/14/11.
3. Therefore, Fukushima's harm is measured by its death toll before 9/14/11.
That argument from analogy is assumed implicitly in his comparison aired on Sept 14, 2011. We cannot conclude, as he wishes us to, that the tsunami was far worse unless we accept that analogy as true. However, it's a false analogy on account of the fact that the harm of radiation exposure is also measured by the deaths it causes years and decades later.
.
