Richard Muller – Reckless schil for the nuclear industry
Okay, I’m sure all of my readers can guess that the Wall Street Journal is a publication that is likely to support corporate interests- that’s probably a given. But, one of their articles I found a couple of days ago has taken their corporate pandering to a whole new level. The writer Richard Muller, a professor at Berkeley, actually tries to convince the world that Fukushima “passed the test” in containing radiation after a nuclear accident. What a schmuck!
But, it gets worse- much worse. Muller begins his argument using a script straight from Ann Coulter’s understanding of science, trying to give the impression that ingesting radiation from a nuclear accident may be good for us. He explains how the city of Denver has a higher natural dose of radiation than the average American city, but the people of Denver have a statistically lower rate of cancer. Sounds good, right?
Well, it isn’t all that great. First, as Muller acknowledges himself, the people of Denver are also known to be a healthier lot- they exercise more and eat better. There’s another key difference that Muller omits. He explains how Denver’s higher radioactivity comes from uranium that is embedded in the local granite. What he doesn’t explain is the difference between external and internal exposure to radiation.
I covered this in a story I wrote a couple of weeks ago. In Denver, the radiation is being absorbed externally- there are not specks of uranium dust flying through the sky. In Fukushima, and Chernobyl, there were many tonnes of uranium (and other radioactive materials) shot into the air through a violent explosion. Our skin protects us from external radiation, so the people of Denver are quite safe from it. But, in Fukushima, people are breathing in specks of radioactive dust, and ingesting radiation in their food. Once ingested, even a dust-sized particle is quite likely to give you cancer.
And Muller calls himself a scientist?
Muller’s next dangerous statement is when he explains his opinion that when the Japanese evacuated areas near Fukushima their actions “were expressions of panic” and that “these well-intended measures did far more harm than good.” The Japanese made a 20km ‘exclusion zone’ after Fukushima- and many people felt this wasn’t enough. In fact, the US State Department gave a warning to Americans that they should not travel within 50 miles (80km) of Fukushima.
Then, Muller goes on to tell us that not even the workers at the Fukushima plant are very likely to get cancer. He explains how they are restricted in their hours of service so that they will only get 25 rem of exposure. First, they are not restricted by hours, they are given badges that measure their exposure. He also missed out on the stories that workers have not always been wearing their badges. It seems that, with a shortage of potential workers, TEPCO is bending the rules.
He then continues to explain how most areas in the exclusion zone have a lower level of radiation than what would give most people cancer. But, he’s still conveniently ignoring the difference between internal & external exposure. Then Muller states:
“Some locations recorded doses as high as 22 rem (total exposure before evacuation). Afterward, the levels of radiation dropped quickly; the largest component came from iodine, and its level dropped by 50% every eight days.”
Muller says that “the largest component” of the radiation came from radioactive iodine, and iodine disintegrates rather quickly. What he misses telling us is that there were many types of radioactive elements- including lots of uranium that was spewed into the air. Some of these elements take thousands of years to disintegrate. Muller is not telling us the whole truth in his story.
Next comes what is probably the most dangerous, and reckless, part of Muller’s story. He gets into a discussion about what, in engineering, is referred to as a ‘design basis’. When a nuclear plant is designed, it is built to withstand certain external forces. In the case of Fukushima, the plant was designed to resist a 6.0 earthquake, and a 5.7 meter tsunami. The disaster that hit Fukushima involved a 9.0 earthquake with a 14 meter tsunami.
Muller explains that “Nothing can be made absolutely safe” and implies that we can’t plan for every possibility. The truth about Fukushima is that the engineers knew before the accident that they faced the risk of a larger tsunami than the plan could take. There was discussion about improving the size of the seawall, but the decision was made not to- the cost of $2 billion was thought to be too expensive.
Ask the people of Japan if that $2 billion was too much to spend now that they face tens of billions of dollars in damage. Ask the parents of the children who are currently breathing-in radioactive dust. Ask the people who will never be able to go back to their homes again…
If Muller’s article wasn’t embarrassingly enough at this point, his closing statements completely destroy his credibility.
“Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test.”
Once again, ask the people of Japan if Fukushima has ‘passed the test’. The hundreds of thousands of people who have been marching on Tokyo would seriously disagree with them. But, Muller didn’t write this article on-behalf of humanity, he wrote it to schil for the nuclear industry.
Mr. Muller- you’re a very sick, dirty, old man…
The new school year will be starting at Berkeley soon, and I’m sure some of Muller’s students will be Googling his name and trying to learn about their professors. Students, if you have the guts, you should challenge your professor on this shameful article. Call him out on his statements, ask him to account for this blatant piece of disinformation…
Related articles
