[From Brian Josephson] Sir David King explains that walking round Fukushima is safer than flying from London to New York on a jet flight, so we can all stop worrying about nuclear risks. This transcript is taken from his Today interview:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9439000/9439385.stm> starting at 4:15 ---- Sir David King: 'Recycle nuclear fuel for power' Justin Webb of the BBC: ... and the biggest issue that people are going to have, everyone is aware of what is happening in Japan. Your report was delayed, wasn't it, because of what happened in Japan and yet, for most people, the polls seem to suggest that for many people in their wider view of nuclear power this has given them pause, to put it mildly. Sir David King: Yes. To be honest, the conclusion of those of us who have examined the situation in Japan is rather different, and perhaps a little surprising, because what we see is the biggest test of nuclear reactors -- these are second generation and therefore out of date nuclear reactors -- is the severest test they've ever had, which is a 9.0 earthquake, a devastating earthquake ... JW: ... and we don't yet know if they have passed that test. DK: Well, they've passed the earthquake test, in the sense that 16 reactors, including the reactors at Fukushima, were shut down within 2 minutes of the tremor being felt. JW: But there is an ongoing crisis at Fukushima -- we heard today, from the Japanese government, they don't know quite what's going to happen, and that frightens people, quite rationally, doesn't it? DK: No, I don't believe it's rational. We have a situation in which more than 15,000 fatalities occurred in the tsunami. We have no fatalities reported directly due to radiation, and in my view it's very unlikely that there will be. I'm just trying to put a semblance of rationality into this, in the sense that the number of fatalities from nuclear power around the world is actually less than from any other form of energy production, per kilowatt-hour produced. In the same week of Fukushima, another 30 coal miners died in an accident. Now what I'm pointing out is, it's a little like road accidents. We no longer report them because they're so frequent. But the occurrence of fatalities in the nuclear industry is actually extraordinarily infrequent. JW: But, at the same time -- two things really. No. 1 is, it's public perception and the need to overcome that ... DK: Yes, yes ... JW: ... but no. 2, it's not perception in the sort of irrational sense but also -- and people are perfectly aware that there have been few fatalities -- it's the sense that actually we don't quite know what we're doing and what we're letting ourselves in for, that there is a risk, a kind of cloud hanging over you if you carry on with nuclear, that you wouldn't have if you used other fuel forms. DK: Justin, what you've just described is of course the somewhat irrational response that one has to this. JW: But it's not irrational. DK: No, no what I'm actually saying is the potential for exposing yourself to radiation if you take an air flight between London and New York is many many times greater than the potential to suffer from radiation drinking tap water in Tokyo or, in fact, walking around Fukushima. So I think the problem is, as soon as radiation is detected, we don't look at the tables of what is the dangerous level of risk, we simply see a risk. I understand that, but it's not actually supported by the figures. ---
