Fukushima discussion draws crowd
Contact:
Mark Jaccard, 778.782.4219, mark_jaccard@sfu.ca
Corina Andreoiu, 778.782.3946, corina_andreoiu@sfu.ca
Kris Starosta, 778.782.8861, starosta@sfu.ca
Paul Schaffer (through Tim Meyer at TRIUMF), 604.222.7674, tmeyer@triumf.ca
Vance Williams (event organizer), 778.782.80, vancew@sfu.ca
Carol Thorbes, PAMR, 778.782.3210, cthorbes@sfu.ca
A free public panel discussion about Japan’s ongoing nuclear crisis drew about 100 people to Simon Fraser University’s Morris J Wosk Centre for Dialogue on April 11. Many more tuned in via a webcast.
Sponsored by SFU’s V-P Research office, the SFU chemistry department and the Chemical Institute of Canada, The Fukushima Nuclear Crisis featured four SFU researchers evaluating the crisis from different disciplinary perspectives.
David Murphy, a senior lecturer in the SFU School of Communication, moderated their discussion.
Following 15-minute presentations by Mark Jaccard, Corina Andreoiu, Kris Starosta and Paul Schaffer, the audience had a chance to ask questions.
Many in the audience wanted to know if they were safe. The experts gave an unequivocal yes, despite Japan’s decision to upgrade the crisis at its Fukushima nuclear plant to the highest possible level on the International Nuclear Event Scale.
The panelists emphasized that the radiation levels detected in B.C., due to the current crisis, pale in comparison to the exposures that residents routinely receive from natural sources.
In response to concerns about the future growth of nuclear power as an energy source, Jaccard, an environmental economist, said in the short term, this incident will likely cause a lull in nuclear renaissance. He added in the long term, “it will likely increase the costs of nuclear power. But there are many legitimate energy scenarios for the planet in which it does without nuclear power while still achieving its greenhouse gas reduction targets.”
Most of the experts felt nuclear power would continue to play a relatively small role in satisfying the world’s energy consumption demands, which currently stands at three per cent.
Considerable discussion focused on the ongoing monitoring of radiation levels in B.C. rainwater and seaweed by panelist Kris Starosta and other SFU researchers. Starosta stressed that these studies were prompted by the crisis in Japan and are not part of a long term monitoring program, which he noted is the responsibility of government agencies.
-30-
Comments
Comment GuidelinesHi,
We realize it's not your responsibility but someone needs to notify the public and the government hasn't said a word and refuses to test milk. . It is extremely important that since you ( Kris Starosta) took the first reading and gained international status, i think you should continue testing. Why wouldn't you???
Today the fuel pools in #4 are in jeopardy which could bring a much larger quantity of cesium, iodine and other nasties.
The issue of background radiation isn't justified it's the alpha particles that are the dangerous ones. Please , please please continue monitoring.
I believe that a reduction of human population will decrease the need for energy, nuclear power and exposure of radiation and toxins in children around the world who are more likely to suffer from human failure than adults.
Dr.Kamran Reayat
For a student of MPH this disaster along with several other disasters in this century so far poses a serious challenge . The challenge is the health outcomes . The crisis in ongoing which means it hasnt been contained and controlled yet and is still a source of concern for people around the world and in the immediate neighbours of Japan . What kind of preventive strategies and policies can one think of and implement to avoid such mammoth disasters . I wonder is it a man made or natural disaster ? I think Its a mix of both . Was the earth quake element taken into consideration while building this plant and especially so that it was built in the part of the world where earthquakes are much more frequent.