Fatalities resulting from a German organic farm's products: 29.

Fatalities resulting from a Japanese (i.e. Fukushima) nuclear plant's products: 0.

In the aftermath of Fukushima, German Chancellor Angela Merkel et al.'s response was to press "Pause" on nuclear power industry's products.

Question:

The chances of German Chancellor Angela Merkel et al.'s pressing "Pause" on organic farming industry's products are:

A. 0, because ...

B. 50/50, because ...

C. 100, because ...

I just want to say that radiation damage accrues for years, and that it is premature to try to count the casualties related to the tsunami and resultant nuclear reactor meltdown. Just because the damage to all people isn't obvious at this time doesn't mean that it won't be obvious years from now.

Here's a link to a story of a man who was one of the soldiers who were ordered to be under an atomic bomb blast in the desert: http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20101...-dies-at-age-74
From the link:

Would it be fair to say that Angela Merkel is concerned about nuclear power's risks because her people are?

As far as the chances of German Chancellor Merkel stopping organic farming, they are probably slim.

In addition, when making proper handwashing possible and mandatory for food workers can halt deaths such as these, as opposed to the millions to billions of dollars or Euros it would take to make nuclear plants safer, which problem is more easily remedied?

Would you want to eliminate an organic industry if washing your hands and rinsing the vegetables was the solution to the problem?

A large majority of Germans oppose atomic energy and support the shut down of the plants. Are you asking if it is wrong of the German people do that if they choose? Or are you asking if Merkel shouldn't do what a huge majority of Germany's citizens want?

A. 0, because ...

Bacteria outbreaks happen with all methods of farming.

Just as radiation releases will happen with nukes, bacteria outbreaks will happen with farming. The difference is that we can't go without farming of some sort, but we can do without nukes.

Better sell off the nuke stocks, eh? Nobody wants too much radiation messing with their bodies. Nobody wants to poison vast swaths of their countries. The electricity isn't worth the risks.

Besides, there are better ways to generate electronic juice.

*

I highly doubt the assertion that the product of Japanese nukes has caused zero fatalities. What about electrocutions? Electricity is the only product of nukes, unless you consider the waste to be a product. I see it as a liability, an overhead.

Is there any evidence or even any biological/chemical principle to suggest organic farming (as opposed to non-organic) is more susceptible to the kind of contamination involved here?

Is there any scientific evidence or principle of physics to suggest nuclear energy (as opposed to, say, energy from fossil fuels, wind, or geothermal sources) is more susceptible to radiation-related accidents?

Zero.

Because this is not a problem with an industry but rather a problem with one supplier. I would bet that more regulation and inspection will be in order.

This is different than our heavily regulated nuclear plants here that have killed Zero as opposed to our coal fired plants some of which are “grandfathered”. They have killed 10s of thousands and sickened million and just keep right on pumping the crap nto our air..

Question:

The chances of German Chancellor Angela Merkel et al.'s pressing "Pause" on organic farming industry's products are:

A. 0, because ...
organic is metaphysically "good", nuclear is metaphysically "bad", at least as far as most Germans are concerned, certainly the louder and more obnoxious ones.

With the possible exception of wind and solar power, the yearly average of people that have died in our petroleum, natural gas, coal, and hydroelectric industries (each) over the last 100 years is greater than the sum of people who have died in our nuclear industry.

The problem, aside from the association with nooooklear weapons, is the "worst case scenario", especially the imagined worst case scenario. Now, it's possible to kill a couple hundred thousand people (maybe more) with an LNG tanker, but even that pales in comparison to the worst case scenario for a nuclear power plant. The WCS for petroleum isn't that bad, perhaps a few hundred. The WCS for hydroelectric is pretty bad some places. The worst "innocents" [ i.e. folks not working in the industry ] killed energy project disaster that I'm aware of was the Vajont Dam, in Italy, where 2,000+ people lost their lives. The disaster that could result if the Three Gorges Dam in China were to fail would likely eclipse any nuclear power plant disaster.

The fear of nuclear power (as opposed to "healthy respect for it) is as irrational as the love of organics. Which simply means we're dealing with people.

"Proper handwashing" (along with a host of other safety practices) are already mandatory for everybody in the entire 1st World food distribution network, from the field hand picking your spinach, to the waitress who delivers the salad to your table. We have routine inspections of every eatery in America, every one of which has multiple signs reminding the employees of the necessary safety practices, etc. And yet food borne illnesses from those same eateries sicken hundreds of thousands (if not millions) and kill hundreds (if not thousands) of Americans every year. 9.4 million cases of food borne illness annually in the US, 128,000 of them requiring hospitilization, 3,000 deaths. Each. Year. Even in Japan, which is probably the most obsessive country and culture on earth about cleanliness, they have fatalities from food borne illnesses. So, while I support such safety practices, I think that it's naive to think that we're really going to get much more additional utility out of them, at least in the commercial chain. In the household? Other than educating folks, not much you can do, unless somebody wants to call for the Potty Police to make sure everybody practices safe food handling.

btw, here's what the CDC had to say about sprouts 14 years ago

Sprouts Not Healthy Food for Everyone

Children, the elderly, and persons whose immune systems are not functioning well should not eat raw sprouts, because current treatments of seeds and sprouts cannot get rid of all bacteria present.

Persons who are at high risk for complications from foodborne illness should probably not eat raw sprouts, according to an article in the current issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases, CDC's peer-reviewed journal, which tracks new and reemerging infectious diseases worldwide.

Although sprouts are often considered a "health food," the warm, humid conditions needed for growing sprouts from seeds are also ideal for bacteria to flourish. Salmonella, E. coli, and other bacteria can grow to high levels without affecting the appearance of the sprouts.

Researchers have treated both seeds and sprouts with heat or washed them in solutions of chlorine, alcohol, and other chemicals. Some of these disinfectants reduced the levels of bacteria, but a potential hazard remained, especially for persons with weak immune systems. High temperatures that would kill the bacteria on the seeds would also keep them from sprouting. Until an effective way is found to prevent illness from sprouts, they should be eaten with caution, if at all.

but, but, buttttt..... they're organic! and organic is gooooood. (yes, I know all sprouts aren't organic, but most are...)

Even though there have been 40 outbreaks linked to sprouts in the last 21 years.

Japan has given the world a look into a bad-case scenario with nukes. Now people are aware of what can happen when spent fuel rods lose their coolant. We already knew that a Chernobyl-like disaster would render the surrounding area unusable for any purpose over a long period. Most people probably didn't know about the long-term cool-down period for spent rods, and that this is longer than the serviceable life. Ergo, the spent rods pile up at any given plant. Eventually, the plant will run out of storage space, at which time it will need to be shut down. Can't transport hot spent fuel rods. So, while the plant is not generating electricity, it will still need to be watched and maintained for the spent rods to finish cooling down.

While you're considering the dangers in nuke energy production, are you also including the mining of uranium? How's about the production and transportation of fuel rods? If you're going to use hydro as an example of something really dangerous and scary, better include all the dangers of nukes.

It's really not a matter of good versus bad but clear thinking. It's not very clear thinking to compare the food industry with the energy industry, other than in regards to biofuels. Why use corn when there are other ways, such as algae production?

Germany has decided that nukes aren't worth the risk. They, as with China, are ramping up to harvest energy that's all around us. No fuel is needed to produce it, since the energy is already there. This change in perspective is neither good nor bad; it simply makes sense.

The question about nukes is the same as a motorcycle crash. It's not a matter of if but when and how. Stuff happens. This can also be said about harmful bacteria in food, so there's a reasonable parallel. Many parts of life are crap shoots, but the idea is to reduce the risks. Getting off nukes will reduce a lot of risks in Germany. They really can't get off of food, so they must continue to roll the dice for each market visit. Stuff happens.

Yes, they have. They've also given the world a look at what happens when a small dam fails. The difference is, people died from the dam failure. Nobody has died from the nuclear incident at Fukushima, unless you want to count the heart attack fatality.

Really? I doubt that. Lose coolant, bad things happen.

Sure you can. Spent fuel rods can be transported. There's nothing at all technically that prevents it. Heck, you can transport them by truck, by rail, by barge, by ship, and by train. What prevents transporting them is fear driven politics.

Yup. Uranium mining is just as dangerous as coal mining, only you don't have to do nearly as much of it. Start doing uranium extraction from seawater, and you can vastly reduce the risk.

See above re: coal, only the safety procedures are a lot higher, and the # of folks (as well as their training, education, etc) involved differs considerably. You can run a loaded coal train into a spent fuel transportation canister, and all you'll get for your trouble is a lot of coal to sweep up.

I have. All industrial processes have risks. All resource extraction processes have risks. All construction projects have risks. And all power generation processes have risks. The biggest problem I have with those objecting to nuclear power is that they act like all of the alternatives present no appreciable risks, yet practically every day there's a coal mine collapse, or an oil well explosion, or a gasoline tanker rolls on the freeway, or a train derails, or..... most of which nobody outside the immediate area even hears about. The thing about nuclear power is the power density means that you can do less mining, less construction, less transportation, etc, and vastly reduce those risks.

But it is clear thinking. Food is necessary. So is the energy industry. To grow food organically is no more necessary than producing energy from nuclear fission. Thinking clearly, it's even more of a preference than nuclear power. The point of comparison is that people are kickin the bucket as a result of an unsafe "product." In the case of sprouts, it is at this time an irreducible safety risk. So why not punt the irreducible safety risk when there are not merely a dozen or less alternatives, but thousands?

Because we aren't dealing with clear thinking, for the simple reason that we're dealing with people.

Worst case scenario, Cliff Notes edition: Algae mutates, escapes, algae bloom destroys the ocean ecosystem, we all die. There's also the whole corn lobby thing as well....

I simply believe that they haven't been thinking clearly on the matter, but hey, if they choose to handicap themselves, less power to 'em.

China is not "ramping up to harvest the energy". You should do some research on exactly how China is going about addressing their burgeoning energy demands. It's a four letter word, and it begins with "c".

Interesting analogy. The German approach now is "ain't no way I'm gonna ride one of them death traps." My response is ATGATT, and don't ride in the snow.

No, it isn't. The idea is to reduce the risks without reducing the benefits or incurring substantial costs elsewhere. It's a very important distinction, one that is lost on those who don't think clearly.

They could eliminate even more risks by simply eliminating automobiles, but they won't. The benefits are too great. I think the Germans have greatly understimated the costs and overestimated the risks in their headlong flight from nuclear power.

Well BD, time will tell how many radiation illness deaths will come out of Japan's natural and man-made disasters. While the energy industries are necessary, they don't have to involve nukes. As far as knowing what China is doing with energy, I have done plenty of reading about that. Here's a source:

China could replace all coal with wind by 2030.

Then there are the solar initiatives:

China outpacing US in solar.

You see, China is motivated. Germany is motivated. The US is not so much, which is too bad. We could use another technology wave to create some decent jobs.

I've not heard about uranium mining from sea water. Got a link to help us out? I have heard about speculators buying up a bunch of land in South Park, CO (the real one, not the cartoon) in anticipation of greater demand.

Your idea about transporting spent fuel rods doesn't square with reality. The spent rods are kept on site because they have to be constantly cooled. That's why they can't be transported. It's not fear but practicality. I suppose it would be possible with some form of technology, however, it is likely cost prohibitive. Then there's the danger of meltdowns, as happened in Japan. Messy stuff with radiation galore.

Heh, algae mutations. I'll be watching for the B-rated horror flick.

I guess you're immune to motorcycle accidents. The adage that I learned when first starting to ride in 1967 was what I used. It came from Pop Martin who did ride his Harley all year round in Northern Minnesota. Flat head 45 with a side car, military surplus, homemade canvas fairing, lots of thick wool. This was before oddball acronyms were supposed to be cool.

Anyway, if the argument is that food causes more deaths than the product of nukes, electrocutions have to be added. Food is the end product consumed and sometimes causing deaths. Electricity is the end product consumed and sometimes causing deaths. Radiation poisoning is a liability, similar to farm runoff pollution. So is a dam failing in the hydro scene a liability and not a product.

Yes it is managing risk in any industry. Risk management is a bona fide discipline.

ISO tells me so.

Holy false comparisons, Batman!

First of all, the definition of "organic" food is very nebulous, as an article in the Journal of Food Science notes:

http://ucbiotech.org/resources/reports/WINTER.PDF

More info can be found on the USDA's resources on organic food. I don't know how it's categorized in Germany, but one of the problems with researching organic vs. other forms of agriculture is because it lacks a more rigid definition. As the USDA says:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/Buy...nicFoodsC.shtml

In terms of determining where the contamination comes from, there's also the problem of determining whether it was a problem with the production itself or whether it spread during shipping and handling (meaning that it wasn't due to the farming method). Organic does suffer, however, from the fact that irradiation techniques can't be used on it. Ultimately, I think the use of certain agricultural methods is very much dependent on context and location. This article does a pretty good job summing it up:

http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/201..._gunther_re.php

As far as Fukushima goes, there are still workers being exposed to radiation:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/nationa...0-millisieverts

Is this the best response? I think it's really premature. For one:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/german...,767900,00.html

OECD nations have agreed to "stress tests" on nuclear facilities, but instead Merkel has already changed the entire course of the nation's energy policy:

http://www.neurope.eu/articles/OECD-urges-...p#ixzz1PJKtYJFM

Investing in renewables is a good idea, of course, but doing so while replacing nuclear (before further safety testing is done, even) with coal, natural gas, etc.? Backward march.

The natural gas direction could be due to what the tsunami/nuke situation is doing to Japan's economy. Although natural gas releases sequestered CO₂ into the atmosphere, the upside is that failure of this type of plant would not ripple through Germany's economy with massive evacuations and unusable radioactive land areas. Since the tech for a natural gas-fired plant is relatively low and safe, the cost overheads are lower than with nukes. Plus the transportation and storage of natural gas is less messy than with coal. I'm not sure about the extraction process of natural gas, whether that's better or worse for the environment than coal mining. For now, I'm considering that a wash.

So, when having to make decisions about what's possible to do now, and having no overall solution available, natural gas makes more sense than nukes and coal-fired plants.

Ideally, Germany would put its excellent engineering talent to work on renewable energy tech. I haven't seen where this might be true, but it does follow logically.

Transportation and storage of natural gas is much more dangerous than transportation of coal or oil. Coal mining has a greater impact than most natural gas extraction. Natural gas is also much more dangerous than coal in the event of a natural disaster.

Surface mined coal is the safest energy source we have that's available in sufficient quantities to meet our current and projected (for the next couple centuries) energy demands. Natural gas, however, is "clean" whereas coal is obviously and visibly "dirty".

Me, I just want my orbital solar arrays. But even with orbital solar generated electricity, I still want to be cooking with gas!