Taking Randall Munroe’s excellent Radiation Dose Chart and a Japanese-language version of the same as our data sources, we have visualised radiation doses as spheres (the shaded orange disc above). Each sphere has a volume that is directly proportional to the radiation dose it depicts (1µSv ≈ 16.14cm3). The spheres are shown next to a human figure, adding a human dimension to the comparison while also establishing the scale of each view (we have assumed a height of the figure of 175cm, which is fairly average for an adult male).

Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation.

Hydroelectric power was found to to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TWh (883 fatalities for every TW·yr) in the period 1969–1996

Nuclear power is about 0.04 deaths/TWh.

But this does not mean Fukushima is now on a par with Chernobyl. Indeed, as Bloomberg notes, the data so far suggests that Fukushima has released only one-tenth as much radioactive material as Chernobyl did.

It's also important to note that the upgrading does not mean that the situation is getting worse. Rather, it is a reassessment of what has already happened. The largest releases of radioactive material occurred in the first days after the earthquake, and the amount released every day has generally been decreasing as various leaks have been plugged.

Japan has been asking foreign media to objectively report on the evolving crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the Foreign Ministry said Thursday, as reports deemed sensationalist or based on incorrect information have fanned concern and led to import restrictions on Japanese products.

State Foreign Secretary Chiaki Takahashi told a press conference that Tokyo believes some reports by foreign media on the Fukushima crisis were ''excessive'' and has urged the organizations responsible for the stories through Japanese diplomatic missions abroad to correctly and objectively disseminate information.

Ministry officials said some foreign media, including tabloids, emphasized the danger of radioactive materials leaking from the Fukushima nuclear plant by focusing on extreme projections, while erroneously reporting that the plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. has hired homeless people to tackle the ongoing crisis.

This is a joint post, by Chris Goodall of carboncommentary.com and Mark Lynas. We make no apologies for length, as these issues can really only be properly addressed in detail.

How risky is nuclear power? As the Fukushima nuclear crisis continues in Japan, many people and governments are turning away from nuclear power in the belief that it is uniquely dangerous to human health and the environment. The German government has reversed its policy of allowing the oldest nuclear plants to stay open and Italy has reportedly abandoned its efforts to develop new power stations. Beijing has stopped approving applications for nuclear reactors until the consequences of Fukushima become clear, potentially affecting up to 100 planned new stations. The mood towards the nuclear industry is antagonistic and suspicious around the world. We think this reaction is short-sighted and largely irrational.

One of the common problems I see in the media is the failure to distinguish between dose and dose rate. That's like mixing up miles and miles per hour. It makes a lot of what is reported confusing and hard to interpret.

Moreover, risk of harm is a function of both dose and dose rate. The same total dose spread relatively evenly over weeks, months, or years (chronic exposure) carries much lower risk of harm than the same total dose received over minutes, hours or days (acute exposure). This has to do with the body's ability to repair damage at the cellular level. So you can't really estimate risk accurately without knowing something about both dose and dose rate.

In this article, that for some reason mostly focuses on the bleeding obvious -- that Tepco are not going to be able to use reactors 1 through 4 at Fukushima Daiichi -- there is also this:

There has been some public mistrust regarding the official data, with fears exacerbated by occasionally contradictory announcements. But Jan van de Putte, a Greenpeace official, said Wednesday that its scientists’ findings largely correlated with the official Japanese data.

“There is no contradiction between Greenpeace data and local data,” he said. “The contradiction is between the data, and action to help people” in the affected areas.

Information about the incident at the Fukushima Nuclear Plants in Japan hosted by http://web.mit.edu/nse/ :: Maintained by the students of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT.

More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to.

If you look around what's really happening in our world today, there's an inescapable pattern that curiously emerges: Much of what's going on is simply unsustainable. It can't go on for much longer, in other words. And it must collapse due to the laws of economics or physics. Here, I've put together a collection of twelve systems that are utterly unsustainable on our planet. Each of these twelve is scheduled for some sort of collapse or shut down in the coming years. They range from economics to medicine, population and the environment. And interestingly, the collapse of just one of these twelve would have devastating consequences across human civilization. What happens when two, three or ten of these things collapse?