Skip to content

Fukushima & The Law Of Unintended Consequences

October 29, 2019

By Paul Homewood


h/t Joe Public


The law of unintended consequences!!



  1. HotScot permalink
    October 29, 2019 7:28 pm

    The ‘Precautionary Principle’ is a direct contradiction to human nature.

    We have been railroaded into it by unadventurous, pen pushing, desk bound bureaucrats who wouldn’t let their precious brats climb a tree.

    Humankind is an adventure. We have never done before, what we will do tomorrow. Man has always survived on the edge, had we not done so we would still believe the earth is flat!

  2. Phillip Bratby permalink
    October 29, 2019 7:31 pm

    I have been writing an article about the Precautionary Principle. This is a wonderful example of how its use (or misuse) can have very harmful consequences.

    It should have been evident to policy makers that the risk of harm from the operating nuclear power stations was exceedingly low and so they should not have shut them down without fully evaluating the consequences.

  3. Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
    October 29, 2019 7:37 pm

    more deaths than the accident itself.

    Who died? Likewise with 3-Mile Island in Pennsylvania.

    In the USA, about 12,000 people die each year from falling down stairs.
    About 800 from bicycle accidents. 270 by train/auto collisions.
    [There is also ‘suicide-by-train’ but that’s a different story.]

  4. October 29, 2019 7:39 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate-

  5. Adrian, East Anglia permalink
    October 29, 2019 9:08 pm

    The Precautionary Principle is a useful tool for politicians and officials who find themselves having to deal with things that they have zero knowledge or real-world experience of. Invoking the principle is, for them, a demonstration of ‘doing something’ while avoiding the effort and responsibility of actually analysing a situation, evaluating possible responses, and thinking through the potential consequences. Failure to think things through commonly gives rise to unintended consequences.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 30, 2019 2:01 pm

      So basically they need to use it all the time such are their limited abilities.

  6. MrGrimNasty permalink
    October 29, 2019 9:28 pm

    It’s supposed to be ‘firstly do no harm’, not ‘do harm first’.

    It’s apparent that the precautionary action desired by the eco-zealots to deal with the unknown – but possibly zero – negatives of supposedly man-influenced – but quite possibly not to any meaningful degree – climate change, will cause real harm to the economy, quality of life, disaster resilience, food supply, etc. etc. and inevitably cause millions of premature and avoidable deaths.

    California is a case in point. The power companies have been forced to squander billions on green schemes that will not make any significant difference to CO2 emissions or climate in a global context. Energy prices for the most vulnerable have skyrocketed. Meanwhile vegetation maintenance and the archaic crumbling power distribution network have been left to cause fires. The billions squandered could have been used to modernize the power-grid to a subterranean network with near zero fire risk.

  7. markl permalink
    October 30, 2019 12:18 am

    Unintended consequences are the hallmark of environmental activists.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 30, 2019 2:00 pm

      And governments run by idiots incapable of seeing the results of their actions. Take the problem with surgeons and consultants cutting their hours due to pension tax introduced by the idiot Osborne. He also screwed up the housing market by messing with stamp duty.

  8. October 30, 2019 3:12 am

    How the precautionary principle turns uncertainty into certainty of the extreme

  9. Malcolm Bell permalink
    October 30, 2019 7:56 am

    I totally despair at the failure of contemporary education. The teaching profession has been infiltrated by green and socialist conspirators who insist their minority, economically and scientifically ignorant opinions must be heard – or else!

    We, the reasonable, pacific, great majority trying to be democratic, are being bullied by these socially violent actions. They claim to be acting “none violently” too – until you resist them and they suddenly become vicious and hideous. There is no room in their brains for the question “Consider you might be mistaken”.

    Consequently thousands die – but it isn’t their fault of course, they take no responsibility for the outcome.

  10. Phoenix44 permalink
    October 30, 2019 8:47 am

    The trouble is that in most cases the Precautionary Principle should apply to the use of the Precautionary Principle.

    It is a nonsense, ignoring the simple, indisputable fact that everything has costs as well as benefits. The Precautionary Principle would have banned vaccination, antibiotics, chlorinated water and perhaps even pasteurization. It would have banned electricity and gas in homes and X-rays in hospitals.

    And “rightly” because each of these has caused harm. But each gas brought immense benefits that vastly outweigh the harm.

  11. saparonia permalink
    October 30, 2019 9:08 am

    Scare mongering excuse for nuclear. The extreme cold is one factor, a nuclear winter, but also food crops suffered, was contaminated. People didn’t all die immediately from the meltdown, many would die slow lingering deaths over time, partially due to displacement. Deaths from the accident were not confined to Japan. It’s presumptious to say that the cost of using coal was the cause of deaths. Fukushima is ongoing, it isn’t something from the past. This demonstrates that the current desire of our money grabbing leaders is to impose nuclear reagardless of the irreversible devastation it creates and criminalise the use of coal by fear mongering.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      October 30, 2019 10:19 am

      Nobody died from the “meltdown”.
      Who has died from the accident outside of Japan, please name them?
      You are obviously very anti nuclear.

      • saparonia permalink
        October 30, 2019 12:18 pm

        Some family members of mine in Canada had cancers after Chernobyl, some were fatal. Because of this I am admittedly presuming that the water and clouds from Fukushima may have travelled over the borders of Japan. Japanese debris washed up in US. The thing about cancers is that I can’t prove that sudden increases that coincide with radiation disasters are causal, but that’s why you challenged me to do so. You are obviously very pro-nuclear.
        I think it’s an abomination. Once it’s there, its there forever. I’m sitting on the waste from Sellerfield, literally. My house is over miles of coal pits in Yorkshire. We have the “hub of the nuclear industry” at the opening of the pit in Catcliffe. Happily, they did install new fans in the Sheffield Schools to get rid of the radon gas.

      • saparonia permalink
        October 30, 2019 12:27 pm

        Not long after Fukushima, reading about the disaster I came across images of what it did to the people living around it, cancers, deformities of children etc and the help and support they were receiving. I was using the word “meltdown” as a figure of speech to describe the initial worldwide shock period, not the literal meltdown inside. I also remember reading that throughout there was an open Internet connection.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        October 30, 2019 8:39 pm

        “I think it’s an abomination. Once it’s there, its there forever. I’m sitting on the waste from Sellerfield, literally.”
        I smell a rat, saparonia. You say you live in Yorkshire but you can’t spell the name of the most famous nuclear facility in the country. Then again, I lost family members to cancer after Chernobyl so your explanation of how they died sounds – what’s the word – preposterous!!

    • Joe Public permalink
      October 30, 2019 3:52 pm


      Interesting that you provide the 2013 IBTimes report on ambulance chasers’ actions.

      Sadly, you failed to mention it was tossed out of court.

  12. October 30, 2019 9:21 am

    Then there’s geo-engineering – or climate engineering as Wikepedia calls it. Things like ‘solar radiation management proposals’ :/

  13. Alan Kendall permalink
    October 30, 2019 4:11 pm

    Surely “taking precautions” is a low-grade application of the Precautionary Principle, to which few can object? The many and varied safety measures within a nuclear power system are precautionary and few here would object to them, even though some are almost certainly redundant. What is being objected to is the unreasonable application of the principle, but where is the line to be drawn between reasonable and unreasonable, and who should draw it? When things go wrong, there will be no end of critics arguing safety was compromised, whereas before an accident many of the same people would have argued for greater leniency and freedom from restraint, and criticizing overuse of the Precautionary Principle.

  14. Ben Vorlich permalink
    October 30, 2019 9:37 pm

    According to Wikipedia

    It was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[10] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines. Despite this, there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome. Given the uncertain health effects of low-dose radiation, cancer deaths cannot be ruled out.[11] However, studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected.[12]

    I can remember seeing pictures of milk being, poured away on Cumbrian farms after the Sellafield fire. The number of deaths attributed to the fire is ca35. I also remember that Thyroid Cancer was a concern and some sort of Iodine supplement being needed. Something I don’t hear about these days is Strontium 90 from nuclear fallout.

    It’s the case that more people have been killed and injured by medical errors with ionising radiation than by Fukushima and Sellafield combined.

  15. Mokiki permalink
    October 31, 2019 3:25 am

    So why hasn’t the PP been applied to something as irreversible as mass immigration?

  16. November 1, 2019 6:24 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: