Measuring points:
1) Right after the accident at Chernobyl;
vs.
2) Several years after the accident–when one can argue that whatever species is measured has learned to live with increased levels of radiation.

In other words, who wants to be first/nearest to the blast?

Costa Rica does sound visionary if we are to accept or believe the first paragraph fully.Perhaps USA could take a leaf from its book re ecotourism and such like?

The World Through My Eyes

and thank for the links complexify!

Magical sight, even stepping back,,,

denis

In that context, his mention of Kevin Kelly’s "Resist Culty Religion" observation got a good response from the audience.

If you haven’t already, take a look at http://www.sbnotes.com, his annotated bibliography/companion to the book. Online, he explores the controversial hormesis hypothesis (some radiation is good for you) in more detail.

For anyone interested in more detail, the Long Now Foundation has one of his talks online here [41MB MP3].

(Oh, and the photo is beautiful too, of course.)

The big picture, is that most of the developed world is facing a difficult demographic destiny (blue countries are sub-replacement), from wikipedia:

You can see reference to the U.S. and France at this wikipedia page

Lilly Hunter: Small world. Those Sami reindeer herders are my peeps! And if I am skimming the article right, the Sami killed less reindeer because of confusion and fear of radioactivity. This hurt them economically. But, they did not find evidence of health harm. So even though that article was written with a tone of concern, it seems to support all of Brand’s arguments: that fear of radiation is worse than radiation itself, and ironically, such fears help to protect animals from slaughter!

Summary of Brand’s argument on nuclear: the argument that a bit more radioactivity is good for you is one fringe argument. Some parts of the world have background radiation 1000x the EPA regulated level for power plants, and the people living there are doing just fine. So it’s a question of degree. An absolutist stance that any radiation is unacceptable, during generation or storage, is illogical in an context of tradeoffs. For Chernobyl, there are tradeoffs. Some deleterious effects downwind were outweighed by the environmental benefits from simply halting routine human activity in the region (per the conclusion of the UN aftermath study). Puts things in perspective. And if you compare to the reigning alternative for generating that electricity — coal — then there is no contest. Coal’s environmental and health risks are greater, global and long term. France has the cleanest air in Europe, versus China, where the annual deaths are staggering. This is why scientists who dispassionately look at the data anew, with consistent logical frameworks across the alternatives, end up shifting pro-nuclear.