Most people do not realize how delayed portions of the Fukushima evacuation were. I certainly did not. By the end of March, the situation at the plant was under control. Power had been restored to the site. The team was getting water to all the stricken reactors. The temperatures were coming down. The release rate was one ten thousandth of what it had been earlier.\cite{tepco-2012a}[p 51]

The government fully expected to restart Japan's reactors quickly. The job was mainly clean up and rebuild from the tsunami. They were quite taken back when the public led by a normally tame press turned against nuclear power, threatening the ruling Democratic party.

The politicians responded. On April 22, 40 days after the start of the release, the government implemented two new evacuation zones, Figure 1. The area out to 20 kilometers from the plant had already been evacuated. //

Figure 2 shows the GKG dose rate profile for the high end Iitate population. GKG estimates the peak high end ambient dose rate for this town was 47 microGy/h, not that much lower than UCS's number for Okuma. According to LNT, making these people evacuate after 50 days increased their life expectancy by 24 days. For most of the citizens of Iitate, the numbers would be lower to much lower. According to SNT, forcing these to people to evacuate after 50 days, increased their life expectancy by 1.7 minutes. The stress of evacuation will be far, far more costly. //

Under LNT, the harm just keeps building up. In a nuclear power plant release, after the initial rapid decline, the dose rate falls off very slowly. The cumulative dose for the Iitate high end group after a 40 year exposure period is 613 mSv. For an LNTer, this is a scary number, since it only took a 150 mSv or so acute dose to produce significant increases in cancer in the bomb survivors. For an LNTer, the fact that the bomb survivors suffered most of their dose in seconds, while the Iitate citizens will receive their dose fairly evenly over 40 years is irrelevant. Given our rate dependent ability to repair radiation damage, this is biological nonsense. //

This is so stupidly tragic that I don't know where to begin. The peak dose rate in the EPA was around 0.06 mSv/d and lasted roughly 10 days. In the Karunagappally study, Figure 4, the people who got 0.06 mSv/d showed no increase in cancer and they averaged that dose rate for at least 19 years. By day 50, when most of these people were frightened into leaving, the dose rate was down to around 0.02 mSv/d. In the Karunagappally study, we have nearly a million person-years at this dose rate or higher with no increase in cancer. And most of these people experienced these dose rates their whole life. //

The people in the EPA had their lives uprooted, and in many cases ruined for no reason at all. Or rather by a model that is tragically misleading. Given its consequences, I have no problem calling LNT evil. What does that say about its promoters?