A recent report was issued by the World Health Organization about health effects from Fukushima Daiichi. The news is mostly good, but mixed. The bad news is that infants in two areas must be monitored for thyroid cancer because their risk of such cancers may have increased. For others in Japan and the rest of the word, the report had excellent news: negligible health effects can be expected in the civilian population.
But how do you tell people good news? Or even mixed news? Or anything except the "worst disaster the world has ever known" fear-mongers?
The World Nuclear Association has made an excellent effort to get the good news out, and this video by the World Nuclear Association is well-made and accurate.
Accurate Versus Believable
However, is accurate the same as believable? Unfortunately, they are not the same. I would say this video is accurate, but people will not necessarily believe it. If I didn't know anything about nuclear energy, I might watch this video and think:
"Nuclear opponents think that hundreds of thousands of people will die from these accidents, and these proponents think nobody's going to die. Sounds extreme, both of them. Sounds like it's all propaganda, from one side or another."Any of my readers have ideas on how to make this good news more believable? What parts of this video were convincing, and what parts were less convincing?
I also recommend Rod Adams post about this video: Exaggerated myths about nuclear accidents CAUSE negative health effects.