When the tragedy at a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Japan on Sept. 30 was first brought to the world?s attention by the media, there were reports of serious injuries to three workers and several dozen other workers who were taken to a hospital for observation.

The media discussed several aspects of the story — what had happened, what could be done for those unfortunate people injured, what to do with the surrounding population to reduce radiation exposure, and what could be done to stop the chain reaction that persisted at the plant.

The injured workers were hospitalized, and the three most seriously exposed were transferred to a specialist hospital for radiation sickness. Those three have survived thus far and apparently had not received exposure to a dose more than 40 Gray, which is lethal within 48 hours.

They received a dose that has the gravest effects on blood-producing cells, including those that protect against infection, and the intestinal tract. Their health status is (and treatment will be) analogous to that of cancer patients who have received high doses of chemotherapy and have likewise had their immune systems impaired. Their survival is not guaranteed, but if their lives can be sustained for the next few weeks their blood-producing system and intestinal tract can recover to a normal status. They will, however, have a higher risk of developing leukemia than that of the normal population.

When an oil refinery explodes, by contrast, there is frequently little need to send the most injured victims to the hospital; there is little that a doctor can offer today for crushed and charred bodies. An undertaker is, sadly, the more appropriate choice, as was the case for the three people killed instantly at the oil refinery in Smackover, Ark., on Jan. 13.

When a refinery explodes, there is no time to meet with experts to reverse or ameliorate the effects of an explosion at an oil refinery. There is no time to evacuate the surrounding population — the explosion has already wrought its effects, unless the ensuing fire can’t be contained, as was the case at an oil storage depot that exploded in South Brooklyn in January 1976 and burned for five days, razing the surrounding area.

Almost simultaneously with the reports of the accident in Japan in the international press came a rebound effect that was not unexpected: The world looked with horror as another nuclear nightmare appeared in the offing and reacted with indignation. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were solemnly invoked to illustrate the terrible effects of nuclear-generated electricity. The “green” organizations appeared on the scene to call for the closure of nuclear facilities. The talking heads in the media echoed those demands to call for an end to this technology that is too dangerous to handle.

Is it? All large-scale energy conversion plants are inherently risky. That includes oil, gas, coal, solar energy and wind. Surprisingly, the last are risky, too — among other reasons, because of the sheer scale involved in the manufacture and maintenance of a plant capable of collecting so dilute an energy source and making the energy output equal to that generated by an average nuclear or fossil-fuel-burning facility. The question of choosing which to use is not “Which is risk-free?” but rather “Which in comparison to the others is safer in the aggregate?”

If your family need a safe, cheap and high quality first aid kits or survival info, you have come to the right place. Find out all about accident and medical emergency.