For the Fukushima radioactive release, the land area and people affected are very considerable. Even with the evacuation of some 80,000, the human health effects may include 10,000 to 300,000 deaths and as many injuries. Even with some decontamination, 1000s of km2 of land, with homes, businesses, farms and forests will be dangerous for decades. The cost of compensation and decontamination could be $ 180 billion, mostly paid by the taxpayers. Yet according to the Kondo Report, Fukushima could have been far worse, with a release 100 times larger and requiring the evacuation of Tokyo.
The UK criteria for siting nuclear power plants consider only a small radioactive release and fallout reaching 30 km. Yet the Fukushima release was about 4000 times as much and the NII Fukushima 'reasonable worst-case scenario' release is about 270,000 times as much. According to the Kondo Report, the worst case release would require evacuation for 170 or 250 km or more, e.g. from Hinkley Point to Birmingham or London. Also the compensation for the land and property losses and the decontamination costs would be far larger than for Fukushima, at roughly £ 1 trillion. So the UK siting criteria are wholly inadequate and almost all the citizens of Britain are threatened by the existing and proposed nuclear power plants. In the words of Dr John Gofman, this is 'licensing random premeditated murder'. Thus the former must be phased out forthwith and the latter abandoned.
Thus this study contains vital information that was not made available to Parliament when it approved the National Policy Statements: EN-1 (Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy) and EN-6 (National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation). Yet it is almost all available on the Internet. I also show that the UK Office of Nuclear Regulation and the IAEA are both subject to conflicts of interest. Moreover, the latter has even prevented the WHO from reporting truthfully on the health effects of nuclear releases.