-42 votes

Fukushima fear mongering is unfounded. Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest form of energy we have.

I've seen it reported that the amount of radioactive water being poured into the ocean is 30,000 tons per day. If this were true, which its not, then it would take approximately 137,000 years for this accident to contaminate a whopping one percent of the ocean. The actual number is close to 300 tons per day...so really it would take 13,700,000 years to contaminate the ocean 1 percent.

By the way, 300 tons per day is the equivalent of 16 common garden hoses pouring into the ocean. It would take seven or eight days for this leak to fill an Olympic size swimming pool.

Cesium is water soluble so the radioactivity is quickly diluted by the 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of sea water in the ocean. One nuclear reactor cannot contaminate the entire Earth. They all said we were going to die when Chernobyl happened too. You should be more worried about the nuclear bombs they test within and near the US.

Fact of the matter is, nuclear power has a 60-year safety rating that is impeccable and cannot be touched by any other form of energy production. The official death toll due to nuclear power in its 60-year history is less than 100,000 people. 90,000 people died in one accident, the Chernobyl accident. Let's compare that to the number of people who have died from our use of fossil fuels. 2 million people died this year alone from pollution created by fossil fuels. It would take 25 partial meltdowns per year in order for nuclear power to create that kind of death toll. Granted, a nuclear accident is a horrible thing for those that are nearby when it happens...but it happens so rarely that the death toll is really insignificant when you consider the amount of energy that is produced. In fact, per kilowatt hour of energy produced, nuclear power is safer than both wind and solar power. Solar and wind plants have to be built high off the ground and people die just maintaining and cleaning them. Windmills kill millions of birds every year. Solar panels are made with mercury and heavy metals that will eventually end up in our landfills and our ground water. All energy comes at a cost, but nuclear power has a 60-year safety rating that cannot be touched. The statistics don't lie.

Thorium reactors can be built that are physically impossible to melt down. They can also be used to burn up all the radioactive waste we have created so far...which is the biggest problem that nuclear power presents. They could reduce the amount of radioactive waste we have currently by factors of hundreds. Thorium is between 3&4 times more abundant than uranium and could last us for thousands of years.

YOUTUBE: 5 minute video thorium reactor

And no...I'm not a paid government shill.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


As soon as we switch them all to Thorium Reactors I will agree with you, and I mean pure thorium reactors not hybrid reactors.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

Amazing how many ignorant

Amazing how many ignorant ****wads on this site spew the word "truth" out of their mouths nonstop yet think Fukushima is going to kill us all but coal somehow isn't doing far far worse damage.

Isn't coal compressed carbon?

Last time i checked, plants breath carbon. Or did I miss the memo where the Earth suddenly changed to adapt to the popular belief of the uneducated?

You have sources to back your claims about coal.

Or are we supposed to take your word for it.

Free includes debt-free!


Whats the half life on coal contamination?

I am no fan of coal or oil for that matter but the claim that it is the safest source is beyond absurd.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

My guess is that those

My guess is that those barrels of "nuclear waste" which no one is allowed to go near or examine, you'd find missing enemies of the government, not green sludge.

There was a great lecture on here some time ago about one of the people who pioneered nuclear energy in America who had some pretty stunning claims. He goes around to this day eating Uranium. He used to swim in the cooling pools back when they were saying WTF to the claims that spent rods were dangerous.

The premise is that since spent rods can sit in a pool for 3 years and then be completely reusable, it makes plutonium most valuable commodity on the earth, and could put all other forms of energy out of business. In order to consolidate wealth for themselves and keep the rest of us stuck on extortionate and finite energy by the cartels, the myth of the hazards of nuclear power was created to scare the shit out of people. Where it not for these lies, every neighborhood would have a tiny power station fueled by a single plutonium rod that would give everyone free energy for decades; cooled for 3 years, then repeat.

Also, for those of you claiming 90,000 people died in the Chernobyl accident, I strongly suggest you revisit your research on that topic. Very few have died. The vast bulk were a few babies who drank tainted formula. Of those children who drank this mysteriously tainted formula, nearly all recovered from the thyroid cancer they developed later, with only a handful succumbing. Of the original workers, only a handful died by what could be considered to be effects of Chernobyl. Most were just fine.

Follow the money.

Sure nuclear power is great.

When you bury the waste in the ground make sure to put up signs with pictures of skulls and cross bones so that people thousands of years from now will know to stay away from it. Come to think of it, better inscribe it in stone, wood signs don't last very long.

It is vain...

to think that we can destroy what God has made. We will only destroy ourselves and separate further from one another and God. Need proof?

Not true.

"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou should give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and should destroy THEM WHICH DESTROY THE EARTH."

Revelations 11:18 seems to disagree with you.

Honestly I don't see how anyone can claim we are not destroying our planet. Actually it would take great arrogance and ignorance to think we are not while we continue to do so.

So your good book...

says to you,"Start a war with someone... blah blah blah. How is this any different from the Koran or the Talmud or Torah? You miss the point of my post. You may want to ask yourself,is it ironic that Ireneaus censored your learning of the Bible? Or that a King of any country edited and provided your unquestioned truth? If you watched the video I linked to, you would see that my point is that God/nature ( I personally equate the two) is beyond man's censorship or destruction. Even against the equivalent power of 400 Hiroshima bombs.That is not to say, be a dickhead/bad steward of the land.More like, get over yourself. Be humble. So honestly, who has this, "great arrogance and ignorance", if not the one who doesn't question and learn.

You need to chill dude.

If you think I missed your point then you need to reiterate.

You claimed that we can't destroy our environment which God created. I say you are wrong not only by Scripture but by my own witness.

When I was a kid I could drink from natural springs around here but now I can't because they are destroyed by the energy and timber industries. That is only ONE actual example of how we are destroying this planet.

The earth is being destroyed by men and no 55 minute video changes that. So what you said is wrong.

As a matter of fact it will be in such bad shape when all is finished that it will have to be made anew.

I stand by my response.

And thank you...

for exemplifying my point," when all is finished that it will have to be made anew." All will not be finished. Vanity exudes from this statement. Look to the heavens and be humble.

I was referring...

to nature surviving long after us. The destruction of all things. The point was to be humble and look at things in such a way. You put words in my mouth. Sorry about your spring water. BUT I SAID NOTHING WRONG. The video shows how things are made anew. So you chill. If I said "all" of what God made, your rant would fall flat.


a) The actual number is close to 300 tons per day...
b)It would take seven or eight days for this leak to fill an Olympic size swimming pool...link?
c) Fact of the matter is, nuclear power has a 60-year safety rating that is impeccable and cannot be touched by any other form of energy production. ..what about hydroelectric?
d) Granted, a nuclear accident is a horrible thing for those that are nearby when it happens...but it happens so rarely that the death toll is really insignificant when you consider the amount of energy that is produced. ..that's a past-based argument. That the amount of accidents will not occur at a greater frequency than in the past + that they won't be more severe than they were in the past

Government says its subsidized nuclear power is safe.

It's a money pit that is maintained by borrowing from creditors. It has never paid a return on investment.

Congress has paid no principal on the Federal debt since 1893. Just interest to stave off bankruptcy.

In the past our nuclear plants weren't 50 years old.

You want me to believe my 1973 Gremlin is as safe and efficient as my 2003 Buick LeSabre.

That's crazy talk.

Free includes debt-free!

Plutonium contamination from Japan is a real concern.

Oct. 18, 2013: [...] the emission of radioactive particles from Fukushima Dai-ichi continues until today and that the available source term [i.e. total radioactive release] estimates only deal with the emissions during the first weeks of the disaster, it is important to look at which source term estimate to use

Published May 1, 2013: Page 8 — “Pu contamination in soil thought to be coming from the reactors”

Japan Expert: Second explosion was “more like a bomb” at Fukushima — Spent nuclear fuel flew 30 kilometers away, pellets collected by military — Very strange materials like europium were found — Should have evacuated out to 300 kilometers

"All energy comes at a cost."

Wrong. Human energy comes with no cost and with benefits.

"There is nothing more absurd than people wanting to live in luxury and ease while being slim and looking good." ---Wendell Berry

it gets to the point where a person doesn't know what . . .

to believe anymore.

But I do have a question, about the deaths from pollution by coal/oil--

where did you get those statistics?

Why is solar power so un-doable?

I know that wind turbines can kill raptors and other birds--

but they are pretty safe for humans--

this is a huge quagmire--


I met a man who had fueled an entire home on hydrogen (and a car)--

I went to the house and saw it all--

(or we did)

We lost track of him, and years later I found someone who had also known him--

said he died suddenly, and there was some mystery surrounding his death--

We saw all the equipment.

I don't remember enough about it to describe any of it.

I think I have mentioned this on DP before; I think someone tried to tell me that it was a hoax or that I had only imagined it; others claimed that they believed that this man's process was impossible; others believed that he might have really found something, and it was a threat to those who control energy--

who knows?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Government wants to centrally control energy production.

They demonize what they want to destroy. They are creating the confusion by scaring people with pseudo-science.


The whole carbon dioxide scare it to drive carbon based energy production out of business by making the buy carbon credits from nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power requires subsidization. Its a money loser but can be centrally controlled.

For every Kilowatt produced by nuclear power 2 kilowatts of waste heat is dumped into the atmosphere and waterways. They are 33% efficient. Of that 1 kilowatt generated 8% is lost in transmission.

My truck is about 22% efficient, but fossil fuel plants are in production that are 58% efficient.

There are solutions, but the can't be centrally controlled.

Free includes debt-free!

I agree with government having . . .

the need to control--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

very impressive--


it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

More counter-proof

"This is highly concerning, as Unit 4 currently holds more than 1,500 spent nuclear fuel rods, and a collective 37 million curies of deadly radiation that, if released, could make much of the world completely uninhabitable. "

“If Unit 4 collapses, the worse case scenario will be a meltdown, and a resultant fire in the atmosphere. That will be the most unprecedented crisis that man has ever experienced. Nobody will be able to approach the plants … as all will have melted down and caused a big fire,” said Murata during the interview. “Many scientists say if Unit 4 collapses, not only will Japan lie in ruin, but the entire world will also face serious damages.”

Read entire article here...

Please for the love of god, don't spread information based on poorly thought through lies. I live in a real world where facts are facts and everything else is bulls*&t. Your article above is the latter.

I highly recommend this page.

I highly recommend this page. It is a far more real assessment than that of this article above. Its a disaster. Don't candy coat it with terrible untrue falsehoods. When the experts call situations "Serious Contamination Events" and "Unprecedented nucleological situations" you can bet its worse than that.


Very misleading...

Ok, for 1, you are only partially correct about what you are saying. 300 tonnes per day would fill an Olympic swimming pool quite rapidly. But to put into real context, a 20' x 10' x 6' pool would be a grand total of 74,880 lbs. That means that the actual amount of water in that size pool is exactly 33.965 tonnes (a far vry from 300 tonnes). That said, sure, ill go with your 1% idea (in actuality, i'm sure its even less... the ocean is a very big place).

So how could 1% harm all that other water around it. Well, 1st take out a cup a big big big cup if you have one. Grab an eye-dropper and fill it with some blue dye. Drop exactly 1 drop of that blue dye into the water. watch. Your <1% drop of water contaminated (made blue) your entire glass. If the blue dye were more concentrated, the glass would be even bluer. In reality this situation is a grand scale cluster fuck and is extremely dangerous. Downplaying this situation is NOT a smart course of action.

The more real question to ask yourself is "if all of the nuclear material in the fukushima plant were to be evenly distributed all over the earth, would the amount be enough to be a problem?" the resounding answer to that is a resounding yes. Very very bad. In local areas you will get far more concentration and areas very distant you will get less, but, eventually this material will be spread to every last nook and cranny of the earth. How? Simple, its got a half life so long that eventually some of it will get everywhere. Whether by air or by water it will. Also, nuclear waste contaminating the oceans is a critical problem. If it were to effect the oceans ecosystem we could see massive fish kills and evidence has already been reported. The pacific is responsible for producing a large % of the worlds food supply. This problem alone could lead to a doomsday scenario. Imagine if half the world lost an important food supply or contaminated themselves and those around them because they are fish that was radiated. Do you honestly believe that some of the contaminated fish will not end up as dinner on someones plate?

In addition the reactor is still burning and creating airborne waste. This travels high, far and wide. More dispersed, but given that a single invisible hot particle entering your body is enough to give you cancer... its alarming at the least. Add to this that a particle is considered hot for the duration of its half life and well, wherever it falls increases cancer and other tissue damage problems in whatever life form comes its way.

The biggest and last part of the problem is that its still a problem that is not getting better. its getting worse. That plant had about 40 years worth of waste... from what 4 reactors? To make matters even more sever, these were not just a single type of fuel. They have run just about everything through those reactors. From high test to low test. That means that the waste will be a nasty mixture of carcinogens that affect everything from thyroid to bone to who knows what other physical ailments. Truth is, this type of thing never happened before so we are the Ginnie pigs.

Nuclear power is a catastrophe sold on false principles. The question on everyone's mind should be a simple one when considering the "safety" of nuclear power. Where do you put the waste and how do you keep it safe... for i dunno, 140,000 years lets say. show me anything that has stayed together for 10,000 years and ill shut up. btw, did you know it requires great power to keep those spent rods safe and cool? Thats why they needed power at the reactors... to run the pumps over the spent fuel pool.

Please don't shut up

but evidence suggests the Giza Pyramid complex has been around for 10000 years. Well... the Sphinx at least.

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

Quote from Ron Paul...

"Nuclear power is very very dangerous. But I think it's the safest form of energy we have."

Once again, Ron Paul is a genius.

Argue with that.

He's wrong. He's a doctor not an engineer.

Cut the subsidies for nuclear power an see how long it lasts on the open market.

Free includes debt-free!

Nuclear power also includes

Nuclear power also includes pebble-bed reactors, which are very safe in comparison to traditional nuclear power generation.

Bill Gates, arguably one of the smartest guys on the planet is even invested in a new concept nuclear power company.

Nuclear is very efficient compared to other energy sources for large scale energy needs. I've seen plans for small-scale pebble-bed reactors that would provide power on a house-by-house or block-by-block basis, which would eliminate the need for large scale nuclear. I think eliminating government controlled power generation is a great goal.


Bill Gates start-up: