-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.

Comment viewing options

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

You dont know jack dude. You

You dont know jack dude. You probably only know made up facts on moron blogs.

Since wpsmithjr is the expert, he knows his headline is not true


"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

And you link shows that how?


Hydroelectric and geothermal are cleaner.

The headline says that nuclear power is the cleanest. That isn't true.

7% + of US electricity comes from perfectly clean existent geothermal and hydroelectric power.


"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ


what did your link have to do with clean energy? it was a chart of market share...

Fukushima out of control

It’s hard to take you seriously under the circumstances as the crisis is worsening.

“We don’t really know the status of unit 1, 2 and 3’s core or the reactor pressure vessels or even the radiological containment vessels.”
“What’s to account for 100-fold increases in cesium, strontium, tritium in the ground water in the bay off the coastline just in recent months?”
“In the last five days there has been a 50-fold increase in radioactivity levels in certain of the ground water samples.”

“dolphins dying up and down the East Coast in record numbers, now comes this story from Canada where Pacific Herrings are now dying off in record numbers as well, bleeding out from their eyeballs, faces, fins and tails.”

Has the Fukushima “China Syndrome” begun?

ZEROHEDGE] TEPCO Official Admits Fukushima "Out Of Control"

Media myth of ocean dilution

The dilution of radiation argument is being exposed as a faulty premise. Instead of disbursing, it appears that the radiation has stayed together. An ocean current called the North Pacific Gyre is a factor, and any sea life that passes through it picks up concentrated doses of radiation. Raising the accepted levels of radiation in foods is all part of the deceptive campaign to minimize the effects of rising radiation levels in sea life that is occurring.
“Last year, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and 3 scientists from the GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences showed that radiation on the West Coast of North America could end up being 10 times higher than in Japan… And a team of top Chinese scientists has just published a study in the Science China Earth Sciences journal showing that Fukushima nuclear pollution is becoming more concentrated as it approaches the West Coast of the United States, that the plume crosses the ocean in a nearly straight line toward North America, and that it appears to stay together with little dispersion:
West Coast of North America to Be Hit Hard by Fukushima Radiation
http://www.globalresearch.ca/west-coast-of-north-america-to-... By Washington’s Blog Global Research, August 21, 2013

U.S. Physician on Fukushima: Beware of all the lifeforms you take out of the Pacific (VIDEO)
www.enenews.com/physician-beware-of-all-the-lifeforms y...

I had no idea about Thorium

I had no idea about Thorium until I watched this video. I have a different outlook on the future of *DIFFERENT* nuclear energy technologies after watching the first 5 minutes of this. The intellectually honest person will yield that there are a great many number of different ways of doing nuclear - LFTR has some real promise.


yeah, I really like that video...

mainly because you can tell people watched the first 5 minutes of it...and then if you're really interested they can watch the rest.

if they can figure thorium out, which they've already really have because they built a reactor that burned thorium back in the 50's...our energy problems are solved.

And that's a bold statement. But a true one.

It's 50 years too late.

It's 50 years too late.

Brilliant logic.

Brilliant logic.

And your logic is what

And your logic is what exactly?

Just magically wipe clean the hundreds of derelict uranium reactors from the U.S. and convert them all to thorium? It does not work like that.

We need to get rid of the nuclear waste that has accumulated for the last 50 years first and foremost. Look to HANFORD for my angle.

thorium reactors can be used to get rid of the waste...

...we've created using uranium reactors. They need a small amount of uranium or plutonium to start up. They will burn this waste up over time, as reactors have to be started and stopped. The thorium reactor is much more efficient and will reduce our nuclear waste by a factor of several hundreds.

I think the only explanation this hasn't been 403'd

Is because our great moderators enjoy a good laugh lol.


Thorium is more abundant than uranium and does not yield radioactive waste when producing energy. The world is invested in uranium reactors not because they are a more efficient source of energy, but because they yield bomb-grade by-products. Similarly, the space program was more about developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that about exploring space.

A large area of Japan is now

A large area of Japan is now contaminated for centuries by radioactive isotopes, as is true for a large area around the reactors at Chernobyl. Tell the people whose farms have been ruined how wonderful nuclear power is. If the government didn't cap the liability of nuclear power plants they would be totally uneconomic to build, as insurers would have to charge very high rates to handle those rare but not nonexistent situations where hundreds of billions of dollars of damage is done.

Only one accident in the entire history of nuclear power...

...has cost "hundreds of billions of dollars", and that is Chernobyl. The Russians built reactors that were notoriously unsafe, and Chernobyl is an example of that considering it didn't have a containment facility.

as far as the "large areas" you discuss, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl is less than 20 miles. I wouldn't exactly call that a large area in the big scheme of things. many of the people that grew up in the hamlets surrounding the Chernobyl reactor have moved back in.

They're giving tours of the reactor for goodness sakes.

you implied there are huge areas of Japan that will be uninhabitable for centuries.

Bull shit.

Here's an article describing the Chernobyl tours...


I am absolutely confident

I am absolutely confident that when the costs are added up a few decades from now Fukushima will be at least as expensive as Chernobyl. It's still spewing radiation into the environment and nobody has a clue how to stop it.

And as far as Chernobyl goes...

...the animal population has exploded in the area since the humans left. Evidently humans are more dangerous to the animals than the radiation.

And a large group of the women who used to live in the hamlets surrounding Chernobyl have returned. 70 and 80 year old women now populate the area surrounding Chernobyl..old women who wanted to go back home.

They have also recently started doing tours of the area surrounding the reactor. it's a freaking tourist attraction. so don't tell me how a large area is going to be inhabitable for thousands of years. That's just crap. There's a small area around the reactors that's still hot...but you're blowing that whole idea way out of proportion.

Actually, humans are more

Actually, humans are more dangerous to many animals than the chronic excessive radiation around Chernobyl. The life span of a deer or wolf is likely to be greatly shortened if it lives in the proximity of human civilization. So what? If humans suffered one tenth the carnage that deer and wolves do when they are frequently hunted it would be considered a catastrophe. So if Chernobyl is half as dangerous to animals as hunting is, that still means its unacceptably dangerous to humans. We also live longer than other animals, so we have more time to develop cancer and accumulate radiation damage to our genes.

Why is it a tourist

attraction? Does that completely escape you?

because it was a bad accident and part of history.

so what?

I used to run nuclear reactors in the Navy...

...but I was only in for 5 years, and that was a couple of decades ago.

Here's what a former engineering officer on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier had to say about the water you're all scared of...

"If someone drank two liters per day of the water that we are supposed to be afraid of for an entire year, their committed effective dose would be just 3 mSv; it would slightly more than double their annual background dose. If the entire amount of that water entered the Pacific Ocean, it would contain less than 0.00002 grams (0.02 milligrams) of strontium-90."

If you want to see his calculations you can go to the website below.

This is the scary water you're all freaking out about. You could drink it straight out of the pipe and it's not going to kill you. If its diluted by the entire ocean, it's inconsequential.


Are you talking about water

pumped onto a melted down reactor to keep it from exploding, or water in a contained loop, designed to remove heat from a controlled reaction?

thats not the issue

i see your point and if that's all there was you'd be right. but a bio magnification process takes place in the ocean and environment that concentrates all radiation and pollution into the food chain. thats the issue. remember how "safe" ddt was? that is until it was bio-magnified into the food chain.


LTBR--Lightbridge (aka Thorium Power)

It's the only company in America researching thorium nuclear energy. I've been invested in them for the past 10 yrs.

I'm not a fan of nuclear energy but if need be, thorium is definitely the way to go!

The by-products of thorium nuclear fuel cannot be used for nuclear weapons unlike uranium. The byproducts of thorium fuel are still radioactive and toxic but 100s-1000s of folds less toxic than uranium waste products. Though irrelevant the half life of the waste is also much much less than uranium waste products' half lives.

There is another...

There is another... TerraWave.

Although it's eugenicist Bill

Although it's eugenicist Bill Gates' company, it looks like really good technology!

I didn't see anywhere that it uses thorium for nuclear fuel. But it's interesting how it uses it own waste as fuel and doesn't require refueling until the end of the life of the reactor! That's amazing!

You could make similar arguments about children and guns.

Children shouldn't handle loaded 45 caliber revolvers? That's crap. I let my three year old play with my 45, loaded and with the safety off, EVERY DAY when I take a shower.

He grew tired of his toys. Besides, he fell down once and scraped his knee when he was walking around with his crayons. And he wrote on the wall too! He's never written on the wall, OR scraped his knee, when he is carrying my loaded 45! I think its better for him and it has a perfect safety record with him. None of this dangerous shooting stuff everybody is SO SO SO worried about.

He just loves it. Why he's even learned to blow on over the barrel like a bottle and play a tune. And its perfectly safe.

As I write this I am sitting in my office and he is playing with my loaded 45 (again safety off) in his playroom right now.....


Wait. What was that sound?

(Disclaimer to those who might find this surfing on Google. This is fiction. I do not have a 3 year old kid, OR a 45, AND if I did - I would never allow him to play with it. Don't let this turn into a NEWS REPORT "This just in. Man confesses on internet to letting his small child play with loaded gun. FBI is conducting full investigation.")

If there was a record of safety...

...in the past that I could look back on (like with nuclear power)....and hundreds of children had been playing with loaded guns at a time...and over a 60 years period there had only been one or two children killed...despite the apparent danger....then sure...let em have fun.

Lots of children are given weapons of some sort at early ages. Guess what? Some of them get hurt or die.

But people still take that chance. You have to weigh the benefits with the potential dangers.

But really you present a ridiculous argument as the two situations are not comparable.