-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.

The situations ARE comparable.

Because in both cases it takes just ONE DUMB MISTAKE to change everything into tragedy FOREVER.

Again I ask you to look at the history...

History shows that even the worst catastrophe, which Chernobyl was, its not that bad in the long run.
Compared to the hundreds of oil spills that occur every year and the millions of people that are slowly being killed by pollution, the death toll from nuclear power and the effect on the environment are minimal.

I think it's a lot more comparable to giving our children firearms and teaching them proper firearm handling. There are advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages very bad because our child might die. But the advantages sometimes outweigh the disadvantages because of the odds.

my parents gave me a BB gun when I was nine and a shotgun when I was 12. plenty of parents do this, even though the risk of losing a child is there. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages even though the worst thing that could happen is really really bad.

Why would we pursue an energy

Why would we pursue an energy source that produces a by-product that can contaminate the earth - plain stupid?

You mean like oil...

You mean like oil, coal and natural gas?

Because cheap energy saves more people than it kills...even the most hazardous ones...like coal and natural gas.,

If you bomb an oil factory

You don't have the side effect of killing millions of people.

You people do realize that there are at least 2 complete...

...nuclear reactors sitting on the ocean floor, right?

The USS Scorpion and the USS Thresher are two nuclear submarines that the United States has lost due to the fact that they sank. and if we've lost two nuclear submarines due to their sinking, the Russians have probably lost many more than that.

Two complete reactors...spewing out their deadly radioactivity...and they have been for the last four decades.

And you're worried about a few gallons of coolant?

One reactor partial melt down is not an extinction level event. No matter what any of you say.


You are going to compare tiny little sub reactors to those in Japan? No dice, failed argument from the start.

Unconstitutional War - "The story you are about to hear is true; the names and places are being changed to protect the guilty."

ok, so you think that reactor coolant leaking into the ocean...

... like at Fukushima, is worse than a complete meltdown of multiple reactors with absolutely no containment whatsoever??


The sub reactors are being cooled

The sub reactors are being cooled with a mass amount of water equal to, well, an ocean. There is no way they are going to meltdown. They have to run "out" of coolant to meltdown and at the bottom of an ocean this is pretty hard to do, right? They are no more harmful at this point than when they were while being operated. These are very, very tiny in comparison and will indeed be diluted and made harmless by your huge ocean.


Unconstitutional War - "The story you are about to hear is true; the names and places are being changed to protect the guilty."

The hulls are crushed...

...and they will melt through their containment before the cooling proces starts...releasing their radioactivity into the environment. But you're right...when you consider the size of the ocean it's irrelevant.

Btw...coolant in reactors in subs that are underway is sampled frequently...and dumped overboard.

" a few gallons of coolant"

and you also STILL believe in the "Fossil Fuel" theory?
and it was not 1, it was 3. while your general points are correct, you do seem to be inviting a flame war.

they built the damn things right next to the ocean, named it FUKU-shima and the emergency generators were underground.
guess what happened? they got wet! imagine that!

you are both....


I think you just made a good argument against your pro-nuke stance. Haha.

But we can worry about the little sub reactors after we've taken care of all the big power plant reactors first.

I don't want uranium burning reactors on sea going...

...vessels. I don't even believe we should have a standing army, so I don't like the fact that those subs are there. My point is that nuclear meltdown is not an extinction level event.

LFTRs? Yes? Fukushima? Are you out of your freakin' mind?

Tens of thousand died prematurely from exposure to radiation during nuclear testing. Those deaths are well documented. You should probably read the article I posted two days ago of the horrific results of US testing in the pacific. Fish change color when you pull them out of the water and flies will not even light on dead ones. Fukushima Daichi Building 4 is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Nuclear energy might have a good track record

but if government intervention is going to distort the risks of nuclear power or limit its liabilities how useful is it while manipulated by government?


tell that to the now yellow salmon

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

I'm sure the Japanese will be comforted.


is this ann coulter

I didn't know Ann Coulter posted on the daily paul. Maybe you should move to fukishima.

Low-energy nuclear reactions (Cold Fusion)

Controversial, but something might be there... possible discoveries yet to be made in this area.

An important point...

that everyone seems to be missing is centralization.

You clearly know far more than me about nuclear power, so I won't contest that; however, you, as well as everyone else who has commented so far, seem to be overlooking the idea of decentralization.

It is a subject that is very important to me and, I assume, many others among this community. The point is, whether nuclear energy is safer than other large-scale energy production methods or not, it has been my experience and is my opinion that most everything is done better when it is done on a smaller, more local scale.

That goes for energy production, food production, education, healthcare, etc. I don't want large nuclear plants, large coal burning plants, or even enormous solar arrays and wind farms.

I want solar panels and windmills on the roofs of houses, geothermal systems in people's yards; I want to see people using the resources that are available and that make sense to utilize in their area for their own energy purposes. This is becoming just as important as having vegetable and herb gardens in our yards, and just as important as keeping our children out of schools with a centralized government-mandated curriculum, in my opinion.

The problem is not specifically with nuclear plants, nor is it with fossil fuel burning plants. The problem is that everthing is becoming centralized.

You're more correct than you know

The issue of decentralization is much broader than you have identified. Because of the security issue, it only makes sense to go bigger (who wants to pay round the clock guards for a tiny neighborhood system?)

When you go 'too big' in any type of energy supply, you have two new problems crop up.

First is the transmission. If you concentrate 4 GW of power in one place, you need 4 GW of transmission switchgear and lines to carry it away. (Actually more) In most substations, all one needs do is throw a log chain over the fence and it will short out a few legs. Doing this will trip the sub offline and that will trip the nuke plant. However, it doesn't stop there. Taking 4 GW offline in any regional grid will rapidly cascade the trip down to the next station. Just like the Aug '08 Northeast blackout, they will daisy-chain across the country. Lights out, Gracie.

Second is heat rejection. Generating 4 GW (Gigawatts - Billion Watts) at typical 33% efficiency means that 8 GW (the remaining 66%) MUST be rejected to some cooling source nonstop. Since this number is so huge, lakes, rivers and ocean coves are out. So, if your thinking of putting a large heat exchanger way out into the ocean, you should first go ask the Netherlanders how to clean a jellyfish explosion from the cooling fins.

I also haven't seen anyone mention the environmental and energy concerns of the massive amount of concrete required to build any nuclear (even thorium) reactor to adequate safety standards. It wipes out that 'free energy' idea pretty quick.



Unconstitutional War - "The story you are about to hear is true; the names and places are being changed to protect the guilty."

That's what..

That's what has always amazed me about the Daily Paul....

Everyone who posts something other than a bunch of gloom and doom is always a shill.

Funny thing is that I've been a member of this website longer than any of the people who have called me a shill.

Wasn't always that way...


Shills usually post misinformation

Like the fact that you claim 2 million people die each year from pollution.

From the study you linked to:

The NASA researchers combined this information with historical energy generation data to estimate how many deaths would have been caused if fossil-fuel burning was used instead of nuclear power generation from 1971 to 2009. They similarly estimated that the use of nuclear power over that time caused 5,000 or so deaths, such as cancer deaths from radiation fallout and worker accidents. Comparing those two estimates, Kharecha and Hansen came up with the 1.8 million figure.

From 1971 to 2009...

This study also estimates only 5,00 deaths from nuclear?

I didn't get my estimates from this article.

and as far as the number of people killed by nuclear power being 5000 people for their estimate... They probably took the Chernobyl accident out of the equation. the Chernobyl accident has killed 90 percent of the people killed by nuclear power in its 60 year history. The Russians idea of a containment facility is a tin roof. considering Chernoble is not representative of how nuclear reactors are usually built, they probably didn't count that death toll in their total.

Makes sense to me

thanks for the post!

Geothermal and hydroelectric are cleaner and safer.

By far.

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

And yet...

..we still haven't figured out how to supply even one percent of our energy using these sources.

nuclear power has been supplying 30 percent of our energy for decades.

That's simply not true.

You're statement isn't even close to being true. I don't understand why you're misrepresenting the Facts when you may otherwise have a strong argument. I don't have the time to go fact check all the spew, I'm just going to flush all of it because it is contaminated with gross misrepresentation right from the beginning.

Hydroelectric is the source of 6.9% - 7% of electric generation in the USA. You cavalierly guffaw and say it is under 1%.
Nuke power is between 19 and 21% depending on where you look, not 30% as you say.


In 2012, the United States generated about 4,054 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal.

Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation in 2012 were:
Coal 37%
Natural Gas 30%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
Other Renewable 5%
Biomass 1.42%
Geothermal 0.41%
Solar 0.11%
Wind 3.46%
Petroleum 1%
Other Gases < 1%

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