-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.

Don't include me in that "we"

and... 30%? I think it has been at just under 20% of US ELECTRICAL POWER or 5% of "our energy" (meaning the world's).

What did it provide, percentage-wise, in the first two decades it was around? If you count solar as starting in the 80's (since Reagan killed it), solar is tied with nuclear and for lots less government R&D money in total.

"We"

"We" haven't figured it out because the coal/nuke industry is in control here. The mafia doesn't like competition.

if there are problems with sea life in the Pacific, it probably.

...has something to do with the tons and tons of debris and garbage from the tsunami. The actual amount of radioactive coolant pouring into the ocean is very small. It would be akin to you taking a piss in Lake Superior... Its inconsequential.

"The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) continues to monitor the results of water quality surveys [from Japan] and does not anticipate any public health effect on beachgoers or seafood safety around the Hawaiian Islands, due to the following factors: • Water acts as a diluent. While there may be significant quantities of radioactive material released into the sea near the Fukushima reactor site, the massive amount of water in the Pacific Ocean would rapidly dilute and disperse the materials to negligible levels. • Some radioactive isotopes rapidly decay. For example, the half life of Iodine-131 (I-131) is about eight days. This means that the activity level of the I-131 isotope drops by half every eight days. Given the length of time since the event, the short-lived radionuclides would have decayed to near background levels and therefore pose no health hazard. Although Cesium isotopes have longer half-lives (Cs-134 has a half-life of about two years, Cs-137 a longer half-life of about 30 years), the radionuclides also undergo biological excretion and do not continue to build up in fish forever."

How subjective

If there's a problem it's the "tons and tons" of debris.
Nevermind the thousands of tons of radioactive waste being dumped on an ongoing basis.

Very cute.

Let's see some credible data from Alaska

Washington state or Oregon? Hawaii is a long ways away from the area and the current. It very well could be dilute by the time it gets all the way down there!

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Im on the West coast of

Im on the West coast of Washington.
My advice to you is buy a geiger counter that can detect Beta, Gamma, X-ray and most importantly Alpha emitters.
http://www.mazurinstruments.com/
http://seintl.com/

Leave it on for a couple days then read the log to calculate your 24 hour dose rate. It won't matter what part of the U.S. or where you live in the N.Hemisphere to detect Fuku...

See for yourself.

.

.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Please, since when is the government credible?

You don't really think a Government source is going to be truthful about something this serious do you? Some third party independent (Nothing to gain or lose) very recent monitoring data would be nice. If it hasn't already been scrubbed off the net yet by the government and fishing industries.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Right after the blasts in

Right after the blasts in Japan I saw our gov's own radnet go down for maintenance...

Try www.netc.com instead.

Before March 11 2011 average background radiation here in WA was 8-12 CPM. Now ever so often I see multiple spikes hourly over 100CPM.

Some days are much worse than others. Watching the Jet Stream pattern and trade winds have become a daily routine unfortunately.

Thank you!

Thank you very much and this is what we need, first hand knowledge of what is going on up there. Funny how the radnet went down at an opportune time like that. Thank you for the link!

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) = SHILL

Please stop.

Yeah...

...because those people who take the readings are not concerned with their health, but rather helping the government cover up what's going on.

Forget Nuclear

Rocky Mountain Institute/Amory Lovins:
Forget Nuclear http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/E08-04_ForgetNuc...

I don't accept your argument that nuclear reactors are virtually risk free. Also, nuclear power isn't economically feasible; it's my understanding that it's necessary for the government to subsidize the industry. There is also the issue of national security. As I've mentioned elsewhere:

For any event that could destabilize the power grid - from solar flares to terrorism - what protects the country and people is DECENTRALIZATION. Generally in the name of "efficiency," this country has been pursuing the opposite: centralization. What this means is that - whether via natural disaster, human error, faulty equipment, or some deliberate act, you just need to hit one place/target for whole regions to be put out of commission.

This applies to power grids, transportation grids, military bases (consolidated under the last president)... everything. The Northeast blackouts are a case in point, as also 911 and twin towers, as also financial institutions "too big to fail."

FYI, physicist and renowned energy expert Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute (a consultant to the U.S. gov't and American industries, as well as gov'ts and industries worldwide) years ago convinced me why we should NEVER consider nuclear energy an option. Here is his take on the Fukushima disaster. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amory-lovins/nuclear-power-fuk...

Aside from being an independent thinker, he is also not only a pragmatist, with an understanding of market principles; he is concerned about AMERICA. Not unlike Ron Paul, he criticizes both the left and right. Lovins calls the "so called free marketers on the right... CORPORATE WHORES for the oil and gas companies," whereas those on the left automatically want more "STATE CONTROL as well as to give TAXPAYER HANDOUTS to their favorite industries." He believes the government should "steer, not row," trying to micro-manage things; rather, the market should do the "heavy lifting."

More on nuclear energy from RMI at http://www.rmi.org/pid257
~ NUCLEAR NONSENSE
~ FOUR NUCLEAR MYTHS
~ NUCLEAR POWER: ECONOMICS AND CLIMATE-PROTECTION POTENTIAL
~ NUCLEAR ENERGY DEBATE
...and other docs.

I have environmentalist friends who, like you, support nuclear energy. I used to be on the fence until I came across what Amory Lovins had to say. And as to national security, ever see the video clip of Robt Kennedy's private plane ride down the Hudson, with no one knowing or caring that he was circling Indian Point - a nuclear power plant at the center of a 50-mile radius circle that includes suburban Westchester and Rockland Counties, even more densely populated Long Island, and also NEW YORK CITY: Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, the Bronx, and the island of Manhattan. Major arteries can be bumper to bumper w/out a nuclear disaster. This article certainly came as no surprise: HOMELAND SECURITY NEWS - "Indian Point 50-mile evacuation plan unrealistic" http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/indian-point-50-mile...

P.S. Amory Lovins' WINNING THE OIL ENDGAME can be read on line:
http://www.rmi.org/Winning%20the%20Oil%20Endgame

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

as far as subsidizing

It's even worse than that. Economically, there is no such thing as "nuclear reactor insurance". Instead, the people of the countries are forced by their respective governments to do the "insurance" part of it as well as cover the costs. What that means is 2 fold. Because no one could possibly afford the costs involved with a nuclear event (even a smalls one) no insurance company would touch it. Think about that for a moment when considering the safety of the nuclear industry. If its so damn safe, why cant they insure it? I mean, its perfectly safe right?

3 very rare

Almost never before seen sea creatures (because of the depth at which they live) washed ashore dead in California. http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/California+serpents+baffl... Has scientist baffled , but wait it could not be the 3000 tons of barely lethal ultra deluded radiative water seeping into the Japan trench? Naw!!!!!

Not Convincing in the Least

I can't believe the original post refuted nuclear health concerns over a multi-meltdown event by simply saying 'it isn't true.'
Not only has Big Media done their usual bang-up job giving us their so-called "facts" about this disaster, but we get some kind of conceptual math about garden hoses and olympic pools - well, those images sound both safe and fun and not at all a global disaster, so I totally want to believe you! Not.

It didn't take 130,000 years for radioactive tuna to end up on someone's plate in California, nor did it take much longer than a year for radioactive debris to hit the shore where I am living (an entire pier washed up here!).

In my physics classes we evaluated the situation of Fukushima, and I got to write a nice paper about just what kind of disaster the situation was.
I've known people who lived in the U.S.A and were affected by the fallout caused by Chernobyle, I also knew someone personally who had brain cancer due to living near Three Mile Island during that meltdown (yes, it was a meltdown, no matter how they decide to classify it). Neither of these two events were as bad as Fukushima.
I did myself and my family a favor and gave us some treatments for the oncoming fallout, in 5 to 10 years time I hope it helps and that I don't know anymore people who become sick and die this time around.

Yes, 3 mile island was a

Yes, 3 mile island was a partial meltdown since only part of it melted(and not the majority), unless you just wanna call it a meltdown when things start melting.
Anyway, the one thing thats hard to say is if a certain person got health problems because they were somewhere at sometime etc etc. Unless you know they were absolutely exposed to alot more radiation than normal levels, there is no way to know for sure if it was a direct cause.
I dont know any info on your friend on anything, but simply being nearby isnt enough to say anything about certainty. Living down wind of the plant on the other hand, yea, that would cause problems.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

The subsidies on nuclear power are HUGE!!!

Its not just the construction of a nuclear power plant that is subsidized, or its operation, but its waste disposal is subsidized. It is a ridiculous government boondoggle. At least the cost of construction and fuel has a calculable cost and lifetime. But the cost of safe disposal is incalculable. Every nuclear powerplant creates a 'forever tax' on Americans. The cost/risk ratio probably would justify subsidizing T. Boone Pickens windpower idea. At least thats something we could choose to stop paying for. Nuclear disposal we will have to pay for forever. Death, taxes, and fuel rod disposal.

Actually...

Nuclear power is the LEAST subsidized energy source. See the first couple of comments. You're behind.

I also discussed how to dispose of the waste we've created.

Not mentioned by either of you yet is the insurance

That's the single largest subsidy and dwarfs the whole of oil and gas subsidies. In short, without the government taking the hit for an accident, nuclear would die instantly. It would nearly triple the price if rolled in privately.

Lets see what wikipedia says

Cost per kWh is 8 cents to 40 cents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plan...

2013 US DOE estimates (including projected carbon taxes)
Coal: 10-15 cents KWh
Gas: 7-13 cents KWh
Nuclear: 11 cents KWh
Geothermal: 9 cents Kwh
Wind: 9-23 cents KWh
Hydro: 9 cents KWh
Solar: 14-26 cents KWh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#U...

Dunno what to say. Except NIMBY

thorium reactors. maybe

but why use thorium reactors when you can use cold fusion?
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reacto...

Actually the disposal we have down pat already

All we have to do is stay at war with someone and keep dumping DU rounds on them. The gift that keeps giving.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

If You Want To Live Next To A Nuclear Plant, Go Ahead,

But I don't !
My choice is Hydro Electric provided by ample rainfall or irrigation canals that bring water {Also needed to grow stuff} from far away.

beesting

Scotland is doing some

Scotland is doing some amazing stuff with tidal. They are on track to be 100% renewable by 2020. This isn't possible everywhere but it's still pretty cool.

There's a company working on a thorium powered car....

...that could go 1 million miles on 8 grams of fuel.

In other words, the car will wear out before the first tank of "gas" is used up.

Interesting

Here's an article about it. The article concludes with the caveat that "Thorium is a fissile material." That appears NOT to be true, though I don't understand the descriptor "fertile" being contrasted with "fissile."

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Only safe until it isnt.

The majority of problems with nuclear come from people. Yes, in a couple cases, you have design failure, but that isnt too common.(in fact really rare actually) In most cases, the causes are entirely due to people being lazy or ignoring proper procedures.
In the case of 3 mile island, the people there were not properly trained. Once things started happening, the operators didnt know what half the blinking lights on the consoles meant.
There is one case from russia where they were pouring nuclear material into a container and this set off a nuclear reaction in the fluid and caused alarms to start blaring. The shift supervisor decided at some point to simply pour the stuff down the drain instead. He ended up being the only casualty.(you can find the full story on the darwin awards)
In other cases, lax inspections etc allow piping to deteriorate and leak etc.
In 99.9% of cases, its always human "error" that causes problems.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

I am reminded of Homer

I am reminded of Homer Simpson