-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 problem is...

The problem is it is being carried in concentrated form and retained within the boundaries of the currents. This retains the concentration levels at a maximum as the current comes south down along the west coast. There are unexplained and unusually high rises in thyroid problems all along the west coast that started just months after it happened.

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.

Chernobyl Death Toll

Of course, relying on State Run Media might you lead to believe the death toll from Chernobyl is ~90,000. This is a contentious number.


I also find it odd that you claim nuclear reactors are safe, then go on to explain that it is really thorium that is safe.

Your message is mixed.

I agree with earlier assessment... SHILL.

Even if the death toll from Chernobyl is...

...over 1 million people, which is the highest estimate I've heard even from the anti-nuclear activists...It's still less than the number of people who die from breathing pollution created by fossil fuels in only 6 months.

So, even looking at the numbers from the worst case scenario, nuclear energy is safer than just about any form of energy production.

the main reason I bring up thorium reactors is to explain that if we continue to work on building safe reactors, we could actually even solve the nuclear waste problem. unlike uranium burning reactors, a thorium reactor is highly efficient and burns up almost all of the fuel. thorium reactors require a small amount of uranium in order to get them started, and this could be used to burn up the waste we've created using uranium burning reactors. We could reduce the amount of waste by a factor of several hundreds.

or we could give up on nuclear power all together, and try to figure out how we're going to store the waste we have created for the next 50,000 years.


It is a fallacy to say one situation is worse as if it addresses the entire problem.
Nobody is falling for the false dichotomy between "fossil fuels" and nuclear anymore (it's a misnomer to refer to the fuel as "fossil", as that was just a ploy to get it considered an organic fuel by big oil giving them an image of a cleaner product, it's more accurate to call it "toxic fuel").

Nobody is saying coal is any better.
The sooner we get rid of both of them and go on to more efficient and cleaner fuels the better.


..like nuclear power.

And besides... What do you want me to compare the death toll to...the number of people who died choking on a peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?

I'm just comparing apples to apples.

Fallacy to Fallacy

No, why would I want you to demonstrate another false dichotomy?
That was a rhetorical question. It means: That would be stupid.

Either provide a real solution or just please stop with the fallacies. They help nobody.

What type of fuel is cleaner and more viable than nuclear?

And as far as your false dichotomy statement goes, it is completely fair and accurate to compare nuclear to fossil fuels. Why? because without cheap energy more people would die than 2 million per year. More like 2 billion per year. This is why I compare nuclear to fossil fuels, because without some source of cheap energy the death toll would be staggering. you can't feed 6 billion people without cheap energy.


It is fair to make the comparison, but a fallacy to use it to argue that either one is good for us.
Do you see the argumentative corner you are in yet? Stop it.

Please provide evidence

that 2 million people die each year from pollution.

I understand thorium. You are saying nuclear has a great history and is very safe. Why do you feel the need to switch to thorium given the existing outstanding record of existing nuclear?

In regards to Fukushima, I'll stick with the evidence provided in this link. It is not just from someone's brain. It's evidence that the truth is being covered up.


This study is different than what you claim

The study:
"Using nuclear power in place of fossil-fuel energy sources, such as coal, has prevented some 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths globally and could save millions of more lives in coming decades, concludes a study."

"2 million people died this year alone from pollution created by fossil fuels."

The study does not claim that 2 million people die every year.

Your arguments are invalid and misleading.

I didn't get my estimates from this article.

I personally I think that this article underestimate the amount of lives that would have been saved. Show me a source that shows that a significant number less than 2 million people die every year from fossil fuels.

I'm sorry. I was wrong.


Actually 2 1/2 million people die every year from fossil fuels.

Poisoning the Wells

Trying not to poison the wells here, but National Geographic is a poor source to quote unless you're writing a 4th grade paper on a government-sponsored topic of how global warming is going to kill us all unless we pay more taxes.

To avoid simply poisoning the well, I will point out that the link to NG you provided had NO source cited.
Not saying it's wrong, just saying there's no way to verify the reality of the claim.

every I'm I look up this number, the number of people who die...

...as a result of pollution...I get similar numbers from every source I look at....around 2 million people per year.

False Dichotomy

This wasn't to argue about how bad National Geographic is at citing their sources, nor if the information was even correct.
The argument of either coal or nuke is a false dichotomy.

We can choose neither.

My state has a surplus of energy due to simply using a couple hydro electric stations.

Hanford,WA Waste Dump Interview

Gerry Pollet


Leaking tanks happening as we type. Yeah,sure nuke energy is safe and clean. Do I need to post more info? Maybe some on Fukushima and Chernobyl?

Nuke is forever. Waste Everywhere. Choose wisely.

Here are some things to consider.

Into Eternity


So an ocean with 300 tons per day of radioactive pollution

is just as safe and good as an ocean without radioactive pollution? You skew the facts by misusing numbers. You say that it will take 137,000 years to fill the ocean with radioactive water but then say it will quickly be diluted by the by the 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of ocean water. Are you saying that there is no cumulative effect of radiation? Are you saying that the whole ocean needs to be "filled" with pure radioactive material before any health effects will be realized? Are you saying that since radiation isn't instantaneously evident that that makes it good?

Me thinks you are wrong.

No, I'm not wrong.

There are already radioactive particles in the ocean. Also in the ground. Also in the bricks of your house.

The small amount of radioactive water being poured into the ocean is quickly diluted and spread out. Compared to the background radiation, it is inconsequential.

Quickly "diluted"

Dilution is not an accurate description of how radioactive particles travel in a saline fluid. This kind of rhetoric belies the idea that ionized particles simply just dissolve into nothing.

Fact of the matter is that the radioactive water will actually be diluting the sea, making it 300 tonnes less salty (unless the nuke water is greater than or equal to the amount of salt in the sea).

Radioactive particles don't just wash out of the nuke waste, they will ionize with other elements while the water that contained it would be washed out and diluting the sea. Where do the ionizing particles go? Directly into the immediate environment, affecting fish, sea vegetables, and other oceanic life that is now and has been found on restaurant plates and washing up on the shores in other countries.

Guess what happens when the fallout gets into you? Cancer.
But when that happens maybe we'll be told it's just "diluted cancer" and will take 130,000 years to spread to our thyroid, brain, heart, liver, and kidneys, haha.

The result of you driving to work everyday?

People get cancer.

The result of you turning on your air conditioner?

People get cancer.

The result of that smoke stack pouring pollution into the air?

People get cancer.

turn off your air conditioner and stop driving your car... You're killing people.

Do you have any idea what the death toll would be worldwide if we didn't have cheap energy?

We also haven't had a war since nuclear energy

where nuclear power plants will be targeted by enemies.


You address me like I own and operate a car and air conditioner.
I don't.

Even if I did, there's no alternative to these products, unlike alternative energy sources.

All your post has done is a Tu Quoque fallacy, that is if what I do kills people then it somehow makes it ok that the nuke industry devestates a couple of countries or kills millions of people?
Think, man, USE YOUR HEAD.

It probably could be if done right

The thing is, we have been convinced that building "one huge reactor" at a time is the way to go. This makes containment when something goes wrong almost impossible due to it's size. It would be much safer and have 1000 times better containment qualities if we were to build very much smaller reactors even if it were in higher numbers. Each one should be small enough to contain using only local resources and even if it did melted down it would not do very much damage because of it's limited size.

We would be better off having thousands of small reactors the size of a navy carrier reactor spread well apart from each other than having just a couple "huge" reactors like we do now.

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.

interesting topic

if that is all true, why aren't there thorium reactors, and why hasn't some politician incorporated that into a platform?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Because they have no power or

Because they have no power or say in the managed decimation of humanity. How many old reactors are in the USA alone?

It's already a done deal.

Thorium is only recently being looked into as a possible...

...Nuclear fuel source.

There was a thorium reactor built by Oakridge labs back in the 1950s. The problem is that the government wanted to use uranium burning reactors instead, because the byproducts of a uranium burning reactor can be used to create a nuclear bomb.

So, once again our government was more interested than killing people then helping them out. This is why we don't use thorium today. Another advantage of a thorium reactor is the fact that thorium cannot easily be weaponized.

Scientists in India, China and the U.S. are all working on working prototypes currently. We're way behind in this regard however.

Did Dr. Paul warned us

not to speak in generalities as this article does?

Toxic effects of cesium:

And by the way...

This is not an article. The words come straight from my brain.