-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.

No doubt it's harmful.

However, I question the extent of the effects, given that the article says that rats "fed Cesium in place of potassium die."

Well, given that a critical part of basically any organism's diet is potassium, that's really no surprise. A better case could be made if they were fed Cesium in addition to their normal diet.

Actually Ron Paul is an advocate for nuclear energy.


Ron Paul is "scared to death that we won't build any more nuclear reactors."

Quoting Ron Paul

In the video you linked us to Ron Paul said "Nuclear power is very, very dangerous".

Granted, Ron Paul is nothing of a scientist, what he knows is the Constitution and economics. I will refer to him about Austrian Economics or foreign aid views and will refer to other men of science who have similar noble qualities of Ron Paul.

What did he say right after your quote+


That's the Point

Just posting a quote isn't convincing.
Him saying it's dangerous and still supporting the industry seems contradictory to me. I love Dr. Paul for many reasons, but not all of them. This is one of them.
But it's forgivable because he is not a nuclear physicist and never worked in the nuclear industry.
No one mane knows everything and I like to shop around. Ron Paul is my guy for political matters, but not for science.


The writer is correct; nuclear is the safest and cleanest energy source by far, costing pennies on the dollar per kilowatt hour as compared to any other source. Some of you need to grow beyond what you learned in your Jackson Browne science courses and learn the truth.

RON PAUL is the GOLD STANDARD of politics, his value never changes; it's tied to the CONSTITUTION!

Safest? Cleanest?

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, countless cover-ups and under-the-radar incidents in communist countries, along with the nuclear tests done that decimated an entire island people...

If this is the safest, I can only quiver in fear over the others (sarcasm).
But, really, how many people have died from solar panels?
How many countries were devastated by windmill meltdowns?

I'm not sure if I should even bother engaging in argument as the proclamation in support of nuclear power is both ridiculous and ignorant.

Note: I didn't even get to mention the "safe" disposal of nuclear waste in Native land, commercial fertilizers (ending up in food), so I'll do it here.

Solar panels are made using mercury abd other heavy metals...

...that will end up in our landfills and in our ground water. The cost to recycle these panels makes solar power very inefficient. windmills kill millions of birds every year creating a toll on the ecosystem.

both of these power sources combine contribute less than one percent of our total energy output, and there's a reason for that.


two major types of solar panels.

thin film; the kind that is plastic, and therefor will not stand the test of time as all plastics don't, and therefor has planned obsolescence built-in, and therefor is not really desirable, and is why some well backed companies have gone under for backing thin film (solynra et al)... well it doesn't use lead in it's manufacture.

silicon crystal; uses gallium (easy to mistake for mercury). Gallium melts at a really low temp, but it is not mercury. The gallium is used as a dopant to create the NPN or PNP. or whatever.

easy mistake to make man.

-quiet engineer

Same old dance

Sorry, but mercury is not required for panels.
In fact, solar panels have been made with spinach sandwiched between two plates of glass.

Furthermore, the claim that the cost of recycling panels making the inefficient is completely unfounded. Please show the costs to build, lifespan of panel, and compare to costs of "recycling" them as well as how often they need to be "recycled".

Considering the nuke industry has been around for as long as it has by "recycling" its death-soup waste into our food and hiding it in tribal land, I'd say there's a lot less to worry about with solar panels.

The total energy output is a tangent, that red herring ain't going nowhere. But I'll give you a hint: The reason is a mafia-esque monopoly and technological suppression. Gee, who would have guessed a corrupt industry like the nuke cartel would be so bad?

The truth is: Just 1.0 × 10-6

The truth is: Just 1.0 × 10-6 gram of inhaled Plutonium is FATAL!
Or one millionth of a gram...
Right now my geiger counter is reading 0.48 mcSv/h.

The truth is: All it takes to slowly decimate all human life is one nuclear power plant.

You people are shills. Absolutely.


I don't know anything about plutonium, so I can't really speak as to your actual claim...

But to call anyone who disagrees a "shill?" Holy crap, there's such thing as a different opinion, you know. I mean, the other guy could call you a "shill" for the oil industry, but you're just arguing your viewpoint.

Yes I stand firm behind that

Yes I stand firm behind that statement.

Knowingly or not they are all misguided on how deadly nuclear isotopes are to flesh.

There is an ongoing campaign to quell truth on how bad Fukushima is.

Plutonium is not even released during a meltdown.

And there can be no worse accident than a complete meltdown...like happened at Chernobyl. It didn't kill us all...did it?

When people say that one reactor can kill all life on earth I just have to laugh.


Please read

Please read wpsmithjr

Plutonium release from Fukushima Daiichi fosters the need for more detailed investigations.

You said, "Plutonium is not

You said, "Plutonium is not even released during a meltdown"

That goes against the facts. At Fukushima Plutonium turned into gas when the corium reached 9,000f.

Nano size Plutonium particulates were detected five thousand miles away in Lithuania and other European countries.


And all the people in Lithuania are dropping like flies?

there is plutonium and uranium in the ground. we mine the stuff. how come everyone who works for a heavy metals and mining company is not dead?



You have to be kidding me... Do you really expect me to hold your hand through the nightmares of cancer and how it correlates along side nuclear proliferation? Look for yourself.

It's not like Hollywood... You die slowly.

Read about "The Petkau Effect".

and you should know the difference between nuclear weapons...

...and nuclear power.

Are you mentally disabled?

Are you mentally disabled?

Wasn't there...

...MOX plutonium in the fuel pools/spent fuel rods? None of that is entering ecosystems, damaging organisms, etc.?

And if you disagree

you took science from Jackson Browne! Haven't you ever heard of statistics?! WHAT ABOUT THE TRUTH?!! (The truth I say!!!) YOU TRUTH FEARERS! </humor></allcaps>

You claim truth and insult any opponents?

bigmikedude's picture

Sure it's safe

until corners are cut, and safety issues are ignored to save money and keep shareholders and Wall Street happy. They are only as safe as the greed or dishonesty in the company that owns them. And when it comes to budgets and bottom lines, there isn't a company out there that doesn't cut corners.

Then there's the rare what if events -

What if we had a massive pandemic that wiped out millions globally? Who keeps these smouldering perma-burners from melting down then?

Or an asteroid strike that nailed a few of them and sent it all airborne?

I know, those are awfully big "What ifs" aren't they.

Well, so was a Mag 9 on the coast of Japan. Where they built a plant only capable of withstanding much lower magnitudes to begin with, unconcerned with the possibility of a 200 year event, yet in a region where they knew it was very possible, and didn't even consider a massive tsunami while building it right on the coast.

Can CA's nuke plants withstand Mag 9's? Tsunamis? I bet they wouldn't even hold up as well as Fukushima did the way business and politics work in this country.

The point is, although rare, these kinds of "what ifs" do happen. And it only takes the one of the wrong kind of what ifs in combination with a kniving developer or a shady, corner-cutting corporation to devastate everything. Which is basically all corporations.

The rest of the sources accidental pollution can be cleaned up for the most part. Radiation is fairly permanent and far more lethal.

One can have faith in radiation as a safe source of power, but only when he can put faith in the humanity that plans it, maintains it, and profits from it.

Ok, so let's give up on the statistically safest form of energy.

...we have found yet. the majority of nuclear reactors are 40 plus years old because of the fear mongering. we can just continue to run these old reactors until they're done...and never explore any new nuclear technologies. The thorium reactor could solve all of the problems we have created with uranium burning reactors up until this point. They can be designed to where they are physically impossible to melt down, and they can be used to burn up all the nuclear waste we've created using uranium reactors.

Or we can stop nuclear power altogether and then figure out what we're going to do with all that waste.

bigmikedude's picture

Wp, You have more faith in designers and developers than I

will ever have.

According to TEPCO and Russia their plants were just fine and safe as ever.

The Titanic was physically impossible to sink too.

The Shuttles Columbia and Challenger were built by the best as well.

All I'm really saying is nothing will ever be fool-proof when it comes to nuclear power. And as lethal as it is, that's enough for some of us to say we need something different.

It's not so much the power source that I have little faith in, it's more the human honor.

The problem with uranium burning reactors, is that...

...the fuel is contained in fuel rods within the reactor. Coolant is circulated into the reactor and back out in order to keep the fuel cool and prevent a meltdown. If electrical power is lost to the cooling pumps, then the cooling stops.

Thorium reactors use molten salts, and the fuel is contained within these circulating salts. If power is lost to the pumps in a thorium reactor, then the fuel also stops flowing into the reactor, stopping the chain reaction.

In other words, a Torium reactor fail safe when electrical power is lost. A uranium burning reactor always need to let it flow in order to prevent a meltdown.

Comparing a design like that to an "unsinkable" ship, which is a ridiculous notion to begin with, is unfair.

how come

when you got to conveying the meat of your post, you lapsed into clumsy borat-speak which no one can make sense of?

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

Borat -speak

I warn you I fully intend to steal Borat-speak fair and square.

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

uh oh

don't break out the yellow thong mankini

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

having trouble getting my edit button to work...

...on my phone. Sorry.