-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.

ahh iphone and autocomplete

I am going to junk my iphone because it does that to me regularly. my sympathies!

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

bigmikedude's picture

All is fair in love and Daily Paul

bro. Lol

where are your statistics that nuclear power is so "lethal"?

Compared to how lethal fossil fuels are...nuclear doesn't even come close. More people have died on wind farms in the U.S. since 1970 than have died from nuclear power.

bigmikedude's picture


My face and skin doesn't fall off as easily when crude oil leaks.

(and in agreement with you, I'm definitely no fan of windfarms either.)

2 million people...

DIE. Every year. From fossil fuels.

bigmikedude's picture

That number for petro likely isn't from simple exposure though.

It is more likely from all related accidents, such as mine collapses, rig fires, equipment mishaps etc..

One single accident with a nuke plant from exposure alone has the potential to take out that many people. If their reports added the same secondary incidents for nuke plants I'm sure its numbers would come up a bit too.

Let's see what Fukushima's numbers are in 100 years just from exposure alone, direct and indirect.

Nuclear radiation lasts for decades, if not centuries. So over 100 years, it continues to slowly kill, maim, and deform succeeding generations. Or force them out of an area indefinitely.

Actually the 2 million is ALL from exposure.

...From breathing in particulate matter that surrounds us every day.

Besides, what does it matter how the deaths occur? They still occur.

Unfounded ?

Does this look safe to eat ?

Fruits and vegetables after the explosion in Fukushima

Fish with 2500 Times the Radiation Limit found TWO YEARS after Japan nuclear disaster!


The worst part is there are more cost effective and safer energy technologies that "big energy" will do everything possible to keep in the dark, to maintain their control.


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

I'll bet when the oil spill occurred in the Gulf...

...you hurried on down to Florida to get some of that yummy seafood.

"Statistics don't lie"

You haven't heard the expression, "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics"? It's the most efficient way to lie.

Comparing Chernobyl deaths to solar panel deaths is funny, except as a statistic.

They can't stop the reactors at Fukushima. They have no idea what to do. It's utterly beyond their capability. There's a second disaster in the spent fuel, teetering on weakened structure that could still collapse, years after the event. Fear mongering? It's not even widely reported.

Would your daughter's leukemia be a statistic? How about Iraq, a country covered in depleted uranium dust, because someone's looking to put nuclear waste to use?

I completely disagree with this post, despite a clearly excellent record of safety in the nuclear industry, as demonstrated by statistics.

What about all the daughters who get cancer from breathing in...

...fossil fuels? 2 million people per year. Year after year. It would take almost every person in Japan dying from the Fukushima accident for nuclear power to catch up to the death toll created by the burning of fossil fuels.

That could still

happen yet...


...it can't.

Aren't there 4 potential

Chernobyls? What if they melt to groundwater, or suffer further explosions, or another earthquake? There are also thousands of tons of spent fuel on the second story of the buildings. Isn't that enough to kill everyone in Tokyo?


since the reactor is on the east coast of Japan, most of the fallout willl go out into the ocean. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it's better than it all flowing back into a populated area.


What about ground water? Acceptance by other countries of exports? Financial drain for clean-up? Fish are a staple. Is that a problem? Soil contamination? Can losses from sealing off a prefecture for generations be borne?

If your argument about the toxicity of petroleum is valid, and I agree that it is, why would the same argument not apply to nuclear power?

Nuclear power is a money loser, subsists on subsidy.

Nuclear power is the welfare queen of power generation.

Free includes debt-free!

I love how I get a bunch of down votes for stating facts...

...and you get a bunch of up votes for an incorrect statement with nothing to back up your claims. Oil is the real welfare queen.

Incorrect. Or rather, mostly incorrect.

"A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[7] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950-2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefitted most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefitted heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefitted from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefitted from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total."

So, as you can see, nuclear power is the LEAST subsidized form of energy production...and fossil fuels are the most subsidized.

When you consider that nuclear power is also the most heavily regulated BY FAR, I would say that nuclear power holds it's own in terms of cost. Get rid of the draconian regulation and nuclear might not need subsidies at all.

Besides, I was not addressing cost...only safety. But thank you for helping me bust another myth about nuclear power.


for actually backing up your point. I'm trying to remain neutral here, and I'd suggest that y'all anti-nuclear power folks start backing yourselves up better.

it's not an Onion article.

it's not an Onion article. It's not satire. Its the truth.

No it isn't.


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

I thought this must be an

I thought this must be an Onion article when I clicked on it.