Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects

[Luca Bevil]

Pripyat was a city of over 50,000 people, and the power plant was right in the middle of it. Furthermore, the population was not evacuated until a several days after the accident occurred. Yet still, the only immediate and confirmed deaths were the ~60 firefighters directly exposed. Try again (but please check the facts first next time).

Prypiat is at about 3 km from the chernobyl plant.

Moreover it is well known that acute effects begin at around 3 Sv absorbed over a short period.
This does not make a few hundred millisieverts absorbed over a few days less dangerous for substantially increased cancer and leukemia risk.

Try again (but please check the facts first next time).

 

[QuantumPion]

Pripyat was located 4 km northwest to the NPP. The evacuation happened at April 27th, one day after the disaster. Because of favourable winds, heavy contamination of Pripyat happened only after the evacuation was completed.

As for Bhopal, the population in a radius 1 km around the plant was 100.000.

What is your point? That if Chernobyl was 3 km closer to the population center that 20,000 people would have died of radiation poisoning? Sorry, but that is just bologna. Allow me to quote my original comment so that the context is not forgotten:

Well, do you know of any other INDUSTRIAL accident that necessitates a so quick and large evacuation of an area around, including hospitals and so on?

I don't know any. Major nuclear accidents have this unique specificity, which makes them so difficult and large to manage, with unfortunately collateral victims like those.

Pretty much any large chemical processing plant could have a dangerous release of toxic chemicals necessitating wide-spread evacuations. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster" is probably the most notorious (note that it immediately killed 5x more people than even Chernobyl's high estimate for premature cancer deaths).

Apparently there was a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania" which is still burning today and is estimated to continue to burn for at least a hundred more years, necessitating the complete evacuation and abandonment of the town. Not all that different from Chernobyl, eh?

 

[clancy688]

What is your point? That if Chernobyl was 3 km closer to the population center that 20,000 people would have died of radiation poisoning? Sorry, but that is just bologna. Allow me to quote my original comment so that the context is not forgotten:

Nope. The contrary. Those 5000 people at Bhopal wouldn't have died if the plant was located a few km outside the city.

And bologna or not - radiation levels in Prypjat were reaching three-digit mSv/hr numbers by April 27th evening (the whole population was evacuated during noon). I leave it to your imagination what the first cloud (the one formed by the explosion which did MISS Pripyat) whould have done to the population of any city in its path.

http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/emras-urban-draft-pripyat-May06.pdf

The first radioactive cloud, which had formed during the explosion, under conditions of
steady night weather, was elevated to 300-500 m height and went to the west, creating a long (up to 100 km) and almost straight, narrow trace [Izrael, 1990]. It passed south of Pripyat’s residential buildings by 1.5-2 km. This trace fallout contained many unoxidized fuel particles, some of which were very large (up to 10-100 µm) and were deposited along the first kilometers of the cloud’s path [Kashparov, 2001]. Also, at the moment of the explosion, almost all of the reactor’s noble gases were released into the atmosphere [Izrael, 1990].
Further, during natural fuel heat-up and graphite stack burning (up to 1800-2000 °K), a spurt
of radioactive releases was elevated to 1000-1200 m height and directed to the northwest
[Izrael, 1990; Baryakhtar, 1997], bending around Pripyat. They were enriched by highly mobile, volatile radionuclides (I, Te, Cs) and finely dispersed, oxidized fuel particles (1-3 µm). In the surface layer of the atmosphere, the air current was transferred mainly to the west and southwest directions. By noon of April 26, the plume reached the settlement of Polesskoe and crossed it by a narrow trace. The dose rate reached 0.1-0.6 mR/h there (in some places, 2.0 mR/h) [Nad’yarnyh et al., 1989].
On April 27, the north and northwest directions of surface air currents prevailed. This caused
a quick worsening of the radiation situation in Pripyat. On April 26, the radiation level in the town was 0.014-0.13 R/h, but by the evening of April 27, this level had reached 0.4-1.0 R/h, and in some places, 1.5 R/h [Baryakhtar, 1997] (by other data, up to 4-7 R/h [Repin, 1995]).
During the period of 14:00-16:30, all of the town’s residents were evacuated. The strongest radioactive fallout occurred along the eastern outskirts of the town. Although during that time the releases were enriched by small particle aerosols with sublimated radionuclides, there were also some heavy combustion products which precipitated on the closest territories, including Pripyat’s surroundings. On April 28-29, the radioactive releases began to lose height (600 m) and activity, and the transfer turned gradually to the northeast [Izrael, 1990].

 

[QuantumPion]

Nope. The contrary. Those 5000 people at Bhopal wouldn't have died if the plant was located a few km outside the city.

Ok. And No one would have had any radiation exposure at Chernobyl if they weren't conducting an unsafe experiment with an unsafe designed reactor. And the Fukushima accident would not have happened if the Tsunami flood wall was a few meters higher. What is your point? Mine is that there have been non-nuclear industrial accidents far worse than any nuclear accident. What is yours?

And bologna or not - radiation levels in Prypjat were reaching three-digit mSv/hr numbers by April 27th evening (the whole population was evacuated during noon). I leave it to your imagination what the first cloud (the one formed by the explosion which did MISS Pripyat) whould have done to the population of any city in its path.

http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/emras-urban-draft-pripyat-May06.pdf

So you are saying the doses during the first release were not immediately hazardous, and the fallout cloud was narrow and localized. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[clancy688]

What is your point? Mine is that there have been non-nuclear industrial accidents far worse than any nuclear accident. What is yours?

Let's see, we've had three large scale nuclear accidents so far. Mayak, Chernobyl and Fukushima. For all you could consider us being lucky since we encountered favourable winds. Maybe that won't happen with number four.
And how many "non-nuclear industrial accidents" have there been so far? Millions? I'm pretty sure that many of these accidents encountered "lucky" situations as shown above. As for Bhopal, that was probably an very "unlucky" situation. A third world country with no emergency procedures, a leaking chemical plant inside the slum of a city with over one million residents... of course there are horrendous fatalities.
At Seveso (in Italy) a similar accident happened. But only two people died. How many people would've died if the plant would have been at the same location as the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal?
You're picking practically the worst non-nuclear industrial accident ever out of millions of accidents, oppose it to the only three large scale nuclear accidents we had so far and keep telling "Look, nuclear accidents aren't so bad, are they?".
Nuclear Accidents SO FAR haven't been as bad as Bhopal. That's correct. But they have the potential to become, way, way worse. It just hasn't happened yet.

So you are saying the doses during the first release were not immediately hazardous, and the fallout cloud was narrow and localized. Thanks for proving my point.

Yes and no. They were hazardous. The people were just lucky to be missed by the hazardous cloud. That's all.
You're basically saying "If an avalanche doesn't hit me, it's not dangerous."

 

[robinson]

Fukushima is the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh serious nuclear accidents. Lumping six huge reactor failures as one accident is ridiculous. The material in anyone of the six reactors dwarfs the small amount at Chernobyl.

I put 5 and 6 together, but considering the amounts of radioactivity released from them (which are in no way known yet), they could be considered the 7th and 8th worse disasters.

There is no doubt they are useless as reactors, and still pose a huge threat of radioactivity.

While I understand why nuclear advocates would want to call it one disaster, it's disingenuous in the extreme.

 

[QuantumPion]

You're picking practically the worst non-nuclear industrial accident ever out of millions of accidents, oppose it to the only three large scale nuclear accidents we had so far and keep telling "Look, nuclear accidents aren't so bad, are they?".
Nuclear Accidents SO FAR haven't been as bad as Bhopal. That's correct. But they have the potential to become, way, way worse. It just hasn't happened yet.

There have only been three large scale nuclear accidents. I'm comparing the worst non-nuclear industrial accident to the worst nuclear industrial accident. It would be kind of silly to compare to the worst non-nuclear industrial accident to a postulated worst-case doomsday scenario nuclear accident. I could come up with all sorts of doomsday scenarios in non-nuclear industries that have the potential to be far far worse. I mean, SO FAR wide-spread use of antibiotics has not lead to the development of genocidal super-bug, but theoretically it could. Does that mean we should cease use of all antibiotics, just in case?

 

[QuantumPion]

Fukushima is the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh serious nuclear accidents. Lumping six huge reactor failures as one accident is ridiculous. The material in anyone of the six reactors dwarfs the small amount at Chernobyl.

I put 5 and 6 together, but considering the amounts of radioactivity released from them (which are in no way known yet), they could be considered the 7th and 8th worse disasters.

There is no doubt they are useless as reactors, and still pose a huge threat of radioactivity.

While I understand why nuclear advocates would want to call it one disaster, it's disingenuous in the extreme.

The reason why they are all lumped together is because the total radiation release by all of the Fukushima units combined is less than 5% of the Chernobyl accident (~200 PBq compared to >4000 for Chernobyl) and is primarily Iodine (Chernobyl released particulate core material). Hence why calling it as bad as Chernobyl is disingenuous in the extreme.

 

[robinson]

Nobody actually knows the amount of material released so far, especially into the ocean. As for the amount that is out of containment at this point, it's huge. Of course advocates want to say leaking material from water doesn't count, because somehow even though it is no longer inside a reactor (or fuel pond), it's still contained somehow.

The other factor, which advocates have hung onto for dear life, is that they want to say what is now is the complete disaster. Like no more material will escape, and nothing could possibly happen in the years to come. The disaster is years away from any semblance of safe, so it's ongoing.

Or rather six disasters are ongoing.

From my reading of nuclear advocates, even if all the core material, and spent fuel rods, even if all of it was released, they wouldn't change their stance that nuclear power is the safest power source ever.

Which is pure nonsense, but they have actually said this. Even if all the material leaks out, because evacuations and careful avoidance by workers would mean nobody died, they would trumpet that fact as if it means nuclear power is still safe. Which is of course, pure politics.

 

[tsutsuji]

Fukushima is the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh serious nuclear accidents. Lumping six huge reactor failures as one accident is ridiculous. The material in anyone of the six reactors dwarfs the small amount at Chernobyl.

I put 5 and 6 together, but considering the amounts of radioactivity released from them (which are in no way known yet), they could be considered the 7th and 8th worse disasters.

There is no doubt they are useless as reactors, and still pose a huge threat of radioactivity.

While I understand why nuclear advocates would want to call it one disaster, it's disingenuous in the extreme.

Do you think Fukushima Daiichi unit 5 and 6 pose a bigger threat than neighboring Fukushima Daini Power Plant ? If so, why ?

 

[Luca Bevil]

Ok. And No one would have had any radiation exposure at Chernobyl if they weren't conducting an unsafe experiment with an unsafe designed reactor. And the Fukushima accident would not have happened if the Tsunami flood wall was a few meters higher. What is your point? Mine is that there have been non-nuclear industrial accidents far worse than any nuclear accident. What is yours?



So you are saying the doses during the first release were not immediately hazardous, and the fallout cloud was narrow and localized. Thanks for proving my point.

I think this position is so disrepectful of the enormous suffering, increased cancers, additional deaths, eroic efforts carried out by first line workers, biorobots liquidators in Chernobyl that it does not deserve a stance in a civilised dialog.

Comparing an admittedly horrible chemical accident like the one in Bopal (in fact the worst chemical accident ever, for the abysmal safety management put in place there) that orrendously affecteded the local population, but only the local population, with Fukushima or worse Chernobyl is completely unacceptable on any scientific or ethic ground.

Chernobyl spewed radioactive substances that fell out in most of Europe.
300.000 people were forced to relocate and this mass evacuation notwithstanding the WHO estimates in more than 4.000 the additional deaths from cancer due to the accident.
Other about 4.000 additional thiroyd cancer cases have been recognised among children.
The fact that thyroid cancer is in a measure "treatable" (15 out of 4000 had died as of 2006 if I remember correctly) does not make their lives less ruined.
I am aunaware about how many additional deaths among them can be estimates as of today.

Needless to say the scientific value of the "Chernobyl Report" is highly debatable.
Health consequences of contamination outside the "worst contaminated areas" are completely disregarded where the same estimation techniques applied to the most contaminated areas would lead to other 4.000 expected deaths if all pplied as reasonable in all the remaining affected areas of Europe.
Moreover it is common experience of any voluntary visiting Ukraine or Bielarus that the empirical real feedback from children hospitals is far from serious than the data published in that highly debatable report for both cancer cases and genetic abnormalities.
I kind of suspect QuantumPion is not among such people though.

Greenpeace has published far different estimates about Chernobyl toll, getting up to something about 80.000 additional deaths.
While this estimate may in turn be debated it cannot be debated that even taking such numbers with outmost skepticism Chernobyl makes Bopal pale in comparison.

Fukushima was officially estimated INES7 and as of April the 6th at about 10% of airborne emission compared to Chernobyl.
CS 137 discharge in water is (as of today) already in the Chernobyl order of magnitude, as it has been quickly estimated from official data in the other 3d, and the actual effectiveness of purification of such a contaminated mass of water has still to be proven by the AREVA processing plant.

Moreover Fukushima had in fact a worst case scenario (let's say in case of SFP4 collapsing to state just an example that worried not only me but Gregory Jazco head of the US NRC) much worse than Chernobyl itself.
Likelihood of such a scenario has substantially decreased but the situation is far from being stable at almost 3 months past the accident.

In this light meaning no disprespect to the lives taht were lost in BOPAL, also Fukushima worried and worries me much more than Bopal.

As an example back in 1986 in my home town in southern Italy 2000 km away from the plant had to exercise outmost care in minimising my own exposure from briething and eating (QuantumPrion may not care but back then I rather minimise my chanches of getting a solid cancer or conceive genetically ill children).

 

[Danuta]

Ok. And No one would have had any radiation exposure at Chernobyl if they weren't conducting an unsafe experiment with an unsafe designed reactor. And the Fukushima accident would not have happened if the Tsunami flood wall was a few meters higher.

Actually, see, the really disturbing part is that nobody in the Soviet nuclear industry, at the time, thought the reactor at Chernobyl was of an unsafe design and nobody in the Japanese nuclear industry thought the geezer reactors at Fukushima were of an unsafe design either before their respective accidents. Otherwise they wouldn't have built these things the way they did, or extended their livespan, right?(heh) The experiment at Chernobyl was to test a potential safety emergency core cooling feature and nobody, but nobody, working at the reactor thought this was going to end up causing any kind of accident involving loss of control.

That's just the way some accidents happen -- you think everything is going great until BLAM, stupid arrogant assumptions are blown to bits. The brilliant reactor design "suddenly" becomes incredibly unsafe, the thorough risk assessment "suddenly" becomes woefully inaccurate and fit only to be flushed down the toilet and the highly intelligent, competent and responsible dudes running these things, okay maybe "not so suddenly", become greedy corner cutting and/or mismanaging criminals. Then hindsight, and in the case of Fuku, endless foresight, become much talked about by the industry in order to pacify the masses. Not to forget spin doctoring, obfuscation and release of inaccurate data.

Oh dear.

 

[zapperzero]

Oh dear.

It does get quite tiresome, especially the second time around. I am a Chernobyl downwinder, you see, just like most of Europe. Unlike most of Europe, I was living in one of those places where it got bad enough that iodine pills were distributed. The populace was told to distill water for drinking/cooking and then store it for a week or so... Drink bottled water in the meantime, they said.

So I tend to do this weird schadenfreude chuckle when nuclear shills like QuantumPion do their little song and dance. Keep it up, lil' buddies. Soon enough, it will be YOUR kids lining up terrified in a school yard to get foul-tasting little yellow pills. You'll even get to try and explain what they're for, when they come home. That is, unless saner minds than yours prevail.

 

[robinson]

Let's try and avoid the oh so human desire to insult our opponents.

Which must be hard if you have ever suffered from radioactive fallout.

 

[Danuta]

Let's try and avoid the oh so human desire to insult our opponents.

Which must be hard if you have ever suffered from radioactive fallout.

Hey, and you know what I find personally insulting? Nuclear industry illogical happyspeak bullcrap.

 

[robinson]

I find all dishonest manipulation and human lies rub me the wrong way. The thing is, it's so much a part of human nature, and it is so prevalent, getting upset over it can make you crazy. It's like raging over bad drivers and rude people.

 

[Dmytry]

What is your point? That if Chernobyl was 3 km closer to the population center that 20,000 people would have died of radiation poisoning? Sorry, but that is just bologna.

Sorry, but that is not. If Chernobyl was 3km closer and the wind was blowing at Pripyat', without extremely quick evacuation easily ten thousand people could have died of acute symptoms. Just like the trees right downwind died (trees have much larger lethal dose btw).

Really, that's the thing with nukes... accidents happen, ookay, but the worst thing is that nobody wants to learn any from the accidents that happen. Worse than that, some people make up and spread lies such as about Chernobyl being in middle of Pripyat, of how late the evacuation was done, and so on. Lucky weather, combined with such lies result in decrease in the safety.

 

[zapperzero]

Let's try and avoid the oh so human desire to insult our opponents.

Which must be hard if you have ever suffered from radioactive fallout.

Suffered from? I don't think so, not yet. I took my iodine and got my shivers and heat spells just like everyone else. Not too bad.

Should I come down with cancer, as about half (iirc) of Europe's population eventually does, I could blame it on Chernobyl, but I won't be able to make it stick, not even to my own satisfaction, let alone that of an international court.

But when I call someone a shill, I do not do it to insult, rather to explain what I perceive as the reason for their behavior.

 

[desertlabs]

But when I call someone a shill, I do not do it to insult, rather to explain what I perceive as the reason for their behavior.

I understand. I call them nuclear lobbyists.

Here are some links to lists of nuclear accidents.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2715/1/
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/04/radioactive_accidents
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/03/worst-nuclear-accidents-in-history.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

Here is a link to recent findings about the wildlife at Chernobyl.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_chernobyl/all/1

 

[zapperzero]

I felt bad about having perhaps insulted someone, as I am won't to do when my feelings run high. Then I found this post by QuantumPion here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=160725
I currently have a bachelors in nuclear engineering and work for a utility company.

It follows that his or her continued wellbeing depends in a significant proportion on the continued existence and wealth of the nuclear industry. So now I'm thinking that all of QuantumPion's pro-nuclear posts should be accepted, if at all, at a rather sharp discount.

EDIT: to be honest, I was relieved to find that QuantumPion is not a sockpuppet account created specially for this current emergency, having been established in 2007. Sockpuppets are much, much harder to deal with than honest (and earnest) amateur propagandists.

 

[robinson]

I tend to avoid any online discussion of nuclear power because it is virtually impossible to discuss it factually. Be it the cost, the environmental effects, the accidents, the risks, or the long term storage problem, or the ongoing Fukushima disasters, the things first sacrificed seem to be logic and factual data.

 

[zapperzero]

I tend to avoid any online discussion of nuclear power because it is virtually impossible to discuss it factually. Be it the cost, the environmental effects, the accidents, the risks, or the long term storage problem, or the ongoing Fukushima disasters, the things first sacrificed seem to be logic and factual data.

The lack of data is what's most galling. In the present crisis there's a conspicuous lack of "official" fallout surveys and emissions tallies, workers don't have dosimeters or even film badges for some strange reason, whole body counts seem to be unheard of unless someone actually steps in 1 Sv/h water and private citizens with dosimeters stumble upon radioactive sludge heaps and so on and so forth and it gets real tiresome after a while.

Even the tech guys and gals in the disaster physics thread are getting tired of having so little useful data to play with. But with every sensor they add and every bit of damage they document, NISA & TEPCO officials are also adding years to their possible prison sentences and yen in liability to their balance sheets, respectively, and they know it.

 

[gmax137]

I felt bad about having perhaps insulted someone, as I am won't to do when my feelings run high. Then I found this post by QuantumPion here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=160725
I currently have a bachelors in nuclear engineering and work for a utility company.

It follows that his or her continued wellbeing depends in a significant proportion on the continued existence and wealth of the nuclear industry. So now I'm thinking that all of QuantumPion's pro-nuclear posts should be accepted, if at all, at a rather sharp discount.

...

Wow, if you applied that logic consistently you'd never do anything unless you did it yourself. Toilet backed up? Better call the carpenter, you know that plumber makes his living off broken pipes...

[EDIT} oh yeah, don't bother looking, I've been a 'shill' for the "nuke complex" for over 30 years.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Wow, if you applied that logic consistently you'd never do anything unless you did it yourself. Toilet backed up? Better call the carpenter, you know that plumber makes his living off broken pipes...

[EDIT} oh yeah, don't bother looking, I've been a 'shill' for the "nuke complex" for over 30 years.

Well it was rather clear from both your technical proficiency and an overall positive attitude toward nuclear power generation.

However I remember an interesting discussion with you.
QuantumPrion instead was asserting opinions about the Chernobyl consequences that are quite simply revoltant.

I would welcome experience and opinions different from my own, I would not welcome any intentional distorsion of the truth.

 

[Dmytry]

Ahh, the guy who posted this

Pripyat was a city of over 50,000 people, and the power plant was right in the middle of it. Furthermore, the population was not evacuated until a several days after the accident occurred. Yet still, the only immediate and confirmed deaths were the ~60 firefighters directly exposed. Try again (but please check the facts first next time).

works in nuke industry?
I was giving him benefit of the doubt, that he was unwittingly repeating a bunch of gross falsehoods, but...

It is the case, unfortunately, that people tend to put online disinformation in favour of their self-interest. Some people do it subtly, trying to maintain plausibility, and themselves appearing reasonable and neutral (the misinformation would be in details), some do it over the top, trying to influence the people who tend to look at debate and think the truth is in the middle.
I'm giving benefit of the doubt here, you know. I'd rather the nuclear power plants be run by people who's deliberately posting misinformation and themselves know just how bad the disasters were, than by genuinely incompetent/clueless. Perhaps I am rather seeing it in too positive light.
Perhaps they are not liars. Perhaps they genuinely have poor understanding of the risks from the machinery they are operating or designing. Perhaps they genuinely do not understand that a nuclear power plant or a fuel reprocessing facility is a massive toxic repository, far in exceed of any chemical plant in terms of number of human LD50s stored and accumulated on-site - and it has to be treated as such.
Perhaps they genuinely believe that Chernobyl was in middle of Pripyat and that Pripyat was not evacuated for several days, and thus see Chernobyl as genuine proof of how safe nuclear industry is. If that is so - given that we are already doing the best to ensure competence of nuclear power plant operators and designers, if nonetheless such levels of incompetence slip in - perhaps there's nothing that can be done and nuclear power plants have to be closed.

 

[MiceAndMen]

Short of making this a global effort, it is hard to see what TEPCO could have done additional.
Presumably, the global effort option was rejected both for operational as well as political reasons, ie how do you coordinate a nuclear emergency with a polyglot crew that cannot talk to each other?.

I can think of 6 things TEPCO could have done differently, or at least with more urgency, right off the top of my head. I don't want to argue (or even list) every point, but google "tepco slow" and you'll find 1.8 million hits on the subject. They're not all uninformed or agenda-pushing points of view, either; there are many valid and legitimate criticisms being leveled at TEPCO even after you discard the cranks and rabid anti-nuke crowd.

They face a gargantuan task, there is no doubt about that. It remains to be seen whether or not they are capable of managing it. Either way, in my opinion the primary reason it has not become a global cleanup operation is this: money. If the perceived risk outside of Japan becomes a serious issue, then this may change, but the cost of the cleanup in money, manpower and lives is an unknown unknowable variable at present, and nobody who was not responsible for it will voluntarily assume any of that cost or risk right now.

 

[htf]

I still don't see why this means it has to be earthquake generated. Surely the state of the reactor due to core melting is enough to cause problems by this stage.

There recently was a report that clearly showed that reactor #1 was damaged during the earthquake. It was a TEPCO insider who disclosed information to the press. Shortly after the earthquake workers tried to enter reactor #1 but could't because of high radioactivity levels. What else but structural damages caused by the earthquake could explain that? Core melting had not yet started. And why did the emergency cooling system of reactor #1 fail much earlier than in units 2 and 3?

You may say this is not officially approved information. But there is one thing that is for sure: TEPCO and the Japanese government have been laying and down-playing the accident since the disaster started. And they still are. They only admit what is evident.

 

[robinson]

It seems terribly important for the pro nuclear voices to insist the earthquakes couldn't have caused any damage at all. It's easy enough to see why. But it's politics, not science or physics driving that train of thought.

 

[andybwell]

Tepco starting to "come clean" "After almost three months, there no sign of stabilizing the situation".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0xJyFTLovE&feature=feedu

 

[andybwell]

You guys and gals, of course, knew this all along. Right?

"The dangers of fukushima are greater than we think."

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b8e53c620300ae88791163048&id=68c85cc08a

http://www.chrismartenson.com/martensonreport/part-2-arnie-gundersen-interview-protecting-yourself-if-situation-worsens