Here
and
Now

opinions

Worried about a radioactive ocean? A reality check

14 Comments
By Malcolm Ritter

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

"Experts say animals very near the plant may face problems like higher rates of genetic mutations, but that this would probably happen within only maybe a half a mile or so."

We need fish trainers to teach them not to leave the one mile zone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One friend working at the USPS (in the east coast region) said that a colleague is petitioning not to do their job outside because they will be exposed to radiation.

This would be a good article to "go viral" so that more people in far off lands panic less and see things a little more realistically.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Experts say animals very near the plant may face problems like higher rates of genetic mutations, but that this would probably happen within only maybe a half a mile or so.

Life imitates art! Blinky the 3-eyed fish from the Simpsons comes true! Except the name will probably be more like Pacchiri-pacchiri-pacchiriko.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope too that many more people would read this very clarifying article and stop these ridiculous anti-nuclear demonstrations worldwide. It proves that nuclear energy is safe. Even with extreme accidents, nobody died compared to the 10,000 who die every year in coalmine accidents. Even the environment will only be contaminated for a mere 300 years which is nothing compared to the millions of years of history of our planet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this one ripoff article on yahoo news or yahoo news ripoff JT? it is a good info thought.

by the way Foxie , i can see only the opposite. if we take all the money will spend on clean up the nuclear mess, massive economic loose, compensation, etc on this incident and use it for develop technology like fule-cell, solar, wind, and support the large-scale energy grid ideas where normal houses can help produce and sell the energy, we will have those "real cleaner energy system" a lot sooner and it a lot safer then nuclear energy which we are depended heavily on only a few couple power companies, and we the tax payer still have to pay for the clean up when things like this happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It proves that nuclear energy is safe.

If you're far enough away.

nobody died

Yet. High doses can also cause cancer decades later. It can lead to congenital defects in future children of exposed adults.

a mere 300 years which is nothing compared to the millions of years of history

But quite a long time compared to your average threescore years and ten. (or these days, more like fourscore years and five, still a valid comparison.) While the earth may have a history counted in millions of years, the history of the human race is not much over 250,000 years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thedeath, as a reality check I advise you to buy solar panels. I got some for heating water. They were very expensive, they only work when it is sunny and about 2 hours after sunset. I found myself arranging my whole life around them. They have been broken a number of times now and the repair is costly too. Besides could it be that this clean renewable energy source has a dirty little secret? Most PV solar panels are made from silicon and include potentially toxic metals such as lead, mercury, uranium oxyde and cadmium. It was one of my biggest mistakes buying it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Foxie, how much will it be for the clean up, economic loose, compensation etc, tax payer in japan is paying for TEPCO? i am talking about use those money to support and develop the real clean energy technology which is not target only one technology.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the death, most of the commercial-scale wind turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3.5 Million installed plus maintenance costs. You need 250 to replace 1 nuclear reactor and the life span is only 20 years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I you have a choice, should you eat food with more radiation or that with less?

If you have plenty of non-irradiated food to choose from in your area, wouldn't avoiding all food from suspect prefectures be a wiser course of action?

We live in a world of radiation, but shouldn't people be aware of the difference between radiation and ionizing radiation?

Isn't being overly concerned and slightly paranoid about potential threats a natural human reaction that helps protect ourselves?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All forms of power generation have some risks involved. The reality is that windmills/ hydro-electric/ wave power just can't generate enough power to satisfy a 'modern industrial country'.

Nuclear power has done quite well up till now in Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hyrdrothermal power. Check it on youtube. Search "hydrothermal Marshall"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I AM worried. I do not believe that officials tell us the truth. One day, all the fish in the sea will be dead. No one seems to say anything about the plutonium that is in MOX fuel (a mixture of Uranium,plus plutonium) that was being used in nuclear reactors. Plutonium kills, and mutates. In fact, it is the most deadly (and for the longest time), substance known to man. There are other ways to generate power. Report: At $8 Billion (US dollars),a plant AND with the transportation and storage of nuclear fuel, why has NO ONE reported on DEEP GEOTHERMAL? There is unlimited, non-polluting energy within 5 miles of everywhere on Earth ... straight down. MIT has done two major comparative studies within the last five years and guess what ... GEOTHERMAL has the least LIFETIME environmental impact and is the most productive of the "alternative" technologies -- INCLUDING WIND AND SOLAR. You don't need Yellowstone, Iceland or Hot Springs to have GEOTHERMAL ... constructed with conventional OIL DRILLING technology [why hasn't the BUSH cabal picked up on this???] and GE steam turbines AND the plants can be put entirely underground. Nuclear is yet another fuel-dependent technology. Geothermal's "fuel" is HEAT, entirely LOCAL and entirely non-polluting. No imports, no trains, no containers. Just clean electricity. Plants and tools are bound only by CONVENTIONAL engineering technology. INVESTORS & TAXPAYERS: Less risk than an oil well. Clean Returns. Short implementation cycle. NON-POLLUTIING. AVAILABLE EVERYWHERE. Ask Santa Rosa, California.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Foxie,

You need 250 to replace 1 nuclear reactor and the life span is only 20 years.

my question was

how much will it be for the clean up, economic loose, compensation etc,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites