national

Radiation from Fukushima disaster detected off Canada's coast

75 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

75 Comments
Login to comment

The levels the group detected are extremely low. For example, swimming in the Vancouver Island water every day for a year would provide a dose of radiation less than a thousand times smaller than a single dental X-ray

I just love when they make these childish comparisons.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

"I just love when they make these childish comparisons."

It's not childish to put the information in a perspective that even the most paranoid of fearmongers can comprehend.

14 ( +24 / -10 )

More that the spread of radioactivity... I am concerned of the spread of stupidity

8 ( +15 / -7 )

No more maple syrup for me.

And why did it take three years for radiation stuff to reach Canada? I thought the ocean moved much faster than that. Sounds to me global warming is causing the ocean to slow down. Or maybe all the waste water from Fukushima seeping into the ocean now is reaching the Americas.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

Actually, this is not the first time it has been detected. Just the first time they admit it.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

But, the great leader Abe said, "it's under control!"

The amount of radiation leaking from the plant is huge! Make no mistake! There is very little airborne contamination at present, until the ocean breezes kick up the dust in summer and blow a nice cloud of contaminated dust across the Kanto region giving all the residents and crops a few hundred x-rays. The amount of radioactive water leaking from the plant is extreme and is very hush-hush from the government and TEPCO officials.

It's under control alright! It's under media control!

5 ( +16 / -11 )

What happens if a radioactive particle becomes lodged in the body? In the lungs or bone marrow? Are they saying there's no risk to surrounding cells? The very fact that there are elevated cancer levels after Fukushima should be. Wise for concern shouldn't it?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

The US have already some heavily contaminated zones by their nuclear tests like in Nevada,I think it's a nonsense for them being more scared by Fukushima than their own mess since it's too much far anyway, it's not like Europe situation after Chernobyl.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

I wonder if technology will someday produce a 'ray gun' able to neutralize radiation. The process might even produce electricity or at least heat we can re-use!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

At least I give this report more credence than that scaremongering "plume" that purported to show radioactive water lapping on the western US shores a few days after the explosion. Note to nuclear-haters: we don't actually need "sky is falling" any more than necessary.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Even if it's not dangerous, I think people still have a right to be angry. Countries who build nuclear powerplants seem to believe that it's nobody else's business, but clearly radiation does not stop at national borders.

China has something like 25 nuclear powerplants under construction along the it's eastern coast... need I say more?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The US have already some heavily contaminated zones by their nuclear tests like in Nevada,I think it's a nonsense for them being more scared by Fukushima than their own mess since it's too much far anyway, it's not like Europe situation after Chernobyl.

How do radiation levels in Canadian water have anything to do with the US?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

People should be and actually some of them are angry for many things...nuclear pollution, global warming, junk and cancerous food, criminal wars and corrupted politicians and lobby everywhere...but then they are happy smoking their cigarettes and eating some unhealty crap ato fastfood, using their potential cancerous smartphones all the day. People lack coherence and culture, for this human beings are such a failure.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

how can the scientists tell the difference between radiation from fukushima and any other radiation for example all the pacific tests done by america and france.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

How do radiation levels in Canadian water have anything to do with the US?

Did you and other people read only the title of the article?

Buesseler said he expects similar low cesium levels to gradually reach other North American shores, possibly extending along the U.S. West Coast from Washington state to California.

“Predicting the spread of radiation becomes more complex the closer it gets to the coast,” Buesseler said.

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said its conclusions were drawn from research it collected from community groups and a network of local academics and aquariums to collect water samples and fund radiation testing.

Last November, Woods Hole reported detectable radiation from Fukushima about 100 miles (161 km) off the coast of northern California, but no radiation has yet been detected any closer to U.S. shores.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yeah, when you haven't stopped it from leaking, it's gonna go places.

"For example, swimming in the Vancouver Island water every day for a year would provide a dose of radiation less than a thousand times smaller than a single dental X-ray..."

Yeah, but a dental x-ray is a conscious decision you make to expose yourself and are at least given some kind of protection, I mean, I hope swimming in the water isn't on the level of an x-ray. Shouldn't that a given?

So, basically we are in the age where when we swim or drink water or eat vegetables, we should just assume we're exposing ourselves to radiation? Scary.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Fukushima is completely out of control. Every single day since the disaster, tons of highly radioactive water are being dumped into the ocean ... 4 years and counting.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Did you and other people read only the title of the article?

I certainly did. Would you please explain how this piece on Canadian scientists finding higher than normal radiation in Canadian waters has anything to do with the US?

The US have already some heavily contaminated zones by their nuclear tests like in Nevada,I think it's a nonsense for them being more scared by Fukushima than their own mess since it's too much far anyway, it's not like Europe situation after Chernobyl.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"swimming in the Vancouver Island water every day for a year would provide a dose of radiation less than a thousand times smaller than a single dental X-ray"

No worries, then!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I certainly did. Would you please explain how this piece on Canadian scientists finding higher than normal radiation in Canadian waters has anything to do with the US?

Again? I already showed you that in the article there are parts related to the situation in the US. So...Did you read ONLY the title of the articlle or what?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

China has something like 25 nuclear powerplants under construction along the it's eastern coast... need I say more?

And they have many more than 25 coal power plants in operation and under construction. Plants that spread large amounts of mercury and other pollutants around the globe. Pollutants that are known to kill more people in a year than nuclear power plants have killed in 60 years.

So, basically we are in the age where when we swim or drink water or eat vegetables, we should just assume we're exposing ourselves to radiation? Scary.

Actually for as long as humans have existed swimming or drinking water or eating vegetables has caused exposure to radiation. The natural levels of radiation in ocean water are greater than 10,000 Bq per cubic meter. So Fukushima has changed them by less than 0.1%.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@Star-Viking For starters elevated thyroid cancer levels of children in Fukushima - no cause has been officially pinpointed yet.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I'm the first person AGAINST nuclear power. I only find hilarious some people who live in Canada or the US being more afraid about Fukushima than, for example, the daily smog they breathe in their country, and, in the US case, also than about their own nuclear crap (try to read some stuff related to Nevada situation or Hanford Site, with all its leaks of radioactive materials on a daily bases, if you don't know how bad some situations are). It would be like for us Italians being more afraid for pollution from China than the situation at Porto Marghera or Ilva at Taranto. I mean, everything have to be put in a correct perspective. Fukushima disaster is huge, very harmful for Japan, but for the US and Canada, no really, they should be more afraid about other things that are probably less discussed in their mainstream media.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Again? I already showed you that in the article there are parts related to the situation in the US. So...Did you read ONLY the title of the articlle or what?

What is the title of the article? Who was interviewed in the article? (Hint:it has nothing to do with the US or Americans)Now, where in the article does it say anything about Americans being scared (your words)by radiation?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@cardsfan5: I give up. If you consider only some parts of one article, it's not my fault.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Ronald,

how can the scientists tell the difference between radiation from fukushima and any other radiation for example all the pacific tests done by america and france.

The fukushima releases have more Cesium 134. It decays quickly, so there is little remaining from the nuke tests.

Kurisupisu,

The thyriod readings are not linked to Fukushima by medics. They are the result of extensive screening which detects any anomaly. Tests in other parts of Japan show similar results.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@cardsfan5: I give up. If you consider only some parts of one article, it's not my fault.

No, no. You just have no point. Simply because a journalist mentions a fact found by an American doesn‘t mean ‘americans are complaining‘ or whatever you say;the average American doesn‘t care.

But this article was about radiation from Fukushima found in Canadian waters, so any discussion regarding America is, in this case, irrelevant.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@kurisupusu

The very fact that there are elevated cancer levels after Fukushima should be. Wise for concern shouldn't it?

Yes, it should be, if that is the case. And any cancer diagnosis is in itself a cause for major concern, because cancer is a life-threatening disease, or in many cases, a fatal disease.

But it is only four years since the Fukushima disaster, and the question at the moment is, first, whether there actually are elevated cancer levels, and second, whether there are going to be. In Fukushima, they are screening for cancers that were not screened for before, so (for example) there isn't a point of comparison for thyroid cancers in children. When you begin to actively look for a disease across an entire population, you find it. That is inevitable. But the rate of cancer among Fukushima children that would have been found through screening applied prior to 2011 simply isn't known.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

But this article was about radiation from Fukushima found in Canadian waters, so any discussion regarding America is, in this case, irrelevant.

No, this article spoke also about the US situation, I also showed you the parts!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Interestingly, it's taken a long time for the radioactive particles from the Fukushima Daiichi plant to finally start to register on radiation detectors on land on the North American west coast. This wasn't like Chernobyl, where because the amount of radioactive fallout spread was MUCH larger (essentially most of the fissile material at the reactor went up in the initial reactor explosion), the radiation was detected far earlier.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's your mess, japan. Clean it up.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

“Radioactivity can be dangerous, and we should be carefully monitoring the oceans after what is certainly the largest accidental release of radioactive contaminants to the oceans in history,” Buesseler said in a statement.

Thank you Japan, TEPCO, and the LDP-led decades og govrenments pushing "cheap power", so you could build Japan Inc. And please, don't anyone tell me again how "envoronmentally concerned" Japan is.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

しょうがない. If you wana dance, you gotta pay the fiddler. Never thought Japan would see the short-end of the stick on this one. Radiation goes a long way after a few yrs.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Thank you Japan, TEPCO, and the LDP-led decades og govrenments pushing "cheap power", so you could build Japan Inc. And please, don't anyone tell me again how "envoronmentally concerned" Japan is.

You should thank all the countries that built *put the name country you want" inc. pushing "cheap power", by using nuclear plants. There's plenty of them, the only difference is that they hadn't a massive earthquake and tsunami. Because if you believe other nuclear plants around the world are safer and able to stand such a natural disaster, you are biased, or you don't know how the nuclear industry works worldwide. It's one of the worst ever, where we get lies and lies over and over again everywhere, and the workers are exploited in a terrible way, while the maintenance on the plants is mediocre. Why do you think in Germany they decided to close all the plants after Fukushima? Because they were safe? No, of course, but because they know they are crap.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It seems that Japan should not have nuclear power plants from the beginning if they could imagine such 311 disaster. What Japan can do is all nuclear power plants should be scrapped as soon as possible before other ones happen.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

What Japan can do is all nuclear power plants should be scrapped as soon as possible before other ones happen.

What about all the countries that have nuclear power plants did the same? I think it would be better, except if you are one of those guys like jerseyboy, who thinks "only in Japan this could happen". The US weren't even able to deal with the Hurricane Katrina preoperly, I'd like to see how they could handle a triple disaster like 3/11. Oh, yeah, I forgot that the US are perfect, so there a nuclear accident could never happen, not even with a tsunami and an earthquake of magnitude 9.0.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

What trips me out is how these Japanese were protesting @ Los Angeles Class subs making port calls here. Yet, they still harnessed that TEPCO power. Japan (slept) sleeps well at night, thanks to the US umbrella. It is what it is-

0 ( +4 / -4 )

the US umbrella

Implying this "umbrella" purpose is to protect Japan. Lol.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

There's plenty of them, the only difference is that they hadn't a massive earthquake and tsunami. Because if you believe other nuclear plants around the world are safer and able to stand such a natural disaster, you are biased, or you don't know how the nuclear industry works worldwide.

Alex8- -- LOL. First off, your "only difference" is a fairly massive one -- on the scale of the Fukushima disaster. Japan is an earthquake-prone country. As such there should have been even more caution and even more rigid design, construction and maintenance procedures regarding safety built in. But, as we now know, there were not. Which leads to the second point, which you want to conveniently pretend doesn't exist, and that is that the nuclear industry in Japan operated for decades under a government bueaucracy who's mandate was to promote nuclear power, rather than stringently monitor it for the public's safety. That is not the case in other countries. Sorry, my man, but it is you who is biased, and does not "know how the nuclear industry works worldwide". If you did, you would know that Germany, for example, has pledged to phase-out nuclear power in the next couple of decades. Try your emotional and non-fact-based rants on someone else. OK?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I wonder if TEPCO will apply the same logic they did to the farmers in Tohoku, who wanted to sue the company for contaminating their land:

'Once it's in the wind, on your land, it's not ours'.

Amoral.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Japan is a protectorate of the US. So isn't it reasonable to imply the umbrella protects Japan?

Besides that, in a show of humanitarian effort both militarily (US Navy) & financially (cash donated by americans), who else gave two-bits? China? Italy? . . .

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The US have already some heavily contaminated zones by their nuclear tests like in Nevada,I think it's a nonsense for them being more scared by Fukushima than their own mess since it's too much far anyway, it's not like Europe situation after Chernobyl.

You're right. It WOULD be nonsense. That's why we're not "more scared by Fukushima". That's a conclusion you came to on your own with nothing in the article to back it up. If you're going to editorialize, don't turn around and try to claim the article backs up your faulty conclusions. In what alternate universe does prudent radiation monitoring equate to America being "more scared by Fukushima than their own mess"? It may not seem like it to those in Japan, but Fukushima's global radiation signature is but a drop in the ocean when you toss it in with all the atomic tests conducted by all the nuclear-armed countries over the years (not just the U.S.) For the United States, Fukushima is just one more radiation source to monitor. It's nothing we're scared of.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Soon, all Fukushima products will be banned. I'm having second thoughts on buying seafood frm my local Maruetsu, Mamimart & Belix. Thank God for signature Kirkland Products- sold @ Costco.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Japan is an earthquake-prone country. As such there should have been even more caution and even more rigid design, construction and maintenance procedures regarding safety built in. But, as we now know, there were not.

And how do you know that in California safety is better? We have to wait for a tsunami and an earthquake of magnitude 9.0 before saying it's better, I think.

the nuclear industry in Japan operated for decades under a government bueaucracy who's mandate was to promote nuclear power, rather than stringently monitor it for the public's safety. That is not the case in other countries.

And this shows you know nothing about worldwide nuclear industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety_and_security#Responsible_agencies

Many nations utilizing nuclear power have special institutions overseeing and regulating nuclear safety. Civilian nuclear safety in the U.S. is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). However, critics of the nuclear industry complain that the regulatory bodies are too intertwined with the inustries themselves to be effective. The book The Doomsday Machine for example, offers a series of examples of national regulators, as they put it 'not regulating, just waving' (a pun on waiving) to argue that, in Japan, for example, "regulators and the regulated have long been friends, working together to offset the doubts of a public brought up on the horror of the nuclear bombs".[11] Other examples offered [12] include:

in the United States, a dangerous custom whereby only supporters of the nuclear industry are allowed to supervise it and lobbyists have been allowed to have an effective veto over regulators. in China, where Kang Rixin, former general manager of the state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation, was sentenced to life in jail in 2010 for accepting bribes (and other abuses), a verdict raising questions about the quality of his work on the safety and trustworthiness of China’s nuclear reactors. in India, where the nuclear regulator reports to the national Atomic Energy Commission, which champions the building of nuclear power plants there and the chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, S. S. Bajaj, was previously a senior executive at the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, the company he is now helping to regulate. in Japan, where the regulator reports to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which overtly seeks to promote the nuclear industry and ministry posts and top jobs in the nuclear business are passed among the same small circle of experts.

Oops, look...also the US in the list of examples.

If you did, you would know that Germany, for example, has pledged to phase-out nuclear power in the next couple of decades.

I know it, and I also said in one of my earlier posts

Why do you think in Germany they decided to close all the plants after Fukushima? Because they were safe? No, of course, but because they know they are crap.

Indeed they are old crap, but before Fukushima, Merkel meant to prolong life of the plants.

About how safe nuclear plants are around the word, Wiki is your friend, even though there are tons of things we'll never for sure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents

0 ( +3 / -3 )

in the United States, a dangerous custom whereby only supporters of the nuclear industry are allowed to supervise it and lobbyists have been allowed to have an effective veto over regulators

Well except that isn't true. One of the last NRC Chairman, Gregory Jazko, was decidedly anti-nuclear industry and anti-nuclear power.

Using wikipedia as a source for a contentious topic like nuclear power is foolish.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Many nations utilizing nuclear power have special institutions overseeing and regulating nuclear safety. Civilian nuclear safety in the U.S. is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). However, critics of the nuclear industry complain that the regulatory bodies are too intertwined with the inustries themselves to be effective. The book The Doomsday Machine for example, offers a series of examples of national regulators, as they put it 'not regulating, just waving' (a pun on waiving) to argue that

in the United States, a dangerous custom whereby only supporters of the nuclear industry are allowed to supervise it and lobbyists have been allowed to have an effective veto over regulators. in China, where Kang Rixin, former general manager of the state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation, was sentenced to life in jail in 2010 for accepting bribes (and other abuses), a verdict raising questions about the quality of his work on the safety and trustworthiness of China’s nuclear reactors. in India, where the nuclear regulator reports to the national Atomic Energy Commission, which champions the building of nuclear power plants there and the chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, S. S. Bajaj, was previously a senior executive at the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, the company he is now helping to regulate.

Alex80 -- again -- LOL. That is your response? An allegation by "some critics" of the U.S. nuclear industry who think the NRC is too biased in favor of the industry? Or what a fictional book said. Or what is going on in China? By the way, if you had bothered reading the entirety of the quotes you posted, you might have caught the folllowing:

in Japan, for example, "regulators and the regulated have long been friends, working together to offset the doubts of a public brought up on the horror of the nuclear bombs".[

in Japan, where the regulator reports to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which overtly seeks to promote the nuclear industry and ministry posts and top jobs in the nuclear business are passed among the same small circle of experts.

Both of which support my argument that Japanese bureaucracy really had no interest from the very beginning in safety. (Maybe you shoud read your posts more carefully, as you chastised other posters for not reading the article.)

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

There is clearly more radiation & radioactive waste around than is being reported, click on this to read about more than 3600tons of radioactive waste from Saitama(113tons) up through Tohoku, Miyagi (2711 tons) & even 4tons up in Hokkaido.

ALL over national limits BUT NOT BEING REPORTED, this reading will not make you feel like things are in control

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0002031113

I don't think JT caught this story.

And what this REALLY MEANS is that there is a hellava lot unreported waste that the powers that be simply aren't looking for or AINT telling us about, scary stuff!!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I don't really follow this stuff, but one thing that makes me think that the numbers aren't fake, are that if there were fake numbers, any reporter would be all over it for the story. And there would be people out there doing tests to check the official numbers.

It just seems like it would be too hard to cover up, for it to be a cover up.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@jerseyboy: YOU are the one who says "ONLY IN JAPAN". I showed it's not ONLY in Japan. I read everything I posted from Wikipedia. You are missing the point because it's convenient for you. In the US is like in Japan. Deal with it.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Thats cause the average Japanese cannot speak up. "Silent Majority" syndrome. The secrecy law- wow, what concept. Who'd challenge that? NHK just feeds the masses. Japan eats bologna & doesn't even know it-

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Why is nobody in prison?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why is nobody in prison?

Mainly because you can't imprison a tsunami and nobody disagrees that the tsunami caused this nuclear accident.

As far as the design of the power plant goes, it was done via a design committee who then submitted their design to Japan's NRC where it underwent study by ANOTHER committee before getting approved to be built. Out of all those committees, who are you putting in prison? You'll note I haven't even brought TEPCO into the picture yet because they are limited by what the NRC allows them to do once the plant is operational. It's easy to point a finger at TEPCO because they were the ones operating the plant in 2011, but there are a whole SLEW of people outside of TEPCO who had a hand in getting the plant to the point where it was in March 2011. Again, which ones are you going to put in prison?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The radiation should make hockey pucks glow green in Canada, which might make hockey slightly more watchable...very slightly.

Canada will soon change their flag to show a neon green maple leaf.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@jerseyboy: YOU are the one who says "ONLY IN JAPAN". I showed it's not ONLY in Japan. I read everything I posted from Wikipedia. You are missing the point because it's convenient for you. In the US is like in Japan. Deal with it.

Alex -- first off, I never said "ONLY IN JAPAN". If you read my original post, I simply said bureaucrats in Japan were far too inclined to push nuclear power rather than truly regulate it, and focus on safety. Second, you have not in any way, despite all your rants, stated anything to dispel that belief. In fact, you included material that supports it. Third, in case you haven't figured it out, what China, or even the U.S., may or may not be doing regarding nuclear power/safety does not make things any better for the hundreds of thousands of folks still displaced by Fukushima, nor lessen the environmental disaster that is still occurring. Finally, you need to chill. All your capitalizing of words and telling people to "deal with it", is not a positive thing.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@jersyboy: I showed how the nuclear industry works worldwide, it's not only in Japan, while you are in denial. Because of people like you, we'll continue to have nuclear disasters everywhere, because you think they can happen only in Japan, while other countries have a better system, that is false.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

JalapenoAPR. 07, 2015 - 05:52PM JST No more maple syrup for me.

Maple syrup is not produced in British Columia. In fact, sugar maples do not grow there. Production in Canada comes from Ontario, Quebec and further east, all of which is many thousands of km's from BC.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The fact that this article is not about the US?

Indeed this article is about Mars. Meh. It's about North America - Canada and the US. Bye.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It's about North America - Canada and the US. Bye.

Wrong. What was the title?

‘ Radiation from Fukushima disaster detected off Canada's coast‘

Yet somehow you twisted this article into a criticism of the US. I guess the Canadians have no right to complain about radioactive water.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Wrong. What was the title?

Again...I guess to you an article is made only by the title. This is becoming hilarious.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There's hundreds of tons of radioactive water spilling into the land and ocean. This is nothing new. Between the plastic waste and Fukushima radiation...

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The amount of tin foil hat wearers on this article is amazing

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't really follow this stuff, but one thing that makes me think that the numbers aren't fake, are that if there were fake numbers, any reporter would be all over it for the story. And there would be people out there doing tests to check the official numbers.

StrangerL,

If only that were true.............sadly major media in Japan is pretty just spoon fed the news here, little real proper investigation, UNLESS, somehow a story breaks, then they go at it a BIT more, but the media here really never has been a check & balance on things, they DONT rock the boat. Media in Japan has always been highly censored, so much so the media are great at self-censorship, they are pretty well trained & usually obey.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Did anyone else notice the phrase "accidental contamination". As opposed to intentional contamination like the U.S. nuclear bombs tested in the south Pacific for years after the war.

As for someone saying they were going to give up maple syrup, that's just stupid, since no maple syrup comes from BC for one thing. The majority of maple syrup comes from Quebec, which is about 6000 miles from the pacific.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I love how, once again, people are banging on about how stupid it was to build nuclear plants in an earthquake prone zone... Japan has had nuclear power for decades and this was the only plant to suffer serious damage after a MASSIVE quake and a HUGE tsunami. Those two events were unexpected: I mean come on, the biggest quake in recorded history and a monstrous wave... you can't seriously be blaming TEPCO for that? Blame them for cocking up the initial clean up and water storage, but you can't blame them for the plant suffering catastrophic damage. I doubt any building would have stood up to the full force of a massive tsunami.

Like I said, decades without a serious accident.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

This disaster will be remembered long after Three Mile Island has been forgotten. It is Japan's shame, but keep deflecting as it is doing a lot of good.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Thunderbird2,

Reality check, in case you DONT KNOW, Japan has LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of earthquakes.

And second, take a guess at what cause TSUNAMI's........................if you haven't figured it out, the answer is EARTHQUAKES

Which over Japans history have been KNOWN to cause tsunami, comprende??

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Reality check, in case you DONT KNOW, Japan has LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of earthquakes.

And as Thunderbird2 said in all the decades that Japan has had nuclear plants no previous EARTHQUAKE had caused any serious problem. Add the fact that a nuclear plant CLOSER to the earthquake did not suffer significant damage. Further evidence that the problem isn't endemic to nuclear plants in Japan but was specific to issues at Fukushima Daiichi.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

And as all the apologists for nuclear power seem to again like to think... well, hey, yes, but you know what, it only takes ONE catastrophe. Do you see now?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

MikeO,

Here is the deal, just imagine of the winds had been strongly blowing to the SW on 3/11 & brought lots more radiation to the Kanto area..........................

Japan would likely have been GAME OVER!!! THAT is how serious this is, as bad as 3/11 was & it WAS/IS very bad, Japan dodged a massive bullet so to speak.

Japan has technically had 2.9999999999999999 strikes it is OUT, nuke power has no place here.

And IT WILL happen elsewhere in the world only question is were/when & how bad it WILL BE. I can guarantee you the true COSTS are figured into ANY NUKE ACCIDENTS, the powers that be have sold us ALL down the river & will continue to do so if we let them!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@GW, agreed but Mike don't listen too good. Ya know?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Here is the deal, just imagine of the winds had been strongly blowing to the SW on 3/11 & brought lots more radiation to the Kanto area.......................... Japan would likely have been GAME OVER!!!

No it wouldn't. No matter how many times people claim to the contrary science proves otherwise.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Heda,

My point is imagine Kanto covered in radiation, hell even just say half of Tokyo, can you imagine the number of people that would need evacuated, housed, fed???

Meanwhile the govt would likely not be functioning very well, who would be in charge, who would call the shots, it would likely be chaos that would be hard to control. What would that do to the economy of Japan.

Japan as we know would likely vanish, that's pretty serious I would say.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Yes, but it was never going to happen. There's plenty of evidence to show that the worst case scenario that has been bandied about as being a realistic proposition was never actually going to happen.

It was never, ever going to be game over. not even close

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Hed, so that's why there were plans to evacuateTokyo. It was, it could have, it very nearly did. Watch the quicksand there, under your argument and statement.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-19/kan-reveals-tokyo-evacuation-plans/2905474

2 ( +4 / -2 )

There were no plans to evacuate Tokyo. Kan asked what the worst case scenario would be and what would that mean. What your article fails to mention is what that worst case scenario was and how it would get there

This article on the other hand, covers it in detail.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/fukushima_disaster_new_information_about_worst_case_scenarios.html

It's a good article for a number of reasons, firstly on page 3 it covers in detail the media confusion that you have alluded to but mostly because it shows exactly that the situation was known from a very early stage and the risk to Tokyo was none. That Obama was aware of it and it was studied by international and independent scientists should also help those sceptics who refuse to believe anything that Japanese scientists say.

What it does say, for those who don't have the time to read it is: the scientists concluded that radiation in Tokyo would come nowhere close to levels requiring an evacuation, even in the event that Fukushima Dai-ichi underwent the worst plausible meltdown combined with extremely unfavorable wind and weather patterns.

However it doesn't say anything about quick sand.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

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