mskii comments

So, 'Japan Today' seems to have deleted my link to the stats on the comparative danger of energy industries, so I will post it again. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html Real healthy dedication to free speech btw. Obviously, no one denies the risks and costs of nuclear power are unique for each nation, and that we should be very skeptical towards it, but if you look at the disaster in perspective. Deaths by earthquake and tsunami - 15,000+. Deaths by Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - 0 directly, w/ 300 significant radiation exposures. Considering the plant was outdated, and hit by a tsunami, the biggest danger here was evident. But of course, the tragedy is quickly overlooked as media outlets turn to fear-mongering about nuclear power playing on peoples fear and misunderstanding of radiation.

Democratic elections are always somewhat flawed by candidates with similar stances taking votes away from each other. You only have to look at how Morsi was elected in Egypt for prime example. That being said, the reactions to nuclear power are so irrational that I'm glad this guy won. Many Anti-nuclear proponents cannot seem to comprehend it's comparative safety and benefits from all other forms of power. Their position is usually one of paranoia.

@smithinjapan

You need to see this in perspective. A handful of people are killed by shark attacks every year (about 1 fatal of 15 attacks in Australia) Whereas we humans kill over 11,000 sharks PER HOUR. Predominately for finning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_finning) Who is the more dangerous animal and who should feel most threatened? You're chance of being attacked by a shark is miniscule. Sharks do not target humans. Not to mention killing an apex predator is a fast way to destroy an ecosystem. This 'shark cull' makes absolutely no sense.