Japan Nuclear MeltDown?

[hardtack 10,861]

The hysteria from lefties and bed wetters has been a hoot. Mother nature 20,000 or so... man nil.

Yet some are still trying to focus on the "nil" as the worse number.

Come out from under the bed guys and gals... its safe out here.

*insert riotous laughter*

Do you really think that the effects of exposure to radiation are instantaneous? The real impact will be seen in years to come and in generations to come. Maybe you also believe that the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a direct result of the bomb and not of the subsequent radiation and that the birth deformities and illness were merely a coincidence?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4185707/Hell-on-Earth.html

[ding 5,126]

Do you really think that the effects of exposure to radiation are instantaneous? The real impact will be seen in years to come and in generations to come. Maybe you also believe that the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a direct result of the bomb and not of the subsequent radiation and that the birth deformities and illness were merely a coincidence?

http://www.thesun.co...l-on-Earth.html

Depends totally on the level of exposure, but surely even YOU know that, right?

Hardtack, its a free country and you have the right to be terrified of whatever you like. I will continue to laugh at the bed wetters as is my right. lol

[hardtack 10,861]

Depends totally on the level of exposure, but surely even YOU know that, right?

Hardtack, its a free country and you have the right to be terrified of whatever you like. I will continue to laugh at the bed wetters as is my right. lol

Then perhaps you should go over and spend some time in Fukushima to set all of our minds at ease that the levels are not dangerous (seems all of those bed wetting locals don't want to resettle anytime soon - perhaps you could allay their fears?).

From the Wiki page dedicated to the Fukushima disaster:

According to a June 2012 Stanford University study, the radiation released could cause 130 deaths from cancer (the lower bound for the estimater being 15 and the upper bound 1100) and 180 cancer cases (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), mostly in Japan. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant was projected to result in 2 to 12 deaths. The radiation released was an order of magnitude lower than that released from Chernobyl, and some 80% of the radioactivity from Fukushima was deposited over the Pacific Ocean; preventive actions taken by the Japanese government may have substantially reduced the health impact of the radiation release. An additional approximately 600 deaths have been reported due to non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations. Evacuation procedures after the accident may have potentially reduced deaths from radiation by 3 to 245 cases, the best estimate being 28; even the upper bound projection of the lives saved from the evacuation is lower than the number of deaths already caused by the evacuation itself.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Then perhaps you should go over and spend some time in Fukushima to set all of our minds at ease that the levels are not dangerous (seems all of those bed wetting locals don't want to resettle anytime soon - perhaps you could allay their fears?).

From the Wiki page dedicated to the Fukushima disaster:

Could, would, haven't. There's no cases of even serious sickness.

There's more radiation in a plane, or even a banana than what you'll be exposed to by walking around in Tokyo.

Do me a favour and read the following and come back to me. Cheers

http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/You-Ate-More-Radiation-Than-Tokyo-Japan-836

[hardtack 10,861]

Could, would, haven't. There's no cases of even serious sickness.

There's more radiation in a plane, or even a banana than what you'll be exposed to by walking around in Tokyo.

Do me a favour and read the following and come back to me. Cheers

http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/You-Ate-More-Radiation-Than-Tokyo-Japan-836

Are you really that stupid BH? Why would anyone be concerned about radiation sickness in Tokyo...or is that the extent of your knowledge of Japan, and you consider all parts of Japan to be in spitting distance of Tokyo?

I am talking about Fukushima and its environs. Fukushima is not simply a nuclear reactor...it was a city that had a reasonably sizable population until it was evacuated due to, yes, radiation levels being too dangerous for people to remain. There have been a number of people already taken away from the site because their bodies have absorbed the maximum amount of radiation one should be exposed to in a lifetime.

I suppose you consider those workers at the site to be nancy boys because they wear protective clothing? I suggest you accompany Ding to show those bed wetting locals how safe it really is, and how they have been duped into believing it might actually be dangerous to their health to remain in their homes.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Are you really that stupid BH? Why would anyone be concerned about radiation sickness in Tokyo...or is that the extent of your knowledge of Japan, and you consider all parts of Japan to be in spitting distance of Tokyo?

I am talking about Fukushima and its environs. Fukushima is not simply a nuclear reactor...it was a city that had a reasonably sizable population until it was evacuated due to, yes, radiation levels being too dangerous for people to remain. There have been a number of people already taken away from the site because their bodies have absorbed the maximum amount of radiation one should be exposed to in a lifetime.

I suppose you consider those workers at the site to be nancy boys because they wear protective clothing? I suggest you accompany Ding to show those bed wetting locals how safe it really is, and how they have been duped into believing it might actually be dangerous to their health to remain in their homes.

The benefits of nuclear technology so outweigh the negatives it's extraordinary. Your type would have originally been against electricity. And yes, electricity causes deaths.

Deaths by tsunami and earthquake = tens of thousands

Those seriously ill by radiation from Fukushima - nil

Are there lessons to be learnt by Fukushima and old reactors ? Sure. But open your mind to the benefits and technology of a clean energy that only gets better.

Bob Hawke's argument that we get paid to store waste was a brilliant one. Look into it.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Ben-Hur

[hardtack 10,861]

The benefits of nuclear technology so outweigh the negatives it's extraordinary. Your type would have originally been against electricity. And yes, electricity causes deaths.

Deaths by tsunami and earthquake = tens of thousands

Those seriously ill by radiation from Fukushima - nil

Are there lessons to be learnt by Fukushima and old reactors ? Sure. But open your mind to the benefits and technology of a clean energy that only gets better.

Bob Hawke's argument that we get paid to store waste was a brilliant one. Look into it.

My type? I challenge you to find anything that I have written that states I am against nuclear energy.

This is the problem I have with the likes of you BH, you go off half cocked and make ridiculous assumptions. And it is very apparent that you do not even bother to read what others post, in much depth. If you did, you would be very aware of the fact that although there are currently no reports of major illness, the predictions are that there will be serious illness manifesting itself in years to come (or do you discount Stanford University as having some anti nuclear barrow to push?).

As I said, if you think the radiation in Fukushima is not posing any threat, you must think those working on the site of the plant, and those who evacuated the area, must be deluded.

You are so up with the facts that you couldn't discern between the effect of radiation on Tokyo and the effect of radiation on Fukushima quite some considerable distance north of Tokyo near Sendai - an area I have spent some time in myself and so I am aware of the geography.

Edited August 21, 2012 by hardtack

[Hannibal 5,814]

My type? I challenge you to find anything that I have written that states I am against nuclear energy.

This is the problem I have with the likes of you BH, you go off half cocked and make ridiculous assumptions. And it is very apparent that you do not even bother to read what others post, in much depth. If you did, you would be very aware of the fact that although there are currently no reports of major illness, the predictions are that there will be serious illness manifesting itself in years to come (or do you discount Stanford University as having some anti nuclear barrow to push?).

As I said, if you think the radiation in Fukushima is not posing any threat, you must think those working on the site of the plant, and those who evacuated the area, must be deluded.

You are so up with the facts that you couldn't discern between the effect of radiation on Tomyo and the effect of radiation on Fukushima quite some considerable distance from Tokyo beyond Sendai - an area I have spent some time in myself and so I am aware of the geography.

The predictions of potential health problems are flaky and those at severe risk are relatively few. The misreporting and wild exaggerations at the time by those in the media and of the left have been scandalous, such as the 60 minutes report and many newspapers articles.

And if I have to explain why I posted reports on radiation levels in Tokyo then you must have lived in a bubble when it happened. The scare mongering and reports of people not wanting to go to Tokyo, as well as the fear of the local residents at the time was extreme. Why do I need to explain this ?

And yes, I'm not invested in every post on here, or every line. If you're well read on this site you'll understand why.

[hardtack 10,861]

The predictions of potential health problems are flaky and those at severe risk are relatively few. The misreporting and wild exaggerations at the time by those in the media and of the left have been scandalous, such as the 60 minutes report and many newspapers articles.

And if I have to explain why I posted reports on radiation levels in Tokyo then you must have lived in a bubble when it happened. The scare mongering and reports of people not wanting to go to Tokyo, as well as the fear of the local residents at the time was extreme. Why do I need to explain this ?

And yes, I'm not invested in every post on here, or every line. If you're well read on this site you'll understand why.

You need to explain it because the effects of the radiation and the risk and likelihood of illness are very real in Fukushima and its immediate surrounds. I'm surprised you even asked that question. Yes, there was an initial fear of radiation being blown in the direction of Tokyo by prevailing winds, but this was not a result of fear mongering by "lefties with an agenda", it was a genuine fear borne out of the lack of information being disseminated by TEPCO and the Japanese Govt. simply put, no one knew just how bad the situation was in Fukushima and what sort of levels of radiation were being spilt.

My brother-in-law lives in Kawasaki just to the south of Tokyo, and he expressed concern for that very reason. He had a friend from Sendai staying with him who had been displaced by the tsunami. But who also had very real fears about radiation.

The potential for serious health problems for those living close to the reactor at the time of the events IS very real...the fact that you can simply dismiss it astounds me.

[Axis of Bob 11,898]

There has been a massive overreaction to the Fukushima nuclear issue. It's not sexy to go into bat for nuclear power, but the fact is that most people do not understand it well enough to have an informed opinion.

Most people are just scared because they can't see what's happening and their only understanding is 'radiation = death'.

Have a look at the worst nuclear accident that has ever happened - Chernobyl. How many people do you think died as a result of that? How many people actually died? How many people died of Thyroid cancer as a result of it? This is now over 20 years later, so the long term effects are well known.

People are only scared because they don't know enough about it.

[hardtack 10,861]

There has been a massive overreaction to the Fukushima nuclear issue. It's not sexy to go into bat for nuclear power, but the fact is that most people do not understand it well enough to have an informed opinion.

Most people are just scared because they can't see what's happening and their only understanding is 'radiation = death'.

Have a look at the worst nuclear accident that has ever happened - Chernobyl. How many people do you think died as a result of that? How many people actually died? How many people died of Thyroid cancer as a result of it? This is now over 20 years later, so the long term effects are well known.

People are only scared because they don't know enough about it.

Yes there are exaggerated reports, but do you consider 700 cases of thyroid cancer in children and 10 deaths acceptable? Do you consider the 28 deaths immediately following the Chernobyl disaster as a result of severe radiation, acceptable? Deaths or no deaths, the issue is that if proper precautions are not taken, serious issues can arise.

Nuclear energy is all well and good, but it can, and has been, the cause of a lot of suffering due to major mismanagement (in the case of Chernobyl) or lack of foresight in a country prone to major earthquake activity (Fukushima).

[Axis of Bob 11,898]

do you consider 700 cases of thyroid cancer in children and 10 deaths acceptable? Do you consider the 28 deaths immediately following the Chernobyl disaster as a result of severe radiation, acceptable?

700 cases .... is that total or those in excess of the baseline? 10 deaths ..... or 10 deaths more than would be expected?

Nuclear energy is all well and good, but it can, and has been, the cause of a lot of suffering due to major mismanagement (in the case of Chernobyl) or lack of foresight in a country prone to major earthquake activity (Fukushima).

Nearly 4000 people died in the Bhopal disaster. Does this mean that we should not make pesticides? Because that's the same argument you are making.

Alternatively, over 300 people die every year in Victoria through road accidents. This means that we should ban cars.

The alternative to the pretty clean energy production of nuclear energy is that we produce our electricity by burning coal (since that is the only viable large scale alternative at the moment) which has far worse side effects. It's just that the issues with coal are easier to see and so people aren't as scared. It's the same as why people don't think twice about driving their car, but get irrationally fearful when they get onto a plane.

It doesn't make sense to be scared, but it's because very few people understand enough about it.

[ding 5,126]

Yes there are exaggerated reports, but do you consider 700 cases of thyroid cancer in children and 10 deaths acceptable? Do you consider the 28 deaths immediately following the Chernobyl disaster as a result of severe radiation, acceptable? Deaths or no deaths, the issue is that if proper precautions are not taken, serious issues can arise.

Nuclear energy is all well and good, but it can, and has been, the cause of a lot of suffering due to major mismanagement (in the case of Chernobyl) or lack of foresight in a country prone to major earthquake activity (Fukushima).

Oh please Hardtack.... Where were your crocodile tears when the last lot of coal miners were killed? Fact is you don't give a hoot about the victims. You have only made a noise about it because Nuclear Power was involved and that somehow makes it worse in your mind. Why don't you take the time to explain why "POTENTIAL" deaths from radiation are more worthy of damnation than ACTUAL deaths from coal mining? As A.O.B. stated, some of the fears associated with nuclear power are utterly irrational.

By all means though, carry on with your over the top hysteria. It makes me laugh.

Edited August 21, 2012 by ding

[hardtack 10,861]

Oh please Hardtack.... Where were your crocodile tears when the last lot of coal miners were killed? Fact is you don't give a hoot about the victims. You have only made a noise about it because Nuclear Power was involved and that somehow makes it worse in your mind. Why don't you take the time to explain why "POTENTIAL" deaths from radiation are more worthy of damnation than ACTUAL deaths from coal mining? As A.O.B. stated, some of the fears associated with nuclear power are utterly irrational.

By all means though, carry on with your over the top hysteria. It makes me laugh.

Ding, it seems you are the one who is getting hysterical. I am merely pointing out a few facts to support my argument; and how dare you claim that I have no concern for the victims... you are clueless! I would argue that it is you who couldn't care less about the victims as you would appear to consider them to be "collateral damage" who's loss/suffering is acceptable in the name of clean energy. Just to set the record straight, we have donated via various organisations to aid the Pakistani flood relief, New Zealand earthquake victims, Queensland flood relief, and have raised through garage sales, almost $1,000 to go to the Japan Tsunami/Earthquake victims (via the NGO, JEN)... not too bad for someone who doesn't care about the victims I would have thought.

It never ceases to amaze me that people like yourself will raise coal mining, or Bhopal, or the Exon Valdez etc, when someone such as myself is responding to claims regarding radiation sickness... why would I be touching on those other disasters when I am responding to you denying the affects of radiation?

I am all for clean energy, I am just not for it when due care is not taken in the first place as was the case in both Chernobyl and Japan - but you would have noted that I already stated that quite clearly in another post.

As I have previously said, I have not once stated that I am against nuclear energy, but please feel free to point out where I may have made such a statement.

[hardtack 10,861]

Nearly 4000 people died in the Bhopal disaster. Does this mean that we should not make pesticides? Because that's the same argument you are making.

Alternatively, over 300 people die every year in Victoria through road accidents. This means that we should ban cars.

The alternative to the pretty clean energy production of nuclear energy is that we produce our electricity by burning coal (since that is the only viable large scale alternative at the moment) which has far worse side effects. It's just that the issues with coal are easier to see and so people aren't as scared. It's the same as why people don't think twice about driving their car, but get irrationally fearful when they get onto a plane.

It doesn't make sense to be scared, but it's because very few people understand enough about it.

AoB... you are citing my statement:

"Nuclear energy is all well and good, but it can, and has been, the cause of a lot of suffering due to major mismanagement (in the case of Chernobyl) or lack of foresight in a country prone to major earthquake activity (Fukushima)."

...and then raising Bhopal which was a perfect example of what I was saying is the problem I have with Chernobyl and Fukushima??? It was another example of a substandard operation that had numerous safety issues prior to the final disaster...I say it again (and again, and again), please point out any comment of mine that says I am against nuclear energy... why is it that citing reports that document the likely affects of radiation on those living close to such disasters, means that the person raising the issues is anti the whole concept?

I understand the benefits of nuclear energy, but I am also happy to point out the negatives when, like any form of energy, is not handled well or the benefits are not weighed up against the very real possibilities. Look at Chernobyl, it has left a tract of land with a 31km radius that will be uninhabitable for thousands of years (if I recall correctly)... It doesn't look like much on paper, but effectively it means that an area the size of most of Melbourne and its suburbs has become a wasteland. Fukushima may well suffer the same fate... it's not just the risks of radiation sickness etc, this also poses the issues and expense involved in relocating entire populations.

[ding 5,126]

Ding, it seems you are the one who is getting hysterical. I am merely pointing out a few facts to support my argument; and how dare you claim that I have no concern for the victims... you are clueless! I would argue that it is you who couldn't care less about the victims as you would appear to consider them to be "collateral damage" who's loss/suffering is acceptable in the name of clean energy. Just to set the record straight, we have donated via various organisations to aid the Pakistani flood relief, New Zealand earthquake victims, Queensland flood relief, and have raised through garage sales, almost $1,000 to go to the Japan Tsunami/Earthquake victims (via the NGO, JEN)... not too bad for someone who doesn't care about the victims I would have thought.

It never ceases to amaze me that people like yourself will raise coal mining, or Bhopal, or the Exon Valdez etc, when someone such as myself is responding to claims regarding radiation sickness... why would I be touching on those other disasters when I am responding to you denying the affects of radiation?

I am all for clean energy, I am just not for it when due care is not taken in the first place as was the case in both Chernobyl and Japan - but you would have noted that I already stated that quite clearly in another post.

As I have previously said, I have not once stated that I am against nuclear energy, but please feel free to point out where I may have made such a statement.

Nice of you to assuage your conscience by sending some money.

Your belief that Japan was some sort of humanitarian disaster is not matched by facts, or body count.

Yep, you are hysterical.

[hardtack 10,861]

Nice of you to assuage your conscience by sending some money.

Your belief that Japan was some sort of humanitarian disaster is not matched by facts, or body count.

Yep, you are hysterical.

Excuse me? Please cite the part of any of my texts that states I consider the Fukushima meltdown to be some sort of humanitarian disaster. I have answered your unsupported comments re no sickness as a result of radiation levels with references to give them some credence... you provide nothing but nay saying.

If I'm hysterical, I would say that you are illiterate.

And I love the way that because I happen to refute your remarks about "not caring" for the people, you turn it around as something ingenuous. Says a lot more about you than it does me.

Edited August 22, 2012 by hardtack

[ding 5,126]

Excuse me? Please cite the part of any of my texts that states I consider the Fukushima meltdown to be some sort of humanitarian disaster. I have answered your unsupported comments re no sickness as a result of radiation levels with references to give them some credence... you provide nothing but nay saying.

If I'm hysterical, I would say that you are illiterate.

And I love the way that because I happen to refute your remarks about "not caring" for the people, you turn it around as something ingenuous. Says a lot more about you than it does me.

It says that i think you are full of it. Fukushima is simply an excuse for a rant on the evils of nuclear power. Face it Hardtack, the damage simply doesnt come close to warranting the hysteria that followed.

As i have said before, it is a free country and i support your right to be terrified of whatever shadows you choose.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Record radiation in fish off Japan nuclear plant

AFP © <p>Fish on sale near Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant in 2011. A pair of greenlings have shown the highest level of radioactive caesium detected in fish and shellfish caught in waters off the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant, its operator said Tuesday.</p>

TOKYO (AFP) - A pair of greenlings have shown the highest level of radioactive caesium detected in fish and shellfish caught in waters off Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant, its operator said Tuesday.

The fishes, captured 20 kilometres (12.5 miles) off the plant on August 1, registered 25,800 becquerels of caesium per kilo, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) said -- 258 times the level the government deems safe for consumption.

The previous record in fish and shellfish off Fukushima was 18,700 becquerels per kilo detected in cherry salmons, according to the government's Fisheries Agency.

TEPCO said the greenlings might have fed in radioactive hotspots and that it would sample more of the fish, their feed and the seabed soil in the area in the coming weeks to determine the cause of the high radiation.

Fishermen have been allowed since June to catch -- on an experimental basis -- several kinds of fish and shellfish, but only in areas more than 50 kilometres off the plant.

Those catches have shown only small amounts of radioactivity.

Greenlings have not been caught by fishermen off Fukushima since the massive earthquake and tsunami of March 2011 triggered meltdowns in reactors at the plant.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/14624939/record-radiation-in-fish-off-japan-nuclear-plant/

Edited August 22, 2012 by dee-luded

[dee-luded 2,959]

Japan nuke plant still fragile: chief

AP © Japan's Fukushima power plant remains fragile nearly a year after it suffered multiple meltdowns.

Japan's tsunami-hit Fukushima power plant remains fragile nearly a year after it suffered multiple meltdowns, its chief says, with makeshift equipment - some mended with tape - keeping crucial systems running.

An independent report, meanwhile, revealed that the government downplayed the full danger in the days after the March 11 disaster and secretly considered evacuating Tokyo.

Journalists given a tour of the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant on Tuesday, including a reporter from The Associated Press, saw crumpled trucks and equipment still lying on the ground.

A power pylon that collapsed in the tsunami, cutting electricity to the plant's vital cooling system and setting off the crisis, remained a mangled mess.

Officials said the worst is over but the plant remains vulnerable.

"I have to admit that it's still rather fragile," said plant chief Takeshi Takahashi, who took the job in December after his predecessor resigned due to health reasons. "Even though the plant has achieved what we call 'cold shutdown conditions,' it still causes problems that must be improved."

The government announced in December that three melted reactors at the plant had basically stabilised and that radiation releases had dropped.

It still will take decades to fully decommission the plant, and it must be kept stable until then.

The operators have installed multiple backup power supplies, a cooling system, and equipment to process massive amounts of contaminated water that leaked from the damaged reactors.

But the equipment that serves as the lifeline of the cooling system is shockingly feeble-looking. Plastic hoses cracked by freezing temperatures have been mended with tape.

A set of three pumps sits on the back of a pickup truck.

Along with the pumps, the plant now has 1,000 tanks to store more than 160,000 tonnes of contaminated water.

http://au.news.yahoo...-fragile-chief/

Edited August 22, 2012 by dee-luded

[dee-luded 2,959]

No-one has died, or become "extremely sick" from the radiation.

And "time" is already showing your scare mongering for what it is.

This is not scare mongering Ben, & I'm not a nuclear physicist. This is just a database of reported information from the newspapers.

It's for people to read when they look back, & to have some references to ponder & make they're own minds up.

For me my take on Nuclear power or processing is fairly clear.

I've made virtually Nil personal comments re my position on these matters other than make this a storage for information I've seen.

Your the one taking a stand & personal things, seeking arguments. Not me. I actually do not like arguments or Arguing, however in person, I'll happily discuss my thoughts of what I think on things life & earth.

But not in a forum like this where there are no constraints of respect.

So I post the things I've noticed in the press. Even the butterfly one which wasn't the Strongest of arguments but still shows results of the contamination to the Environment.

I won't even bother to persuade you one way or the other, because I don't cars what one person thinks. Only what many may think after reading information thats been made public.

Anyway, it's time for me to switch off for the night.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I too am simply trying to provide some facts, i.e. no deaths or cases of serious illness from the nuclear plant problems despite the fanatical scaremongering by some.

Why don't you present ongoing reports of the tsunami and earthquake that killed 20,000 people; and how the affected areas and local residents are coping 12 months on ?

Nuclear disaster = no deaths, tsunami = 20,000 deaths yet you focus on the former ?

[hardtack 10,861]

It says that i think you are full of it. Fukushima is simply an excuse for a rant on the evils of nuclear power. Face it Hardtack, the damage simply doesnt come close to warranting the hysteria that followed.

As i have said before, it is a free country and i support your right to be terrified of whatever shadows you choose.

Then you obviously didn't read the point I made in more than one of my posts that I am NOT against nuclear power... I just think it needs to be better managed than it has been.

And you are still to answer two questions I asked... show me where I said Fukushima was some kind of humanitarian disaster and show me where I stated I was against nuclear energy. The only reason you have avoided answering is that you are unable to do so. Facts are something that you don't deal well in.

19 posts and you have already set yourself up as the same opinionated and abusive poster you were on Demonology.

Edited August 23, 2012 by hardtack

[hardtack 10,861]

I too am simply trying to provide some facts, i.e. no deaths or cases of serious illness from the nuclear plant problems despite the fanatical scaremongering by some.

Why don't you present ongoing reports of the tsunami and earthquake that killed 20,000 people; and how the affected areas and local residents are coping 12 months on ?

Nuclear disaster = no deaths, tsunami = 20,000 deaths yet you focus on the former ?

If you are trying to provide facts and want to be listened to, don't you think you should also take into account the facts others provide to you?... for example, those figures I provided that came out of Stanford University.

If you are dealing in facts, then surely you must realise that the real damage from a nuclear reactor meltdown will not manifest itself immediately (and we are only just over one year in since it occurred), but can take up to 10 years.

[ding 5,126]

Then you obviously didn't read the point I made in more than one of my posts that I am NOT against nuclear power... I just think it needs to be better managed than it has been.

And you are still to answer two questions I asked... show me where I said Fukushima was some kind of humanitarian disaster and show me where I stated I was against nuclear energy. The only reason you have avoided answering is that you are unable to do so. Facts are something that you don't deal well in.

19 posts and you have already set yourself up as the same opinionated and abusive poster you were on Demonology.

What, because i said you are full of it? Wow, you are precious these days aren't you....

You have no sense of perspective at all Hardtack... Zero deaths v's more than 20,000, yet you are still carrying on about the Nuclear plant like it was far, far worse.

Laughable.