I've read a good deal as well and struggle with deciphering just what is happening and how bad is it. Always consider the source of the 'news' to properly position their bias. Obviously TEPCO cannot be trusted, regardless of the severity they will never admit to the reality of the situation. TEPCO is a for-profit business and bad news is bad for business. For instance we know TEPCO lied about when the first meltdown occurred. TEPCO also controls the site so independent nuclear experts cannot just stroll up and investigate to find out what is happening. The Japanese Gov't cannot be trusted for they have a vested interest in keeping civil order and not to pay out millions/billions for disaster relief. So in a nutshell MSM is going to consistently downplay the potential affects.

On the flipside the alternative media(AM) is just as guilty as MSM in using sensationalism to drive traffic. Fukushima, in particular nuclear radiation, is still very much a 'hot/explosive' topic (no pun intended) and we know we're not getting the straight dope from TEPCO/Japan Gov't. These two facts alone make it painfully easy to go 'over the top' when reporting on Fukushima.

Let's look at what we do know. Fukushima has 6 reactors. Take a look a pics of the site. Especially 3. That is a catastrophic failure. 1,2,3 reactors all had explosions and were all operating at the time of the tsunami. Reactors 4,5,6 were all inactive at the time of the tsunami but unit 4, which contained spent fuel rods, had a significant explosion as well. Units 1,2,3 are all confirmed meltdowns. That is bad. What we don't know and what is simply to dangerous to check is what is happening underneath units 1,2,3. There is a underground river beneath Fukushima, which is used by the plant to cool the reactors, and flows into the Pacific. We know radiated water is leaking from the reactors and flowing out to sea. But how much? We know the weather patterns at Fukushima move the air and the ocean currents East across the Pacific and to the West coast of the US.

I believe at this point, and have for the past 3-4 months, that the Fukushima situation is very bad. What I am not sure of is just how much damage is being done to the environment. A big part of the problem is one can't usually see, taste, or smell radiation. It is difficult to connect what is happening in Japan with the West Coast, you look at a map and think can Fukushima affect California that is 5000+ miles away? And yet there have been troubling reports of health issues with wildlife (starfish, bald eagles, seals, salmon) on the West Coast. Are these unusual or anomalies? Did you know that servicemen and women from the USS Ronald Reagen are attempting to sue TEPCO for radiation poisoning. The ship was stationed just off the coast at Fukushima the day after the tsunami.

I deliberately did not put in links. Do your own 'net research. Consider the sources. Come to your own conclusions.

It's not bad. It's awesome......if you are someone that hated the fact that Japan was not dependent on oil for their energy. Now Japan imports more oil than ever at rip off prices.

It won't be a megadeath scenario, but we won't know the true consequences for another 15-20 years, look at the cancer rates, birth defect rates, and still born rates now and compare them then. Then we will know the true extent of the damage to humanity.

Micro quantities of DU were used in the gulf war, and look at the costs to humans today. This release is factors more than the weaponized DU shells and bullets.

Right, but the DU from our artillery comes into direct contact with the population and is more concentrated that the stuff that is coming from fukashima. Doesn't make it any better, just that the effects will be harder to trace directly back to tepco, and there won't be a mass human die off from it over a span of days or months. But over years, it could have an enormous impact on pacific rim inhabitants. I am sure people who get thyroid cancer and die over the next epoch will not think it's a small problem. And I am not trying to down play the issue, I am just pointing out that it won't be a sudden mega death scenario. Still borns, 100% cancer rates, and Chernobyl Esque deformities are no laughing matter, or things that should be made light of.

DU isn't radioactive. It is a heavy metal and as such toxic. You are comparing apples and oragnes. DU is only dangerous if you actually touch it or ingest it or something. Its not like radiation that moves

You sir, are lacking in mental capacity if you so not understand something so fundamental. Anyone that believes that DU is not radioactive is under the influence of radioactivity, or the PR machine protecting its criminal use.

DU used in US munitions has 60% the radioactivity of natural uranium."

No it doesn't it is a heavy metal and toxic not radioactive look at) it up

This is the apparent product of neglectful parents, public education, and constant brainwashing. I'm sorry you're so horribly incorrect, but I will help you learn more about the criminal use of DU on the battlefield. Here is a govt link thatcan provide more information - http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/depleted_uranium/ with a direct quote from the site "DU has 40 percent less radioactivity, but the same chemical toxicity as natural uranium."

I wiah you luck in the quest for truth. Keep your eyes open, and recognize the constant attacks on you. The perpetual skewing of fact, replacing of such with fantasy.

Used in radiation shielding. Just saying.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Uranium-and-Depleted-Uranium/

Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations.

After reading this line, I disregarded the site as propaganda. Hell, you should be able to do the same by simply reading who created the site?

Megadeath!

*Sorry about Kimmel...

Megadeath the band is actually spelled Megadeth but rock on with the video!

Shit, -1 to my rock cred, and to not checking replies.

[deleted]

If there is an earthquake and the fuel rod storage collapses

which one ! reactor one to four or all of them !?

1400 tonnes of fuel stored in the four reactor buildings there.

YESSSS, it released more radiation than chernobyl (caused 1,000,000+ cancer deaths), but chernobyl was land locked so all that was caused by air born radiation. With fukushima soooooo much radiation was released into the ocean its absurd. Will take 10,000 years for the radiation to perfectly diffuse evenly. So for now either you will be fine, or you will get hit with a dense wave of radiation.

Chernobyl did not lead to 1,000,000 deaths....

prove otherwise, govt and independent scientists have done the research on this, their numbers say one million.

and its not about one million people falling over dead from radiation poisoning, its about probabilities of dying from cancers over decades.

Your logical fallacy is Argument from ignorance, as well as generalizing Governments and Scientists. One would guess that Russian government would argue against those numbers where as the Ukrainian government might not.

Give me a source

go google it, theres plenty out there if you can be bothered to read the reports and news from over the years.

some of us were not shitting in our diapers in 1987, we remember what happened, we followed the event over the years.

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

A cursory reading of the events.

How about a real UN report, there is no evidence supporting Chernobyl causing serious health defects outside of those directly exposed during the disaster and in the subsequent clean-up. It's also pretty clear that you have serious bias and may or may not understand what your talking about. I would also point out that that Wikipedia article is quite dubious (which wiki states itself at the top of the page.)

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/36-signs-the-media-is-lying-to-you-about-how-radiation-from-fukushima-is-affecting-the-west-coast

Can you tell me of another time where a meltdown has not been bad? Now how many meltdowns have occurred at fuckushimu?

I found this article is very helpful in giving a lot of radiation information (how much is safe?), so the reader is able to form their own opinion.

Yes it is bad.

Sources?

Are you a fucking idiot?

Sources?

Don't need sources when you got intuition!

As a mother, ........

Exactly, these guys just spout nonsense and then when asked to provide proof and of their information they attack. The internet is one giant emotional circlejerk.

Ok, after reading these comments i wont let a little thing like 3 or 4 nuclear meltdowns in close proximity to each other bother me in the future. /s

Everyone could knee jerk react, but we as intelligent and hopefully educated people have the ability to assess potential damage in a calculated manner.

One attitude will lead you to being scared of everything and wearing a 'tinfoil hat' (once you see how much background radiation there is in your area, etc).

The other attitude will lead you to a better understanding of this wonderful universe (whether you're atheist or religious, it's a pretty amazing collection of things which can either help us or end us).

outside influences don't matter a shit, Fukushima was a man made disaster, badly designed from the beginning, placing four/eight reactors on a fault line, removing the ground level and protective cliff that would have prevented most damage from a tsunami, putting the cooling system where it can fail.

storing 1400 tonnes of fuel down near sea level.

not having a backup system and reservoir high above the potential wave height.

Honestly, with all the controversy amongst the "experts" themselves, only time will tell.

The only thing known for sure is that the longer it keeps spilling out radioactive toxic shit, the worse it will become. And, admittingly, there is no fix anytime soon.

Its not all that threatening (that's not to say its not bad) to the environment for two reasons.

First, scale: Lets assume Fukishima has lost 1,000,000 Gallons of irradiated (hot) water into the Pacific ocean. The volume of earths oceans is roughly 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons (326 million trillion gallons and water circulates across all of the oceans, to act as a global heat distribution system). 1M gallons is literally nothing, nada, zilch, in comparison (less than one trillionth of a percent).

Second: Sea Water is already highly radioactive. The average radioactivity of seawater is about 14 Bq/L of which 88% is from naturally occurring potassium-40 (K-40). About 7% is from anthropogenic fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents like Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Daiichi (2011).

So combining every human nuclear disaster (All of them, most being responsible for orders of magnitude more radioactive particle dispersal than Fukushima) still only accounts for 7% of Radioactive isotopes in solution.

It basically boils down to the fact that most people fear radioactivity without knowing anything of value about it. We fear what we do not understand.

It already happened in Chernobyl. Google it and you will know all about what happens after an exploded atomic reactor occurs.

No one can say what kind of impact this will have on Japan, Pacific or the West Coast's of Canada, US, Mexico, South America. This is something that has never happened before in history and usually when you want answers you must do your research, observe things and choose a time frame for your study.

Check back in a decade with your findings.

a minor event, merely three reactors melting down into the ground, their fuel ponds likely gone down the cores, the fourth pond is being attempted to be emptied.

just 1400 tonnes of radioactive fuel.

the good news is the nuclear industry PR shills are getting paid big overtime monies to defend their industry these days. Fukushima is like a Klondike gold rush for these soulless liars-for-money.

the irony is they are attempting to downplay and belittle something that will affect them as much as anybody else, themselves, their children, and grand-kids are at risk as well as ours.

Well in the grand scheme of things it will have a hardly measurable impact anywhere aside from the very local area, but it's not good. Generally you want to avoid this kind of thing happening.

Agreed. No one is downplaying the dangers of radiation. But the fear mongering that goes on here about it being an ELE is completely unfounded.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/TenHoeveEES12.pdf

Conclusion: Very little damage~

What happened at Fukushima doesn't cause "very little damage".

Thank you for sharing your intuition, I guess?

I suppose it's possible we have differing definitions of very little.

To quote part of the paper I posted:

" Our results are relatively consistent with an estimate of the local health effects from Fukushima. von Hippel [2011] estimated that 1 million people live in areas with more than 1 curie per km2 deposition of Cs-137, and that people living in these areas were subject to a 0.1% increase in cancer risk, resulting in 1000 excess cancers.

..

A study by the Institut de Radioprotection et de Suret ^ e Nucleaire (IRSN) estimated a population of 21 100 receiving >16 mSv, 3100 receiving >50 mSv, and 2200 receiving 100–500 mSv near Fukushima.75 Assuming a LNT model where an exposure of 100 mSv increases lifetime cancer risk by 1%,29 the collective exposure estimated by IRSN is projected to result in 70–250 excess cancers depending on the precise amount of radiation received by each grouping. Our estimate of180 excess cancers is within this range.

"

To clarify my view:

Was there a screw up in the design and management? Sure

Was there a screw up in the disaster response and clean up? Sure

Is this an environmental disaster? Sure, but a rather small one

Will there be any significant number of West coast deaths due to radiation, or eating fish from the Pacific? Probably not.

Is this viral marketing from our corporate overlords for the new Fallout game brought to reality, and will the world as we know it end? Probably not.

devastating for anybody who lived near the plant, their district is a no-go zone now, they have to live somewhere else now. which most likely involves living in a tent in a field.

anybody who drinks water or eats food that gets contaminated from Fukushima is in danger, this includes a good size chunk of Japan, and anybody downstream of the plumes, both air and water.

How does "1000 excess cancers" == "Very little damage"?

Is 0.1% a big or a small percent?

Whilst any unnecessary death is tragic, that figure amounts to four days of deaths by natural causes in London.

are you volunteering to personally write the 'sorry for your loss' letters to all the families of the people who will die from the Fukushima event !?

Sorry, I'm still not done with the approx 18,550 death letters from the tsunami.

As the 2 other replies said, plus many of those excess cancers will be treatable: so the human life toll will not be very high.

not in the US they won't , the insurance industry will not pay for new millions of cancer treatments, they don't have the money to do so, nor the cancer hospitals the equipment nor the staff.

go google it, theres plenty out there if you can be bothered to read the reports and news from over the years.

some of us were not shitting in our diapers in 1987, we remember what happened, we followed the event over the years.

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

A cursory reading of the events.

Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations.

After reading this line, I disregarded the site as propaganda. Hell, you should be able to do the same by simply reading who created the site?

Sorry, I'm still not done with the approx 18,550 death letters from the tsunami.