“Chernobyl was much more contained than Fukushima” — “With Fukushima, there’s a much better distribution system, which is the ocean currents” (VIDEO)

Published: May 16th, 2012 at 1:51 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
89 comments


Protect Yourself From Radiation
Uploaded by NewlynResearchGroup
Uploaded on May 8, 2012

  • Chernobyl was much more contained than Fukushima
  • There’s a sarcophagus and it wasn’t on the seaside
  • At Chernobyl there was only one way radiation could be distributed around world and that was on airborne
  • With Fukushima, there’s a much better distribution system, which is the ocean currents

Watch the complete four-part series (50 minutes) here

Published: May 16th, 2012 at 1:51 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
89 comments

Related Posts

  1. Radio: Experts warn ocean currents spreading Fukushima contamination across world — Official 4,000 miles away: Radiation in seafood imports increased noticeably; Time for all stakeholders to be on alert (AUDIO) December 27, 2013
  2. TV: Serious concerns in U.S. about Fukushima radioactive material coming to our shores — WSJ: There’s concern around world that ocean currents are spreading the radioactivity to faraway places (VIDEO) November 25, 2013
  3. IAEA ***NOT for distribution***: Molten core is suspected to have penetrated Fukushima containment vessel — Prime Minister on 3/11: We couldn’t be in Tokyo if melted fuel went through containment vessel (VIDEO) December 18, 2013
  4. ‘Immediate Release’: 1,400 Bq/m³ of radioactive cesium in ocean off Fukushima Daiichi — Highest reading to date, had not been detected previously at location — “Suggests that toxic water leaks at plant have not been contained” (PHOTO) October 10, 2013
  5. Water with nuclear fuel coming up from ocean floor off Fukushima coast? Tokyo Professor: 156 quadrillion Bq of Cs-137 once in basements — Double Chernobyl; Getting close to total fallout from every atomic bomb test in history — May be outputting from seeps in seafloor, I don’t know (VIDEO) August 26, 2013

89 comments to “Chernobyl was much more contained than Fukushima” — “With Fukushima, there’s a much better distribution system, which is the ocean currents” (VIDEO)

  • shockwave shockwave

    Unbelievable, Stupid, …IDIOTS

    The seals, bears, whales, fishes, plants, birds, bugs, rats… and people chew these retards to ashes


    Report comment

  • Reminds me of this article:

    Published on Saturday, February 25, 2012 by the San Francisco Bay View
    Fukushima – Worse Than Chernobyl
    by Janette Sherman and Joseph J. Mangano
    https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/25-4

    …but the latter doesn't explain why and how it is worse.

    For instance, is it worse in terms of actual emitted emissions, or potential emissions?

    I guess it also takes the focus off the fact both ARE bad, and are happening now. Also, are the energy-giving benefits of nuclear plants worth bringing humanity to the brink, and possible actuality of, extinction.


    Report comment

    • Longjohn119

      Three meltdowns, one the first ever total meltdown (total liquification) of a core … All that blew up had a containment breach, the only explanation for all that hydrogen that caused the explosions …. Several fuel pools HAD to have overheated

      Then to top it all off they are spraying seawater on hot cores and fuel rods and God only knows what combinations of new crap came from that because of all the chemicals and minerals, etc in seawater being split off.

      I've been dealing with nuclear power execs since the early 90's and one thing I have learned is if they tell you a pound it was really 10, if they say a few minutes it was a few hours ,,,, They are the only people I've ever met that lie more than politicians …. From day one they lied to us and told us they were taking part of our land to build a coal generating station

      That was just the start of a string of unending lies … Cripes they even lie about things they really have no need to lie about …. It's no wonder my Ancestors thought the Whiteman (Governments and corporations) were Mentally Ill or something …

      Personally I believe the GREED for nuclear power causes the same kind of Mental Illness in some people that Gold Fever did a 150 years ago …. And they'll say anything and do anything to get and keep that power, just like Gold


      Report comment

  • kalidances

    This makes me very,very,very angry. Criminal charges need to be leveled against people that continue to make false assertions that cause affected people to neglect seeking treatment.

    This "research" group needs to have the names of every member posted far and wide so the people still strong enough to fight back can retain legal counsel against them.


    Report comment

  • Dogleg Dogleg

    Coming soon to a beach near you


    Report comment

  • desara3

    Long Post.I am upset with naysayers on other sites.It is easy to get things crosswired. Background radiation is not the same as man created isotopes. Yes, uranium occurs naturally. Its what you do when you purposly enrich this uranium to make it react faster. This is harmfuland different if it escapes. I even hope I understand everything I am saying.
    Yep the Sun has radiation too.UV rays can be harmful as well

    URANIUM. It had developed its own safe place in the earth. You may get background readings from the earth. But it is entombed. Uranium is now mined. When you remove it and start altering the atomic structure is where we all get into trouble.

    Plutonium for instance. Dangerous in its natural state. Expands with moisture,carbon,nitrogen,etc. Then becomes brittle as it heats and reacts. Flakes into dust floats through the air. We are not dealing with run of the mill plutonium. This has been manufactured for potency in bombs. PU239, i think.Long shelf life and fatal. Did anyone see Silkwood? Good movie .Saw it twice inthe theater and it affected me.It made me think twice. You dont mess with the Nuclear bosses! Maybe thats what Tepco is faced with.
    If anything has been misstated please correct.


    Report comment

    • GeoHarvey

      Background radiation can come from a large number of sources, and much of what we get comes from potassium, which we need chemically.
      Uranium salts are mostly somewhat easy to dissolve, and much of the natural uranium in the world is dissolved in the oceans, though only in trace percentages. Its natural isotopes have very long half lives, hundreds of millions of years or more, and do not contribute much to our load of radioactivity.
      The problem with nuclear power, is that when the uranium decays, all sorts of nasty things happen. Neutrons get captured by other uranium atoms, if they are around, creating plutonium, which is really nasty. This happens rarely in nature, and it is really hard to find naturally occurring plutonium. But when you put a lot of uranium in one place, and it gets enriched, so there is a greater than normal amount of uranium-235, you make plutonium, and a host of other things with really short half lives. The ones with the shortest half lives are of little consequence, because they all convert to something else rather quickly. But the ones with half lives in the order of days to a few years are really bad, and billions of times more radioactive than uranium, with its long half lives. Naturally occurring uranium makes almost undetectable amounts of them. Nuclear reactors make loads. That is why spent fuel is so dangerous.


      Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      Yes, and there is also the internal emitters to be considered. Big difference between internal emitters and external exposure. The old "less than a flight across the Pacific" and it's only a little internally ingested Cesium 137 or inhaled Plutonium 239 argument ….

      UC Berkeley Nuclear Physics Lab is still using the meaningless comparison above (comparing internal emitters to external sources such as background radiation exposure).

      'Gotta love ItsNotABanana's avatar name ….


      Report comment

    • Longjohn119

      No one really knows what normal background radiation really is because it was never widely measured until AFTER a group of friggin' MORONS set off 500 or so nuclear bombs into the atmosphere polluting the readings before they were taken …


      Report comment

  • desara3

    I thought plutonium was a byproduct of the enrichment process.
    I read understood that it could occur rarely naturally (IE element? Is it actually??.), but only under the right circumstances.The understanding I have of it, and I am no expert. The reacted created plutonim is further modified. (Difficult and expensive, to create this Plutonium 239)
    This is why they never closed the loop in the reactors, even though there was a viable way with zero waste and danger.. They needed to get the Plutonium to modify it for them create the warfare 239 for bombs and warheads. Otherwise it was Way too EXPENSIVE and TIME CONSUMING. Thats why that closed loop was rejected. . It could have run a clean loop with no waste. But they wanted those warheads and bombs and did not want to waste money or time. Quite a trade off. That is the way I understood it. I don't believe everything I read. And it is not always I before E except after C.


    Report comment

    • GeoHarvey

      No, plutonium is a byproduct of the fission process that happens in the reactor (or a product of special manufacturing that has nothing to do with generating electricity). The enrichment process is necessary to make a reactor work, but the reactor is where most of the plutonium comes from, and the enrichment process itself does not create it. Enriched uranium should contain almost no plutonium, until it is used in a reactor.
      There is, in theory, a way to get electrical power from uranium, thorium, or even spent fuel, which creates nearly no waste. It has been tested, in part, but to date no one has ever tried to use it to make electricity, and this might be for exactly the reason you mention, which is that it cannot be used to make bombs. The reactor is called an energy amplifier or an accelerator driven system. Wikipedia used to have a good article on it, but it has declined in value as time went by.
      The energy amplifier is a much newer technology than traditional nuclear systems, and there is very little incentive to develop it. My suspicion is that this is because introducing it would be too destructive to the economic value of current plants, so business does not want it, and make bombs harder to build, so government does not want it.


      Report comment

      • desara3

        That is kind of what I said ,but not as precise as you did. They need to react to create the Plutonium, and the product is a giant amount of spent fuel. I have read that the reactions could have come full circle with no nuclear waste. The Idea was floored. The needed this inefficient and dangerous process to create the war plutonium (cheap and profitable) Otherwise it would have cost too much money and time to produce it PU239. Almost every large corporation will cut quality for cost. We(the people) will have to pay for it, though.


        Report comment

  • GeoHarvey

    One of the problems here is bio-accumulation. Cesium, iodine, strontium, and so on, get grabbed out of the water by living things, and move up the food chain. Even if they are hard to detect in the oceans, they can be progressively easier to detect as you move up the food chain. And we should remember that we sit right at the top of that chain.
    It is really hard to guess what the effects of Fukushima are, or could be, on the Pacific Ocean and the life in it. I am sure I could not guess, even if I were given accurate information. I am not sure government oceanographers could guess. My suggestion is try to buy from sources that get tested, or from other places. I understand Washington state is doing that. Perhaps other states will, as well.
    I think a lot of people get too afraid. It can get to you, if you let it. This is not some to get afraid about. It is something to be vigilant about, take action on, and try to improve. But keep hopeful – it makes the work easier and your day more enjoyable. And that might even be the thing that turns the tide and gets us through safely.


    Report comment

    • What-About-The-Kids

      Geoharvey, I appreciate your voice of reason, here. Taking action, rather than letting fear paralyze you, can be very empowering.

      You mention you heard that WA State was testing its food? Could you elaborate a bit? Do you have any links to this information?

      The article that appeared here recently was about their testing of some fish. But it did not sound like a terribly large amount of testing that was being done. As you know, fallout doesn't fall uniformly so it likely isn't contaminating every fish, plant, animal (or human) in the exact same amounts, if any.

      Sure would love to have confirmation that WA State is doing a comprehensive testing of all food here, given its my home state. :-l


      Report comment

      • GeoHarvey

        I spend a couple hours each day researching news for an anti-nuclear group. The material on Washington state was in the news about two or three weeks back. They said they did not expect to find any unusual radioactive material, but they would test seafood as long as people were concerned about it. This seems very considerate.
        You could probably find the articles by doing a Google search of the news, using the keywords Fukushima and Washington, and setting the filter to the past month.


        Report comment

        • What-About-The-Kids

          Thanks, GeoHarvey. That was likely the same news we were discussing here then:

          http://enenews.com/just-in-could-it-really-happen-state-of-washington-to-begin-testing-clams-for-fukushima-radiation-salmon-and-steelhead-also-will-continue-until-public-concern-abates-video/comment-page-1

          One concern raised was why they were limiting their testing to just a couple isotopes and whether the testing procedures were robust enough.

          Also, I just am not sure how much testing they are doing (is it enough to be truly representative of what levels of radiation may be appearing in the entire fish population caught or sold here in WA)

          Also, given the tendancy of governments to downplay any bad news, it is hard to say if they'd actually report any high levels they may find to the public.


          Report comment

          • What-About-The-Kids

            Make that: "downplay any bad radiation fallout or contamination news…"


            Report comment

          • desara3

            I thought I just read an article about a Catholic school closing due to a respritory ailment in WA. I lost the page but I think it was 150 students. School was closed. I had also read a couple of years ago about Pertussis in Wa. The recent school closing was STATED not related to Pertussis.

            Our kids have been vaccinated for this(all three of mine,plus new chx pox). Now certain drugstores wants every adult to get a Pertussis vaccine.

            We are not a third world country that does not know that the Hepatitis,Rubella,Pertussis and Polio vaccine are for infants.
            It is a law in a lot of states that infants and children must have them. Why would Adults need a pertussis booster or vaccine?

            Or German Measles or Polio Or Hep. ??

            The respritory thing stands out to me, even though it has been a high pollen season.

            I would move to Seattle if I could. I would love to live there. Great Art schools and Great people.


            Report comment

          • HoTaters HoTaters

            I'd be very concerned, too, about whether or not "health physicists" were interpreting the data. They are resident in state health departments, as unfortunately, they are often the only ones with expertise in looking for contamination.

            What a broken system.


            Report comment

          • GeoHarvey

            We can limit the testing to a few isotopes fairly safely,if we do it with a little care. The isotopes we need to be concerned with are the ones that are (1) relatively common fission by-products, (2) can be air or water borne, (3) have half lives long enough to reach us, and (4) have emissions that are damaging.
            Almost any isotope could be a fission by-product because of neutron capture. The ones we need to worry about are those that are produced in appreciable quantity.
            An isotope with a half life of eight days will be hard to find after eighty days, so we do not usually test for it.
            Some potential radioactive isotopes are not worth testing for.
            On the other hand, Bismuth-209, which could be produced by decay of uranium, is a radioactive substance with a half life so long it really is irrelevant, 1.9×10^19 years, much, much longer than the age scientists assign to the known universe.


            Report comment

    • desara3

      I agree ! I know of all of the documented testing(PLUS) that has gone on here and abroad. It does move up through the food chain, Yes. It shows in the accelerated cancer rates.

      This is direct radiation now in the ocean(s) and in the air which is a far cry from detonated material. Different kind of fallout. The animals are innocent here, which does hurt. All the way down the food chain. I have never condoned greed. I would prefer to do the job right ,as opposed to walking out when I thought that they got thier moneys worth out of me. Instead the people in charge end up doing a shitty slipshod piece of work. And I get blamed for it! I know somebody out there knows what I mean.


      Report comment

    • Longjohn119

      Environmental Rule # 1 – You don't schitt where you eat

      And Japan laid one big turd in one of the major food supplies and a year before that BP laid a slightly smaller turd in the Gulf of Mexico (And I worry more about the millions of gallons of carcinogenic dispersants than the oil itself)

      I don't eat anything from either place anymore …. I'll take my chances with the fish from local waters while not perfect are a heck of lot better than the Pacific or the Gulf (At least until that junker GE reactor north of me 20 miles goes Fukushima and dumps a load in the Mississippi)


      Report comment

  • desara3

    I apologize. There are way to many typos in my posts. I need spellcheck and proper sentence structure. It fell out of my brain better than on paper.

    The real thing is, I really have sympathy pangs and pains for these nice and great people in Japan. They all have my respect.I know exactly how I would feel in the same situation. Thier hands are not tied and they will perservere.Just like anyone here would. No matter what.


    Report comment

  • weeman

    Think about it

    If you use a eye dropper and put one drop of petroleum in acre pond, that oil will disperse evenly over the whole surface of water.
    Can you imagine what the spread of radioactivity in the pacific ocean looks like, pity we cant see it, all oceans will be contaminated with time
    How long till pacific ocean products are not safe to eat, now,next year, the year after
    , sooner than later youl eat cesium


    Report comment

  • MaidenHeaven MaidenHeaven

    Last year in a video Arnie Gundersen warned us NOT to eat Tuna this spring becasue it would be radioactive enough now to harm us. He even suggested that a tuna this year might set off detectors at ports.


    Report comment

    • What-About-The-Kids

      I remember that, MaidenHeaven. I have not eaten tuna since 3/11. :-(


      Report comment

    • mem mem

      In another Gundersen video he said that 80% of the contamination went into the ocean. It must be a horrible scene in the ocean now, I think the sick seals and polar bears, dead dolphins and sea turtles are only the beginning.

      I'm a west coast girl and I love the Pacific ocean so much. It bothers me deeply to hear Caldicott say that people shouldn't surf on the west coast, and I miss eating fish and seaweed… but what we have done to the sea creatures and oceans breaks my heart beyond belief. Those poor creatures must feel so sick.

      All the hot particles and ground contamination aside…if the oceans die, so do we.


      Report comment

  • Just a note, in the video below Helen puts Fukushima at 2.5 to 3 times worse than Chernobyl – speaking in terms of epidemiological effects.

    One thing I got from this video (other than that men are crazy, which I agree with) is that she sure knows her stuff:

    Dr Helen_caldicott Fukushima Radiation and Northern Hemisphere
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tikrIVNS-jk&feature=related
    (Published on Apr 6, 2012 by MegaMadcow)


    Report comment

    • Bobby1

      Caldicott initially said Fuku was 400 times Chernobyl, when she had a press conference in March 2011.

      Then she had Gundersen on her show, and now it's 3 times.


      Report comment

      • NoNukes NoNukes

        I remember her saying 400 times Chernobyl. How can it possibly be 3 times when it is still happening? Including all of the dumping into the Pacific ocean, just that Tepco has admitted?


        Report comment

        • Sam

          Human nature I guess. The mind boggles, bends, retracts and sometimes
          has a breakdown often times in face of overwhelming reality. Could
          Dr. Caldicott be having trouble digesting and acknowledging the full
          horrific nature of this catastrophe. She has been on the nuclear frontline
          for a long time. Lows Projections to ease hers and our fears maybe.

          Who really knows how bad it is and where it will end up.
          From the NRA recently published fall out map there shows two more reactors
          in Northern Japan melted down. What's their names? Silence again…………..?
          How bad are they?


          Report comment

      • It depends on what aspect of the disaster they're discussing, i.e. epidemiological effect, amount of emissions, potential releases and so on.

        Example

        Veterans Today puts it at 50 Chernobyls.
        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/28/fukushima-how-many-chernobyls-is-it/

        This fellow explains how Albany, NY got hit bad during the nuclear testing in Nevada. A rainstorm set off geiger counters in a student lab and couldn't be explained until they found out about the tests that had just occurred.

        Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass on Nuclear Contamination and Cancer Part 1 "A Tsunami of Knowledge"
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPO7Tft0YlQ&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL10A5C866BC6F0817

        90% of it comes down in rain and snow.


        Report comment

        • Bobby1

          There are still very high radiation readings in the rain. Geiger counters on airplanes are still 36x background instead of 5x. Most of the radiation is either in the air above us, or in the ocean, and keeps growing.


          Report comment

          • Sam

            Could you site the reference to36x above background. Noah on the site
            here talks about nano particles sucked into airplane cabins. Also reports
            of airline stewards etc having rashes and hair loss-radiation damage?
            not good at all. I have not flown for years. Wonder if I will fly again
            if it turns out to be death dealing more than being on the ground.


            Report comment

            • Bobby1

              Sam, it's somewhere on enviroreporter.com:

              http://www.enviroreporter.com/2011/09/radiation-conversation/

              Potrblog has a new post:

              "ALERT! Recent Radioactive Soot = Recent Radioactive Fire At Fukushima?…

              Given the multiple detections, some of which are parent/daughter pairs, and the short contamination exposure window, we strongly suspect a recent recriticaility and fire at Fukushima."

              http://www.potrblog.com/


              Report comment

              • Sam

                Thanks. Now I understand the warning earlier about not being outside
                this coming Friday the 18th. Though from Potrblog and others
                there has been re-criticality on going since April 30th on. So if that
                is the case it has been here and still coming.

                At least I am not yet a dead man walking. Irradiated and bioaccumulated
                to some degree now.
                my heart goes out to the Japanese people suffering so so much .


                Report comment

                • NoNukes NoNukes

                  My thyroid iodine-detector says that there is something hitting now in California. Not at the worst I would say, but I wouldn't be surprised if those who can detect iodine are catching it now. For whatever it is worth, which isn't much.


                  Report comment

                  • Sam

                    Was driving around this morning in Sonoma county
                    this morning doing errands. Lots of fresh air. Came
                    home tired from being out for a few hours.
                    Voice is horse. First time noticed this together.


                    Report comment

                    • Sam

                      Walked outside at 8pm. lot of fog and overcast with a
                      brownish tint to it. said to myself this is not normal
                      having lived with this oceanic fog all my life. did not
                      want to stay outside. normally the street I live on has a
                      lot of people walking their dogs. nothing this evening.
                      now my eyes have slight burn to them. Something
                      not good in the air coming in. Radiation network page
                      not loading. time to get a radiation monitoring device.


                      Report comment

                  • Sam

                    On the rad net page, a radiation count of 51 for
                    Sacramento area. Something more is in the air.


                    Report comment

                    • HoTaters HoTaters

                      Rad Net or Radiation Network?

                      Sam, I'm in Fairfield. The fog has looked really funky lately. It was never brown in the past. It is now. It sits out on the skyline, near Napa, just to the east of me.

                      Have been tired for much of the past two weeks. Unusual fatigue. Radiation Network readings for San Francisco have been higher than normal for the past couple of days. Hanging around 50 CPM. If more posted, will post to Forum (Monitoring).


                      Report comment

                    • HoTaters HoTaters

                      OK, so today SF appears to be back down in the 30's. My mistake.


                      Report comment

                    • ruth

                      The CA rad counts have been higher than normal for the past week looking at radiationnetwork. A lot of new volunteer detectors have recently come on line for CA at radiationnetwork. I have been getting a lot of spikes up as high as 60 a couple of times with my detector here in No Cal.


                      Report comment

                • Bobby1

                  A fire would explain the black soot inside of #4. And the pool would have at least overflowed or cracked too, and you would get the concrete-fuel reaction. The only question now is whether there is anything left of the pool at all.


                  Report comment

              • CNN says it's only 7% as bad as Chernobyl:

                CNN: No clear answers why so many kids born outside exclusion zone are sick years after meltdown — Fukushima only 7% as bad as Chernobyl (VIDEO)
                http://enenews.com/cnn-clear-answers-many-kids-born-exclusion-zone-sick-after-meltdown-chernobyl-video/comment-page-1


                Report comment

                • What-About-The-Kids

                  I don't CNN, it's actually pretty darned clear to most everyone else why these kids are sick. You can pull numbers out of thin air all you want…but it only makes your reporting look, at best, amateurish, and worst, suspect.

                  It isn't going to change the facts that 3 (or 4?) explosions and SFP fires in reactors which are still spewing forth ongoing radiation releases into the air and directly into the ocean at Fukushima, are FAR WORSE than one explosion in ONE reactor, with a week long fire that was put out at Chernobyl.


                  Report comment

              • Just comparing this alert with Gundersen's statement that when Cs-134 and Cs-137 are found together it's a clear Fukushima signature.

                Those two are not mentioned in the alert – but this does not prove it ISN'T a Fukey signature (could still be from Fukey).

                —————————-
                WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2012

                ALERT! Recent Radioactive Soot = Recent Radioactive Fire At Fukushima?
                We are still analyzing the data, and more details will follow; here is what we know so far.
                Between April 29th 2012 and May 8th 2012 the following short half life fallout was indicated in a sample (a partial list):
                Ba-140 was identified at nearly the 95% confidence level.
                La-140 was detected in a sample below the 95% confidence level.
                Ce-141 was detected in a sample below the 95% confidence level.
                Ru-103 was detected in a sample below the 95% confidence level.
                Zr-95 was detected in a sample below the 95% confidence level.
                Nb-95 was detected in a sample below the 95% confidence level

                Here's a listing of half-lives for elements:

                http://www.iem-inc.com/toolhalf.html


                Report comment

  • Urban27

    No, Chernobyl wasn't contained – First there was an explosion, when the pressure vessel blow. And after that the control rods started to burn – and the fire helped to release uranium and other fission products into the atmosphere. The fire went on for many days.
    Both Chernobyl and Fukushima are catastrophes that released enormous amount of radiation. They differ in progress. Here there has been four reactors that have exploded – in three different ways. No 1 and 2 are a bit similar no 3 was the worst with a total destruction of the entire building. No 4 was probably the fuel pool that got so hot it started to produce hydrogen gas.
    The Chernobyl catastrophe is not over – the cores are too radiant to contain, they are still in the ground under. Maybe not so hot any-more.
    We have the right to know, about the situation in Fukushima – as it influences on our lives.


    Report comment

    • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

      Agreed, Chernobyl was "just" one giant plume, big enough to cover most of Europe in radiation. It did not even stop at the French border, though that's what the French govmt told their people.
      I was 12 when it happened, and I remember very clearly my parents' helplessness. Nobody knew anything.
      No internet. No information from the Soviet officials. No drones to take close-up pictures. Nothing.
      Just "don't go out if it rains" and "let's cover the vegetable patch".

      Anti-nuke ever since. Not that it helped much, apparently.


      Report comment

  • Another comparison. (As if we need to compare – they're both here and they're both bad).

    APRIL 24, 2012

    Warning Signs for the US

    Why Fukushima is a Greater Disaster Than Chernobyl
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/24/why-fukushima-is-a-greater-disaster-than-chernobyl/


    Report comment

  • Fukushima – Less Urgent?
    Fukushima Daiichi Site: Cesium-137 is 85 Times Greater Than at Chernobyl Accident
    by Akio Matsumura
    http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1-/11387-does-daiichi-4-spell-the-end-qcesium-137-is-85-times-greater-than-at-chernobylq.html

    I would like to introduce Ambassador Murata’s letter to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to convey this urgent message and also his letter to Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda for Japanese readers. He emphasized in the statement that we should bring human wisdom to tackle this unprecedented challenge.

    It seems to us that the Nuclear Security Summit was focused on the North Korea nuclear issue and on the issue of common security from a terrorist attack. Our appeal on the need for the independent assessment at Reactor 4 was regarded as less urgent. We predicted this outcome in light of the nature of the Summit. I suppose most participants fully understood the potential disaster which will affect their countries. Nevertheless, they decided not to raise the delicate issue, perhaps in order to not ruffle their diplomatic relationship with Japan.

    I was moved by Ambassador Murata’s courage in pressing this issue in Japan. I know how difficult it is for a former career diplomat to do this, especially in my country. Current and former government officials might be similarly restricted in the scope of their actions, as Ambassador Murata is, but it is their responsibility to take a stand for the benefit of our…


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.