NYTimes: Coal produces more radiation and deaths than nuclear — PBS special on Fukushima could have used George Monbiot or the like

Published: January 18th, 2012 at 12:49 am ET
By

102 comments


Title: A Fresh Look at Nuclear Power, from Fukushima to the Hudson
Source: – NYTimes.com
Author: Andrew Revkin
Date: January 17, 2012, 3:54 pm

[...] In the [PBS Frontline] program, the radiation fears of folks in Japan, Germany and New York were counterposed against a couple of experts on risk, but the piece might have benefitted from the voice of one of the environmentalists who’ve become nuclear proponents (Stewart Brand, George Monbiot, or the like) or an expert in the psychology of risk (Paul Slovic, David Ropeik, etc.). Jim Hansen’s worries are all focused on [the greenhouse gas] CO2 so he’s not directly addressing the risk question (for example, the reality that coal produces more radiation and deaths than nuclear, etc.). [...] 

Read the report here

Watch PBS Frontline: Fukushima radiation 10% of Chernobyl -- Risk of getting cancer very, very small -- Gov't limit of 20 millisievert very conservative (VIDEO)
Published: January 18th, 2012 at 12:49 am ET
By

102 comments

Related Posts

  1. Busby: We are going to take some kind of libel action against George Monbiot’s advisers and Imperial College (VIDEO) November 27, 2011
  2. Famous Japanese artist produces controversial poster illustrating dangers of nuclear power (PHOTO) February 11, 2012
  3. Top Official: Protesting secrecy law is act of terrorism — Japan gov’t promotes idea that you’re racist if avoiding Fukushima produce — Bloomberg: “The entire process has echoes of George Orwell” — Nuclear activists to be constantly spied on? December 4, 2013
  4. Epidemiology Scientist: The slower you spread radiation dose, the more effectively it produces cancer and inherited defects — “Japan is going the very best way in the world for destroying the human race” (1993 VIDEO) April 25, 2012
  5. Radiation levels rise for 5th month straight in Fukushima city (PHOTO) December 14, 2012

102 comments to NYTimes: Coal produces more radiation and deaths than nuclear — PBS special on Fukushima could have used George Monbiot or the like

  • dharmasyd dharmasyd

    Oh MY God~~~! PBS: Propaganda Broadcasting System!


    Report comment

    • Enenews Admin

      Just so readers are clear about the above excerpt, it’s from the New York Times and concerns the author’s view of what the Frontline program may have been lacking.


      Report comment

      • dharmasyd dharmasyd

        Thanks, Admin. Got it.


        Report comment

      • atoms4peace1

        I thought the Frontline piece was very good. What more could they want? Both sides were adequately represented.


        Report comment

        • rooks rooks

          If you are the same as A4P at HP you are at the wrong site. I do not post here, but I will not allow you to just be an …


          Report comment

          • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

            Hi rooks, he is that guy. Let’s just ignore him, I trust in admin to do what needs to be done, lol


            Report comment

          • atoms4peace1

            Hey rooks, this is an open site. I can post here if I chose. No harm no foul eh?


            Report comment

            • PoorDaddy PoorDaddy

              @Atoms4peace1
              Yes, there is a harm and a foul!
              You are the one and only reason I no longer post at HP. Almost every time I posted over there, you personally removed my posts.
              Attention all Enenewsers!….At HuffPost they have a rule where frequent “special” posters, I think they call them super posters or something are allowed to censor and delete posts they don’t like….anyway, this Atoms4peace1 guy is one of those over there. He deleted any post of mine that he found distasteful. A4P….you are a pronuke shill, you’re a power-hungry little dick…go back to HP!
              Ask Whoopie….she knows about this guy!


              Report comment

          • labmonkeywithagun labmonkeywithagun

            Hi ya’ rooks!
            I almost never post here, simply put I am not needed. But I feel a need to put in my two cents here. One thing for sure, he has chased off all the real nuclear scientist from HuffPo who could have a real discussion on some very important points that I would like to see brought up.On the other hand, maybe I chase off good anti-nukes, tell me if I do, ’cause I do act stupid tooo often.
            Attention seeking troll about sums it up, just seeing his post gets him off.Getting a reaction, all the better. But, though I am not that religious of a man, I firmly believe that God has given us trolls for a reason. So we can see that good people who are just misinformed, see good people in stressful situations reacting badly….and so we know to give them a break…………and trolls who don’t even believe what they are saying. Gonna’ leave it at that, you are smart enough to flesh it out from there.
            Wish I had the power to fix it, peace


            Report comment

            • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic

              I always believe, that eventually, we will convert them.

              My granny always told me to pray for ignorance…as opposed to stupidity.

              Why I asked?

              She said, “Ignorance can be changed dear, but stupidity can not?”

              ..so unless all trolls are stupid, we can change their ignorance.. and rather quickly as they have to read the posts to respond to them..

              ..the stupid will stay to annoy us like flies :)


              Report comment

        • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

          Dear Atoms: For one, there are not “both” (two?) sides. For another, there was little to no representation of reality in the Frontline piece.


          Report comment

        • patman

          No need to fear these people. Why are we trying to expose the nuclear industry for what it is?

          To save our genome-sphere?

          To save our souls; looking away is too self-destructive to bear?

          Take this anyway we want fellow travelers; simply tell the truth, swear no oath unless in court, and continue fight the good fight. Every dog has her day.

          Multibillion dollar nuke industry still fighting for relevance. Nuke plants are such a money pit, utilities are forced to get quasi-legal extensions on old Nuke plants instead of affording brand new ones. Could not afford to save for a new generation of these machines?

          Nuclear Industry has already tipped and it’s falling. Truth these days will get out more sooner rather than later. We are in a period of this nuke industry when we pay out yard after yard of of rope; and see how that goes.

          Don’t get discouraged, don’t lose hope, don’t hurt your soul by lashing out. This part now is the pain; it will pass. Our message says more about us than we think.

          We didn’t lie. In the end we may be correct or incorrect. We never lied.

          Best one can do, love you all, kindred travelers. Hope you are O.K. with this.


          Report comment

    • maaa

      Release cars powered by water technology and we can reduce tons of pollution from vehicles. Just imagine how many cars are there in the world.


      Report comment

      • milk and cheese milk and cheese

        They’re called ‘boats’.


        Report comment

      • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

        Dear Maaa: Correct, as to cars, the technology, realistic-clean-low ecological footprint compared to gasoline technology, has existed at least since about 1915. Some of these auto technologies include steam (safe believe it or not in the scale used for automotive locomotion), electric and some others that I don’t understand. Apparently, there’s even a carburetor from the 1960′s, by an inventor named Tucker, which would allow even heavy 1950′s style American cars to get perhaps 100 mpg. Here in Oakland, CA, we have inventors/engineers that know how to do the same thing with cars. All these solutions are intentionally blocked by corporations and the billionaires profiting from them run amok. The technology and solutions are already pragmatic and diverse in every category needed where status quo top-down, information hoarding by profiteering (parasitism by patent) corporatist types maintain our current inefficient and finite ecosystem destroying dominant technologies. Ivy league institutions and A-list research institutions spend most of their time working with lawyers, often over decades, figuring out how to make long-known technologies patentable for the existing wealthiest minority–In fact, there is no RUSH to bring technology to solve problems. This is a core nature of exploitation and hoarding based systems, such as capitalism/globalization. Back to efficient automobile technology, I have to find the episode of California Gold, Huell Houser Productions, that has a wonderful accessible show about the above mentioned automotive locomotion technologies.


        Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    No wonder the NY Times circulation keeps declining.


    Report comment

  • tomb1

    Who said coal is an alternative?

    1. Save energy. Especially the USA consumes crazy amounts of energy per head.

    2. Use regenerative sources. Wind, solar, water, earth, …


    Report comment

    • It is one of the false arguments the PNPs use


      Report comment

      • atoms4peace1

        Koolaid sites like to prop up straw men. The NASA director was spot on. Coal is no answer.


        Report comment

        • arclight arclight

          watch george get spanked by helen caldicott…very humbling lol coal is worse than nuclear! a classic monibot moment…then helen pounced!! har har

          part 1
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p0d05M5JpY&feature=related
          part 2
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb5HItRpDY8&feature=related

          nice one the democrasy now team!!


          Report comment

        • arclight arclight

          ey atoms..

          you`ll love this one

          “Kyrgyzstan rejects radioactive Kazakh coal 28 Oct 2011 09:23 GMT
          … after Kyrgyz customs officers learned incoming Kazakhstani coal has background radiation 12-15 times … and to terminate their contracts with the mines. Babanov will order a new tender for alternative coal suppliers if necessary, the Kyrgyz government press …”

          http://mining.einnews.com/news/coal-mining/kazakhstan

          something to do with ionising radiation and effects on lower rock strata, perhaps??? bit thick me! can you explain??


          Report comment

          • atoms4peace1

            All coal has uranium and thorium in it. When coal burns, it releases the uranium into the air. Supplies!


            Report comment

            • No, it does not. The small (as in less-than-ore) concentrations of natural isotopes in coal does not get released in the airborne effluent of coal-burning plants with even the most primitive of scrubbers. Rather, the radioisotopes are concentrated in the waste product of burning coal – fly ash. Which is used as “inert filler” in agribusiness fertilizers, as ingredient in portland cement/concrete for construction, stored in sludge ponds behind earthen dams that sometimes fail and destroy entire communities, or simply buried by the megaton in landfills primarily in poor rural counties across the country.

              Still, the serious danger from concentrated radioisotopes in waste from every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle is millions of times more dangerous – for 100,000+ years – than a a few natural isotopes in waste from coal burning. You know this, though.


              Report comment

            • Anthony Anthony

              How many becquerels?


              Report comment

        • rooks rooks

          You have no answer other than to promote an industry to learn on the curve while it kills off species. 95% of SFRs are in the SFPs WW. Until you and your ilk understand how to clean up your destruction, no “new” unsafe nukes. It has been over 60 years FYI.


          Report comment

    • americancommntr

      NO, produce all the energy ever needed, from any of the several free energy sources discovered, chief among which is hydrolysis of water by vibration of it at its resonant frequency in a digital circuit, to produce and use hydrogen on demand. Stanley Wallace first perfected this, and was murdered.

      Or, radiolysis of water the same way. Like the inventor who was burning saltwater irradiated with radiowaves.

      Or, the latest nickel-hydrogen cold fusion technology from a company in Italy.

      The resonant frequency hydrolysis was reported to produce 3 times more hydrogen, with 1/3 less electricity required, than standard hydrolysis.

      The flame of the gas produced, when burned, reportedly will also take the radioactivity out of radioactive substances. So there is a means of reducing spent fuel to a mere toxic substance to be safety disposed.


      Report comment

      • voltscommissar

        @americancommntr, January 18, 2012 at 2:32 am (0632hrs UTC)
        yeah right, we had an Aussie guy 20 years ago who said his car run on water instead of petrol.

        I accept the laws of physics, especially the laws of thermodynamics, so please don’t sully this forum with unsubstantiated fantasies. I admit it would be great if such energy sources really existed, but there is simply no credible evidence. Just like perpetual motion machines.

        This message is coming to you from a 100% solar-powered, off-grid laptop computer: NO NUKES, NO COAL, NO FOSSIL FUELS, except whatever was needed to produce the PV cells, battery and sundry electronics. So we don’t need to go to La-La-Land, because the non-fossil, non-nuke, “end-of-the-steam-age” energy source is an economically viable reality today. If all ENENEWS.COM participants were to go off-grid solar, then we could start a mass movement.

        I hereby announce the END OF THE STEAM AGE. Just bloody-well do it!! Before we fry or poison this planet.


        Report comment

        • voltscommissar

          In fact let’s crawl before we walk: the best technology to compete against baseload electricity is actually SOLAR HOT WATER: a 24/7 baseload substitute for the delivery of an energy service (hot water on demand).

          So solar photovoltaics, having less favourable economics in terms of displacing centralized energy sources, actually come in THIRD place after energy efficiency and solar hot water.


          Report comment

          • aigeezer aigeezer

            Energy efficiency is something anyone can take action on, without waiting for government or industry to change a policy. I’ve done it and it feels sooooo good to be able to do something independently of “them”.

            One quick example: I’m in Canada, it’s freezing outside. I have no heat on, yet I’m perfectly warm although the main door to the outside is wide open.

            All I did to achieve this is replace the flimsy aluminum storm door that came with the house with a beefy glass panel storm door. Cost about $200 – saves almost half that much every month in winter, but more importantly makes a big difference in my energy consumption.

            Here’s my way of looking at it: If this industry is so evil (and it is), shouldn’t I stop actively feeding it?

            Anyway – look around – I bet there is something we (any of us) can do today that will keep our money out of their hands and help starve the beast. It really feels good – very therapeutic, and a bit subversive. ;-)


            Report comment

      • Can you provide any links to ANYONE who is actually selling something that works?

        There are people who will buy a working something… I just do not want to buy any plans…

        Where is the working model that can be bought and installed, to replace an engine or a heater or a ???


        Report comment

    • The whole “coal is worse” argument is a bogus argument. Coal and nukes are just 2 different seats on the Titanic: but efficiency and renewables are lifeboats… we need to get on the lifeboats now or we WILL go down with the ship. Or imagine a murderer who shot someone in the head being acquitted because his lawyer pointed out that being shot in the stomach would have been a more painful death. If given the choice of paying for the gun that kills you with a shot to the gut or to the head, we SHOULD ask for a third choice that doesn’t involve our death….RIGHT?


      Report comment

      • atoms4peace1

        Coal is worse. More radiation came out of the Kingston Fly Ash spill than TMI.


        Report comment

        • 9 Million Deaths from Chernobyl

          Time for a trip to Belarus eh atoms4death1?

          UN Secretary General Dr Kofi Anan said that the “consequences of Chernobyl do not fade away, but actually grow over time and in many ways, become more intense.” Dr Anan and D. Zupka, UN representative of UN humanitarian affairs UN – OCHA agree and say that there are 9 million victims from Chernobyl as of 2001, and the tragedy is only beginning.

          The calamity will be with us for generations to come. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8746168177815160826&hl=en


          Report comment

          • Sorry, “victims” not necessarily deaths.


            Report comment

          • We have three independent and well respected bodies; ECRR, the UN and OCHA. These represent a global network of doctors, biologists, nuclear experts NOT associated with the nuclear industry. They are in agreement and say that there are between 1 MILLION DEATHS and/or 9 MILLION VICTIMS up to around 2001…. including those who have cancer, deformities, genetic diseases, etc…

            Now we go over to the nuclear industry hired guns who say only a couple people died and no one got sick or injured, from the Chernobyl accident to now. The industry makes the bold, outrageous claim that low level radiation affects NO ONE, EVER. They say that the 85% rate of unhealthy infants as well as elevated death rate around Chernobyl is due to ‘stress’ or not smiling enough.

            Who do you believe?

            The other issue is that this total deaths and victims number is GROWING. When one sees the present day interviews and studies, the number of victims (those negatively affected or dying) is actually growing and getting worse year to year, not the opposite. So these are ‘old’ numbers. They are obsolete.. No one has updated them since they came out.

            Assuming Fukushima is worse due to plutonium MOX fuel releases, which are between a conservative 5 times worse than uranium to 1 million times worse than uranium estimates in terms of deaths and health effects, we are looking at HUGE numbers of people that are going to be affected.

            ECRR estimates that Chernobyl will have killed 1.4 million by 2030.

            Multiply this times 5 to 1 million… and the GE controlled mass media news is not reporting ANYTHING about this.


            Report comment

        • How much do you suppose came out of the Church Rock tailings spill in 1979? Deposited 4 inches of uranium/radium salts on the banks of the Rio Puerco through the Navajo rez. Fly ash nowhere close to that kind of radioactive contamination.


          Report comment

        • Anthony Anthony

          Hasn’t more radiation been released from Fukushima in a year than all our use of coal? I can’t recall ever hearing of oceans, cows, rice, people, tomatoes, concrete, milk ect. being contaminated by coal use as the numerous studies demonstrate is the case with 311. When you make grand statements like yours you need to back it up. I think the facts alone suggests nuclear radiation far surpasses the outputs of coal. Certainly coal burning brings other issues to bear but consider I haven’t even reminded you of the spent fuel issue with nuclear.

          A child can see this is apples and oranges time.


          Report comment

    • milk and cheese milk and cheese

      You are quite right, tomb1. I have not heard one peep about conserving energy, carpooling (or taking public transit) and getting by with less on any major site, certainly not on a government site.
      By the way, your handle is a bit grim…


      Report comment

  • PoorDaddy PoorDaddy

    @tomb1
    When Carter was president, two things happened in the energy realm that pretty much killed his presidency. Gas prices skyrocketed. He asked the American people to use a little less electricity and to turn their home thermostats down to 65 degrees and put on a sweater if they get cold. Americans resented being asked to alter their lifestyle whatsoever. The repubs kicked his ass for the rest of his term for asking Americans to sacrifice anything.
    The other thing he did was to place a solar panel on the roof of the white house. It supplied something like 80% of the structures energy needs…an excellent idea. When Reagan beat him in the next election, he yanked it out and junked it just to prove what a badass he was and to show us citizens that we’re Americans….we do whatever we want to whoever we want anytime we want. Its the imperial amerikan way.
    If we had genuinely addressed our energy issues then, we might have a viable and sustainable energy policy today….but you are right. Saving energy and regenerative sources is the only answer long term…..shitcan nuklear power!


    Report comment

    • milk and cheese milk and cheese

      Poordaddy, 1979 was the year that our consumption officially passed the earth’s ability to support us. We have been running in debit mode ever since. President Carter knew the truth and tried to warn us. I think he was the last President to tell the truth to the American people. And look what it got him. The Republicans were, and are, a party of maniacs.


      Report comment

      • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

        Dear Milk: Thank you for that statistic. That’s an interesting period in history for several reasons. It’s also the same year that the Western Hemisphere absolutely and concretely passed peak oil and natural gas production http://www.peakoil.net. The U.S. was once the number one miner, refiner, marketer and seller of petroleum products. We passed peak production concretely in 1971. However, we wouldn’t currently need to be net 20% to 30% importers of petrol products if the puppet Reagan administration had implemented a simple mandatory 30mpg (no higher was needed) on all passenger vehicles operated in the U.S. during one or the other of the Reagan puppet terms.


        Report comment

        • PoorDaddy PoorDaddy

          And sadly, the dems have fallen into lock-step corporate puppet-hood as well, with a couple exceptions. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren come to mind….maybe a couple of others, but I can’t think of who they might be right now.
          Hard to blame the pols completely when “we the people” get what we ask for, and we ask for what we are manipulated into wanting.
          Corporate mind control is alive and well.


          Report comment

    • The other part of this is that the oil, coal, nuclear and gas industry banded together as the monopolies that they are and sunk every President that managed to get in who threatened their industries.

      These carbon and nuclear industries were behind the yanking of the solar panels on the White House, and the reason why none has been put up since then. They scuttle every attempt to move away from polluting, toxic fuels that they have a monopoly control over. Cheney had secret closed door ‘energy’ meetings with guess who? OIL COMPANIES.

      Witness today; the Solyndra failure is being used to try and kill off all solar companies via taking away their financing. Guess who is behind that?

      Meanwhile, Communist China is taking over HUGE market share in the renewable energy field, wind and solar. We lose jobs, lose income and lose the ability to improve out nation, and the Chinese win in all ways.

      These polluting carbon fuel and nuclear industries are laughing all the way to the bank.. They are thinking and possibly saying; “What a bunch of idiot suckers we have here… we can tell these sheeple that renewables are ‘too expensive’ or that it ‘does not work’.

      Result? They vote for ‘our’ corporate sponsored candidates, so we can kill all renewables and export whatever jobs remain to Communist China.


      Report comment

    • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

      Hi PoorDaddy, I learned about Carter’s efforts while watching the documentary “A road not taken”.
      Trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9VD6MdEt0U

      The world would look different if it had taken this turn…

      P.S.: when will you present another great song to us? :-)


      Report comment

      • PoorDaddy PoorDaddy

        @ B&B….
        If our values as a nation ever change, Carter will be appreciated as he should be for what he has tried to do as prez and since.
        Thanks for asking about the music. Don’t know, but heres a tune from a couple ladies from Washington state that wrote and performed an occupy song that is excellent. Way more polished than my stuff. They are really good.
        They will be performing it in Tacoma on the 20th at an Occupy function.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnkGADjN-dQ&feature=related


        Report comment

  • ZombiePlanet ZombiePlanet

    “but the piece might have benefited” .. … expert in the psychology … [the greenhouse gas] CO2 … he’s not directly addressing the risk question …

    Have any of you seen a pile of shit before. If not, please read the article again.

    Last time I believed anything from the new york times controlled crap-hole, was in 1937. I had a physician revive me into consciousness, and nurse me into good health.


    Report comment

    • ZombiePlanet ZombiePlanet

      Apologies, I didn’t notice that the “ PBS (demonic-anti-God”… remove all Ten Commandants (thou shell not kill, steal, lie, adultery, etc)) special was heading up this “PBS” statement.

      Gee, what was I thinking! :o

      Excuse me while I clean the barf from my table… I mean Laptop keyboard.


      Report comment

  • Human0815

    The “Theory” is right but in other Peoples Theory we have to many unknown facts and we cant look so far into the Future but until now more than 2 Million People die each year because of this Coal and Coal fires, 80% must be Women because of their Cooking!

    There is a nice Documentary from afir Finland,
    it shows very well how far we need to look into the Humankinds Future:


    Report comment

    • ZombiePlanet ZombiePlanet

      I have been cooking for 45+ years. Glad I am not a women dying from compilations derived upon a doctors piece of paper, generated from a government grant.

      Nice video computer graphics. Guess I’ll get my worthless Xbox brain machine out from the basement and fire it up.


      Report comment

      • Human0815

        @ Zombieplanet,

        this is because you are living
        in a First World Country?

        The Majority of the People do not,
        in fact they are standing with a Baby Child on the Back in front of a open Fire and die at the age of 45-55 Years because of Cancer!
        (South-East Asia, China, India, Africa and the whole Trikont!)

        It is so damned important to find a solution for this Problems!


        Report comment

    • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

      Dear Human: True about the women in parts of the world forced, by noninevitable dominating system controllers, to cook with coal or charcoal (which I wonder how the latter ranks in terms of radionuclide toxicity when burned either in producing it or in its final use in poorly ventilated shacks quite often). There are excellent solar oven technologies (foil covered cardboard design, very inexpensive and accessible)increasingly available to women in poor countries. I know that somewhere on this site it’s also shown that women, who btw do 90% of the hard physical labor on the planet, are also physiologically up to 2x more susceptible to radionuclide toxicity than males. Hence, my feeling that when momentum for wild cat revolution gets going, once again, it will be the courage and sparking action of women leading the charge. This doesn’t mean we men shouldn’t keep up the good fight, of course.


      Report comment

  • ZombiePlanet ZombiePlanet

    Typo, “compilations” was meant to be “Complications”


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    PBS = government shills.
    “CPB’s appropriation of funds for PBS alone totals approximately $250 million per year; state governments allocate $300 million; and federal grants and contracts contribute another $70 million”
    http://www.newenglandfilm.com/news/archives/00december/pbs.htm


    Report comment

  • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

    Big Corp.:
    “You want coal? We own the mines.”
    “You want oil? We own the wells.”
    “You want nuclear? We own the uranium.”
    “You want solar? We own the errr…umm….solar isn’t feasible.”

    (Cartoon from the book cover of “SolarGas” by David Hoye)

    *last time I checked, nobody owned the sun
    *let’s do it


    Report comment

    • milk and cheese milk and cheese

      Very good, BreadAndButter!
      Of course, they could own the factories that produce the solar cells. But so what if they do. You can get killed by sunstroke, but only if you don’t take precautions…it’s the only reasonably safe nuclear reactor out there.


      Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    PS..All that money spent to produce…swill.
    Generally it doesn’t matter..PBS is for the sheeple…nothing more than a few “soothed out” documentaries and pitching collections of big band music.
    This time..it matters very much..but at present all we can do is add them to the list of those that are committing Crimes Against Humanity.
    …..all done without spilling their latte…


    Report comment

  • 9 MILLION Victims from Chernobyl as of 2001…

    UN Secretary General Dr Kofi Anan said that the “consequences of Chernobyl do not fade away, but actually grow over time and in many ways, become more intense.” Dr Anan and D. Zupka, UN representative of UN humanitarian affairs UN – OCHA agree and say that there are 9 million victims from Chernobyl as of 2001, and the tragedy is only beginning. The calamity will be with us for generations to come. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8746168177815160826&hl=en


    Report comment

  • Contact Frontline and let them know just how totally wrong and misguided they are…. urge them to contact people like Dr Caldicott, Gunderson and Kuchi

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/contact-us/


    Report comment

    • Contact PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler.

      Contact him at 703-739-5290

      Or, email him at;
      http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback.html


      Report comment

    • atoms4peace1

      Where was ScaldedCrotch on Frontline? Noticeably absent. Probably off in a three-way with Arnie and the Mrs. Now that would be an internet sight. Ugh. New meaning to TMI.


      Report comment

      • enoughalready45 enoughalready45

        @atoms

        Be nice, keep it clean. People will have more respect for your opinions even if they disagree with you.

        By the way, I am anti-nuke and think the Frontline show will scare the hell out of people who have not been on top of this nuclear situation. We can be disappointed about some of the points they didn’t make or glossed over but at least it is being talked about and I think it brings anyone with a shread of humanity closer to being anti-nuke than moving them the other way.


        Report comment

  • Low Radiation Dose Effects Detailed
    http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/3071481

    Total Radiation Released from Fukushima
    http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/3069802

    93 Long Lived Radioactive Elements; 12,000 Years to BILLIONS of Years
    http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/3069680


    Report comment

    • Human0815

      @ AGreenRoad,

      i don`t like to watch this Busby Video again
      but please name the Place of the high Radiation Readings in Tokyo, i will go there for my own
      Readings and for you all who can watch this later!


      Report comment

    • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

      Dear AGreen: Yes you bring up an extremely important and revolution motivating point, as to the billions of years half lives (wish I could have italicized “half”). Depleted uranium, half life 4.6 BILLION years, is the new military wonder substance, used by the ton daily all around the planet in wars and violence instigated, funded, armed (U.S. funding both sides in nearly every case since 1989 and even helping the U.S.S.R. funding Iran during the Iran/Iraq 8-year war of the 1980′s) by the United States and Europe by proxy (Europe’s morality and karma are not off the hook because European states use the U.S. [and vice versa] as the violence cudgel/truncheon enforcing neo-colonialism. Colonialism has never gone away; it is only modified. Any end to colonialism by Europe is symbolic–see the arrogant rise of Germany lately pushing itself, outrageously, as the fiscal overlord and decider of austerity measures for the Global South AND the rest of Europe). Many hundreds of tons of this super toxic DU crap (toxic like thalidomide, but much worse)was used by Israel in its relatively recent terrorism against Lebanon, particularly in the last three days of the attack by Israel when it became clear that Israel was being forced by international pressure to stop that particular terrorist Israeli siege. Israel then went all out, very genocidal of Israel, the usual.

      The U.S. has used many 100′s of thousands of tons of DU weaponry (this is a nuclear contamination topic) in Iraq, which has contaminated all watersheds in Iraq and many in Iran, as well. DU atomized has been detected in the atmosphere everywhere in the Northern hemisphere from these Global North terrorist actions for oil.


      Report comment

  • jackassrig

    “Someting that works” yes I can. It is working now but not at the scale we need. If research had been done on this technology years ago, we may not have been in the jam we are now. Since college professors seem to dictate our energy policy, we have abandoned cycles that will work for solar, wind, or nuclear. It called the brayton cycle used with a turboexpander. A good website to visit is Mafi Trench that manufactures turboexpanders. I have no stock in the company. However it is not scaled to the size we need. It is hard to scale to a 1000 Megawattt nuc overnight.


    Report comment

  • aigeezer aigeezer

    “the reality that coal produces more radiation and deaths than nuclear”

    A quick comment on this claim, since it has become a common pro-nuke talking point –

    The argument is based on the historically short nuclear age – about 50 years – and assumes there will be no nuclear catastrophe (ever).

    Of course a huge nuclear catastrophe will happen sooner or later, even if they somehow manage to get Fukushima under control. Playing Russian roulette for an hour without incident is no guarantee of what will happen in the future – in fact it is likely to instill a huge sense of misplaced confidence.

    SHUT THEM ALL DOWN


    Report comment

    • enoughalready45 enoughalready45

      You are right and coal plants don’t melt down and render areas uninhabitable for generations. What a crime for the Japanese people some of whom have families that have lived in the same area for generations. Also, Chernobyl zapped some of the best farmland in the Ukraine. Good thing Nebraska’s nuclear reactor didn’t go all the way when it flooded this summer. Can you imagine the damage. The mid-west, the bread basket of the world contaminated for 100′s of years.


      Report comment

  • LloydJHart LloydJHart

    Ahh the New York Times,, the paper that sold the public the invasion of Iraq. The statement that coal creates more radiation than nuclear is like two incredible assholes, coal and nuclear, competing to be the world’s greatest asshole.

    If nuclear didn’t constantly spew pollution out in public like some turrets syndrome mutant the NY times might have a point but the baseline of radiation releases they are referencing comes from the NRC and does not represent actual releases.

    I watched the Frontline whitewash last night and came to the conclusion that it was a tricky piece of propaganda that didn’t take in civilian readings japan and else where and kept talking about the publics fears as if they were unfounded. But this what happens when we install far to much power in the hands of a small group of individuals who are always attempting to avoid liability for the pollution they create that makes us sick and kills us.


    Report comment

  • sworldpeas

    We have a grid tied solar system on the roof, it supplies all our electric needs. We get about a $30.00 credit every month for extra energy. I haven’t had an electric bill since installation, 4 years ago. The financing, after rebates and a 10% down payment, was cheaper then our original electric bills.
    We bought an older ALL electric car that we charge with solar. I use it everyday to commute to work, 12 miles round trip. I don’t buy gas or change the oil, cha-ching! The lead acid batteries are 100% recyclable. I rarely use my gas guzzling truck anymore so a tank of gas last me a very long time.
    We also have a DIY solar hot water heater that cut our propane bill exactly in half.
    The end result is: We reduce our carbon footprint from an average 12,000 tonnes per year to less then 2,000 tonnes. We are adding value to the house by investing in it, instead of losing money by paying the electric companies. Now we are saving lots of money and the solar is actually paying us back. With all the savings our lifestyle has really improved by going green. Best part is I’m not part of the nuclear equation, I’m part of the solution.


    Report comment

    • Bobby1

      “We are adding value to the house by investing in it, instead of losing money by paying the electric companies. Now we are saving lots of money and the solar is actually paying us back.”

      The nuclear industry’s worst nightmare. The sun that shines down on everyone.


      Report comment

    • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

      Dear Sworld: Very inspiring. You set an excellent example!


      Report comment

    • aigeezer aigeezer

      Well done, sworldpeas.

      In my jurisdiction, the power company monopoly has managed to make it illegal for anyone to feed power back into the grid. They cite “safety concerns for their workers” as the reason.


      Report comment

      • sworldpeas

        Thanks guys!
        @aig We had a similar problem here. The electric co doesn’t want “do it yourselfers” hooking up to the grid without them knowing about it. People illegally back-loading electricity onto the gird is dangerous. If you “sign up” with your electric co legally and tell them then there shouldn’t be a problem. We had to agree to give our electric co 24 hour access so they could come and turn it off in the event of an emergency. In reality they turn it off at the pole not my box. I would be VERY VERY surprised to hear that nobody in your area has a legal grid tied system. Do us a favor, call your electric company or a solar installer and find out, I’d be interested to know… There is a lot of misinformation out there about solar.


        Report comment

        • aigeezer aigeezer

          Thanks sworldpeas.

          On your suggestion, I did some checking and found some good news.

          http://www.pollutionprobe.org/whatwedo/greenpower/consumerguide/c2_4.htm

          My own jurisdiction now DOES allow customers to feed power back into the grid, although the restrictions seem to include plenty of foot-dragging. Without boring you with detail, it seems that various governments in Canada have been leaning on the more reluctant power companies to “get with the program”, and it does look as though good things are starting to happen.

          As one example of what I perceive as “foot-dragging”, “meters suitable for this service can cost a customer $1,000 on top of the renewable energy system itself” – a quotation from about 2005.

          In the new fine print from my power company, they claim that they can not distinguish the (valuable, clean, renewable) energy I might sell to them and so they would credit any such contributions at the same rate they charge me for their (cheaper, non-renewable, coal-based) energy that they sell to me. Cute sleight-of-hand, but better than nothing.

          Anyway, hats off to you for actually doing it and I hope anyone reading this may get a pleasant surprise if they inquire about it now with their own power company. Things are changing after all – when I inquired about this kind of thing less than five years ago I was told point-blank by our installing electrician (and other sources) that it was against the law.


          Report comment

          • sworldpeas

            Very nice aig! Glad to hear it. Things are changing very rapidly with solar. What’s true today is not necessarily true tomorrow. We were faced with LOTS of foot-dragging and resistance, as expected. They have too much to lose if everyone saw how easy and CHEAP solar is. They purposefully make it difficult, BIG SURPRISE right? They do not want your $1.27 worth of solar. They encourage you to buy a system to supply JUST your needs and no more. If anything they want you to undersize it so you won’t back-load. I sized the system to fit the number of people the house was designed for, not just for the two of us. I know we had to have a new meter, can’t remember if it costs us anything or not… I’ll find out… but I don’t think it did.


            Report comment

    • Wooo hoooo…. Great example of how going GREEN PAYS YOU MONEY…

      When the solar system is paid off, that is $$$$$$ in your pocket every month..

      If you generate excess, you make even more $$$$$ when the utility PAYS YOU…

      We can do this people, on a COMMUNITY basis.. get the efficiency of scaling up and it pays off even faster.


      Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    The shills want Enenews to take the bait..and get involved in the nuke v.coal debate..
    This is meant to detract from the ONGOING nuclear disaster in Fukushima…
    It’s not going to work…!
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/crony_capitalism_and_obamas_anti-coal_crusade.html


    Report comment

    • aigeezer aigeezer

      Exactly. It’s called a “false dichotomy” precisely because it IS false. There are plenty of other options.

      I was just noticing that nuke power is allegedly 15% of total power in my country (Canada). It would certainly be easy-peasy for most of us to cut our energy consumption by that much. No need for new anything, just phase out the most dangerous source – nuke – and look around for other gains at the same time.


      Report comment

    • Tumrgrwer Tumrgrwer

      Yes Heart you are correct…shills everywhere.

      Let us be kind, one to another, for we are each of us together in our pain!


      Report comment

  • tjacoby

    [REMOVED. OFF-TOPIC. FINAL WARNING]


    Report comment