The lesson of Fukushima — Nuclear energy is safe

  • Fukushima

We often hear and read the phrase “The lessons learned from Fukushima.”

The phrase is frequently spoken in sombre tone, accompanied by knowing looks and the shaking of heads.

So what were the lessons learned from Fukushima? Quite simply they are that nuclear power has been proven to be much safer than anyone previously imagined.

The nuclear fraternity worldwide should have celebrated after the Fukushima drama. The world watched the entire saga, second by second…and what was the outcome?

Answer: total people killed by radiation, zero. Total injured, zero. Total private property damaged by radiation, zero. Expected long term effects on people; zero.

If scientists had wanted to design an intentional ‘crash experiment’ as is done

Dr. Kelvin Kemm

with motor cars in crash labs, there could not have been a better one than the reality which unfolded at Fukushima. A forty year old nuclear power plant, built to a sixty year old design, was struck by the largest earthquake on record. The reactors survived that with no problem. They shut down as designed. Then, 55 minutes later, the largest Tsunami on record arrived. The giant wall of water jumped the protective wall, and slammed into the nuclear plant. The plant survived that too…initially. But then previous bad management decisions came into play, like ghosts from the past.

Years earlier it had been decided to place the back-up diesel fuel tanks outdoors. Bad decision!

These tanks held the reserve fuel for the emergency diesel cooling pumps, to be used if and when the primary electrical pumps failed. The tsunami washed away the power lines supplying the electricity to the primary reactor cooling pumps…so they needed the diesel pumps…fast.

No fuel, it was all floating away with the rest of the debris from the smashed up houses, schools, police station, airport, shops, offices, harbour…you get the picture. The roads were gone, or blocked with debris; so no police, fire brigade, army units, were coming in to help.

The reactors all shut down correctly, no problem there, but hot reactor fuel needs to be water-cooled for two to five days after an emergency shutdown, to remove residual heat. In nuclear jargon this is known as ‘decay heat.’ So the reactor engineers started to work, with their backs to the wall, with no pumps and no help; the world was watching; and top management was yelling for fast answers. The whole scene, like a theatrical drama, could not have been worse.

As I said: if a scientific team had intentionally designed a lab crash test for a nuclear power plant, they could not have done better than the reality of Fukushima Daiichi.

In spite of this whole theatrical drama the result was…nobody killed or injured, and no indication of long term negative radiation effects on people. So the lesson of Fukushima is that nuclear power is much safer than people thought.

In April 2014, the Japanese government allowed the civilian population to return to the district of Miyakoji near Fukushima. In early 2013 the area had already been declared safe, from a radiological point of view, but the damage caused by the tsunami still had to be repaired; such as water supplies, sewerage, roads and so on.

This rebuilding of infrastructure was started in mid 2013. Rice was planted in May 2013.

People started returning incrementally, as they got their own houses operational again. In April local shops opened, refuse collection restarted and a health clinic and children’s play centre opened. A tourist attraction, the Tokiwa Sky Palace, opened for business as usual. Obviously it must be a very emotional experience to return to your home after a devastating tsunami has swept the area. The TV images of the surging water were horrific. Part of the elevated freeway near Miyakoji collapsed as a result of the tsunami, and the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has said that it will still take a couple of years to rebuild the road, so residents will have to make alternative plans in the meantime.

Earthquake and TsunamiThe world still watches Fukushima with morbid fascination. Strangely, the world media does not seem too concerned with the more than 15 000 people killed by the tsunami, or with the massive swathes of residential and industrial property pulverized by the tons of debris propelled by the mighty tsunami waters, like an armada of water-borne bulldozers.

Instead they watched the Fukushima plant workers fill hundreds of large water tanks with run off rain water and other waste water from the power station site. The water is labelled ‘radioactive.’

In reality, this water is so mildly radioactive that if a person drank nothing but that water for three months it would equal the radiation ingested by eating one restaurant portion of tuna.

Many people do not seem to realise that radiation is around all people all of the time. Natural radiation is constantly streaming down onto planet earth from the stars. The stars are all giant nuclear reactors. Radiation is also constantly coming up from the ground. This comes from the residual radiation in the earth, dating from when the earth cooled from a ball of molten goo, which included many radioactive elements.

United Nations Inspection

In January 2013 the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), was asked by the UN General Assembly to carry out a comprehensive study of the ‘full assessment of the levels of exposure and radiation risks’ to the people around Fukushima.

After two years of study UNSCEAR released its report which stated that rates of cancer, or hereditary diseases, were unlikely to show any discernible rise in the affected areas, because the radiation doses received by people were just too low.

In general, people living in the vicinity of Fukushima are expected to accumulate an additional lifetime dose of less than 10 mSv, compared to an average lifetime dose of 170 mSv for the average Japanese citizen, as received from all natural sources.

UNSCEAR also stated: ‘No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants.’

The Head of the World Nuclear Association; Agneta Rising, said that the UNSCEAR report “should greatly reassure those thinking of returning to evacuated areas.”

She added: “Experience has taught us that some measures to prevent radiation dose can be more damaging than the doses avoided. They also exacerbate fears that lead to social and economic suffering. We need practical measures for protecting people that also help them get on with their lives when the emergency is over.”

UNSCEAR also said that the potential for radiation effects in the wider Pacific Ocean are ‘insignificant.’ The scare mongers on the other hand, have reported claims of dead fish visible right across the Pacific Ocean, and even US navy sailors getting ill from radiation on an aircraft carrier. A video clip on the internet shows sailors sweeping a thick soap foam off the carrier flight deck, while the anti-nuclear commentary refers to radioactive ash, as if the visible while soap foam was actually radioactive ash.

The Other Fukushima

It is also instructive to note that there are two Fukushima nuclear power plants; Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini. Daiichi, meaning ‘number two’ was the one the world watched; Daini, meaning ‘number one’ fought its own battles, virtually unnoticed.

Fukushima Daini is 10 km to the south of Daiichi and it was also hit by the tsunami, which was far larger than Daini was designed for. In stark contrast to Daiichi, Daini withstood the onslaught with one power line and one diesel generator still intact. That made all the difference! The Daini operators also battled huge odds, with three of their four reactors lacking sufficient cooling power. But as a few days passed, the skilful operators were able to bring all the reactors to a state of cold shutdown, without radiation release, and without the major damage suffered at Daiichi.

So the Daini saga was a very interesting ‘control comparison’ which unfolded in parallel to the main drama, which played out only 10km away.

The Dose Counts

During the past century of nuclear technology worldwide, no harm whatsoever NRC Radiation doses and regulatory limitshas ever been detected in any person who received a radiation dose of less than 100 mSv in a very short space of time.

In fact, no harm has been detected as a result of doses more than twice that figure. Because nuclear radiation is itself an energy source, it is extremely easy to detect in extremely small quantities, so very mild radiation can easily be detected around Fukushima. It is of no health consequence to anybody. The only harm which is real is the public relations image harm to the Japanese government and the Management of TEPCO who spend their time apologising and falling over their own feet, rather than being scientifically realistic.

People worry about ‘migration through the soil’ and radiation getting into underground water, or into the sea. These mental images sound mysterious and scary, but reality is different.

Interestingly, the oldest nuclear reactors in the world are in Africa. They are more than 1.5 billion years old. They are natural reactors in the ground at a place in Gabon called Oklo and were discovered in 1972. Way back in geological time bacteria in some swampy ponds interacted with metals in the ground and caused natural uranium to concentrate in the ponds. The ratios of the uranium isotopes back then made it possible for a natural nuclear reaction to start in the ground, in the presence of water.

The operating natural reactors would have heated up and produced nuclear waste. They probably boiled off the water, over some period of time, and stopped working, until more water arrived, and so the cycle would have gone on until the fissionable uranium was largely used.

The French received a great surprise when they started mining uranium there in the 1970’s. They sent samples back to France and on analysis it was found that the uranium was depleted in the fissionable isotope – the portion needed to run nuclear power plants. They were amazed. This should have not been possible.

It looked like the Oklo uranium was conventional depleted uranium which had come out of an operating nuclear plant. On further investigation this turned out to be exactly the case. The Oklo reactors had run as natural reactors in the ground for very many years.

There is no sign of any nuclear radiation damage to any fauna and flora in the area, despite very many years of unhindered nuclear isotope migration.

Radiation Reality

We now need to take a moment to ponder what radiation actually is; and when and how it may be dangerous.

Imagine that you are in a room and that a radioactive brick is on the table on the other side of the room. If the total dose that you would receive from the brick, by being in the room, is less than about 100 mSv then it matters not the slighted that you would sit in the room with the radioactive brick. In fact you can eat your lunch without any concern.

When you go home and walk out of the room, and close the door, the radiation falling on you is gone, totally. When you go home you are carrying no radiation whatsoever, and you are 100% safe.

The further you walk away from a source of radiation the weaker it gets, very rapidly. The dose received can be compared to that of light. As you walk away from a glowing light bulb the amount of light falling on you decreases fast. Same with radiation coming from a single source.

Now we come to the term, radioactive ‘contamination’ which historically was a bad choice of term, but we have to live with it now. If my mythical radioactive brick was ground up into fine powder and then put in a bowl in the room, together with an electric fan we would have radioactive dust flying about and landing on everything, including you and your lunch.

The chair, table, carpet, lunchbox are all then said to be ‘contaminated’ with radioactive dust. ‘Contamination’ is fine mobile radioactive material like dust.

When the dust lands on your clothes you would not be permitted to go home with the clothes, carrying the dust. You would have to take all the clothes off and have a shower and a good scrub. A Geiger counter would then be used to determine if any dust were still on you.

When the radiation inspector deemed you to be ‘clean’ you would be allowed to go home…wearing some other clothes, because your dust laden clothes would be buried in a nuclear waste repository, according to a legally verified nuclear waste processing protocol. You could go home, having had a fright, but being perfectly safe.

However, if the radioactive dust landed on your lunch, and you then ate it, you would have a potential problem because the radioactive material would be inside you and then can’t easily be ‘washed away.’

Worse still would be if you had got a great surprise to see all the radioactive dust swirling around and you had taken a great gasp and sucked the radioactive dust into your lungs.

The dust in your stomach would mostly pass right through your gut and then out in a couple of days, presenting a reasonably minor risk. Radioactive dust in lungs is a different matter.

Even dust in lungs would mostly be ejected by the normal bodily lung cleaning mechanism, but a very small amount could get stuck in the lung lining for years. It is this dust, stuck in one place, slowly irritating one spot for years, which can lead to the nucleation of a cancer.

So, by far the greatest human danger resulting from any release from an accident such as Fukushima, is mobile radiation, usually dust, which is known as contamination. Breathing in radioactive contamination is much worse than eating it.

If somebody were to go home with radioactive dust on their clothes and then hug their child, the child could breathe in the dust. That is why the authorities worry so much about contamination and so cordon off areas. They worry about wind direction, or vehicles leaving the scene which could carry dust.

That is why the nuclear plant workers sometimes wear those spaceman-like suits; to stop dust getting on them, not to stop radiation.

Gama radiation will go clean through those suits. The suits stay behind when the worker goes home.

Fear and Pressure

As the residents of the Fukushima region return to their homes one really does have to ask: what were the lessons learned?

One is that nuclear was shown to be extremely safe. But another is; that far more needs to be done to educate the public and the authorities about the true nature of nuclear power and nuclear radiation.

The Japanese authorities completely overreacted by removing so many people from their homes around Fukushima. The residents suffered huge trauma as a result of the forced evacuations. They would have been much safer staying in their homes. No doubt, media pressure and associated world public scare played a major role in inducing the Japanese authorities to act the way they did.

It is currently playing a role in causing the Japanese authorities to continue acting the way they are. They should rather be using science and not superstition.

Hopefully as time passes, the real truth of Fukushima will be recorded in history and not the knee-jerk scares which have tended to gain centre stage.



Dr. Kemm’s earlier article, Physicist: There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster, remains one of the most popular on


About the Author: Kelvin Kemm

Kelvin Kemm

Dr Kelvin Kemm is the CEO of Nuclear Africa, a nuclear project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa. He is a member of the International Board of Advisors of CFACT. Dr. Kemm received the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa.

  • Michael Mann

    The truth is nuclear professionals have learned much from Fukushima, lessons which make existing power plants even safer and new designs able to withstand even more extremely harsh conditions and remain viable. Like your analogy of crash test dummies which enabled much safer cars, the nuclear power leaders take operating experience seriously, yes nuclear energy is safer than we thought, but that is not an excuse to accept the status quo, we need to keep improving this technology. We never want to use the public to test just how safe nuclear power really is.

    • Richard Martin

      Nuclear power was projected, even as late as 1995 in one NRC comissioined report I viewed, to have an average reactor failure rate of 1 every 1,000,000 years.

      But in reality it is over 1 in 100, of 400 reactors, 5 have been completely destroyed. lies.

      • Michael Mann

        Not exactly, Nuclear power was first achieved about 60 years ago. The 582 operational reactors that have been built since account for about 14,400 reactor years. The numbers above imply that this should have resulted in less than one accident. However, of these 582 reactors, 11 have suffered from serious core damage,[6] resulting in a historical accident rate of 1 in every 1,309 reactor years. In five of these accidents, the damage was light enough that the reactor was repaired and restarted.

        • Richard Martin

          Thanks for clarifying, a major failures every 5 years or so…..

          • Michael Mann

            If there were no upgrades and people were to build plants designed 50-60 years ago, which to me seems to be s foolish assumption. Since all existing plants have been upgraded to prevent recurrence. Either someone is being misleading on purpose or lacks understanding.

    • Scottar

      Not that I’m antinuclear but the Fukushima meltdown could have been prevented if TEPCO would have allowed outside assistance.

      • Michael Mann

        Yes, I agree, hindsight is 20-20 immediate assistance, initial design, prompt upgrades any one of which may have prevented the meltdowns. In fact a nuclear power station closer to the epicenter and experiencing a higher tsunami survived with minor damage and became a haven for local people.

        • Scottar

          I was talking about when the US offered to bring in generators to keep the cooling pumps going. TEPCO in it’s arrogant pride refused the assistance indicating it would manage on it’s own. Pride goethe before a fall the saying goes. In this case the fall was tragic and unnecessary.

    • Brian

      Gosh, nuclear power industry pr folks agree:nuclear is great!

      fukushimariskcalc.pdf 200,000 people will die from the 400,000 cancer they will get.

      No it’s not safe. that doesn’t even include the million year wastes.

      Nuclear will be short of fuels in just ten years according to the IAEA after only 40 years or so of providing 2% of the worlds energy demand, costs 4 times available solar and wind according to Lazard, takes 12 years to install at which time solar and wind will be available for 16 times less. Each nuclear power plant generates 27 tons of deadly million years, billion dollar to store in dry casks for 100,000 years, spent fuel rod waste. Each year, each plant produces up to 2M tons of toxic mining wastes.

      • Michael Mann

        Yes nuclear energy has the potential to improve the standard of living around the world, while mitigating climate change and pollution, it could even get rid of all the “million year waste”, pretty sweet isn’t it.

      • Brian

        No matter how many times I prove the nuclear power 2% of our energy and shrinking, with uranium for on 10 years, costing 4 times available solar and wind, taking 12 years to install, bankrupting investors, blocking solar and wind with it’s inflexibility, and killing millions… has NO PLACE IN OUR ENERGY MIX. The pro nuclear PR drones just repeat the same false talking points.

        No, you can’t get rid of the million years waste, pretty deceptive, isn’t it.

        • Michael Mann

          Solar power is less than 1/10 the electricity of nuclear power, so do you think that solar has NO PLACE IN OUR ENERGY MIX?

        • Brian

          Nuclear power is declining from 2% of the world’s energy is is short of uranium in ten years. Yet so pro nu clear folks think since nuclear power is 10 times solar pv at the moment, solar pv is better. Amazing logic. Solar is doubling every 2 years, and solar bad iwnd are the majority of new power installs. so let’s do the math. 300 GWp 2 years, 500 GWp, 4 years, 900 GWp 8 years, 1700 GWp 10 years. And guess what? solar will never run out of fuel.

          Nuclear power is deadly, limited, expensive, slow, inflexible and has no place in the worlds future energy mix.

          • Michael Mann

            In 2015, solar and wind power accounted for only 0.6 and 4.7 percent of electricity generated in America. Nuclear power accounted for 19% yet Brian seems to think 19% is insignificant when compared to 0.6 % please go back to school Brian… It’s been pointed out that there is plenty of nuclear fuel for the next several centuries with current technology and many times that with newer technology. Brian’s arguments do not make sense, yet he continues to repeat his mistaken assertions.

          • Brian

            Notice the old Solar pv is too small to every grow big argument.

            They then use the USA percentage instead of the world ones.

            Uranium will be short in ten years according to the RAR numbers from the IAEA.

            Notice the pro nuclear pr folks don’t say we have anough uranium, they say enough fuel, as if there were any reactor that did not need uranium in the commercial fleet.

            • Mike Carey

              Oh, Brian, still talking to yourself, I see, and with such a short memory.

              Remember this IAEA information on uranium availability that you have seen before?

              “By the year 2035, world nuclear electricity generating
              capacity is projected to grow from 372 GWe net (at the end of 2013) to between 399 GWe net in the low demand case and 678 GWe net in the high demand case, increases of 7% and 82% respectively. Accordingly, world annual reactor-related uranium requirements are projected to rise from 59 170 tonnes of uranium metal (tU) at the end of 2013 to between 72 205 tU and 122 150 tU by 2035. The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 and well into the foreseeable future.”

              Other readers will recall that Brian constantly repeats the same misinformation over and over for reasons only known to him. He is prolific, though, with over 19,000 such comments so far in his “private” profile. I wonder why?
              Take care, Brian.

              • Brian

                Read the rearmost and look at the graph. The cherry projection summery is just that: a summery. It assumes more then RAR.

                Did ya notice they didn’t say RAR. The graph clearly shows RAR will be short in 2025.

                They are including “probably” and “I sure wish” resources.

                You know what’s really funny? I have you arguing ten years or 20 years. You lost already.

                Nuclear is no solution to any energy problem.

                • Mike Carey

                  Here you go Brian, try reading this again:

                  “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 AND WELL INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.”

                  English is your *first* language, right?
                  Take care.

                  • Brian

                    Home Schooled? RAR. Where does it define that? Where does it show that it will be adequate.

                    Folks read the linked report. clearly the data says it will be short in 2025. The wild eye optimism says 2035.

                    And nuclear power is supposed to help us how?

                    • Mike Carey

                      One more time, Brian, pay attention:
                      “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 AND WELL INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.”
                      Take care.

                    • Brian

                      ONE MORE TIME: IT”S NOT FACTS! IT”S AN OPINION IN THE CONCLUSIONS. Go ahead, tell us what “sources” of fuels it includes beside RAR. You won’t, because it’s fantasy, and you are selling PR.

                    • Mike Carey

                      Exactly right, Brian! Your opinions don’t matter.

                      But calm down with the all caps shouting for a minute.

                      But why would anyone believe YOUR opinions on nuclear fuel availability when YOU rely on the very same IAEA source for YOUR claim that there will not be enough fuel available in 10 years?

                      You use the IAEA Red Book information to make your claims, and then you say THEIR conclusions from that same data are not valid. If you don’t think they are reliable, then go find some other more credible source to support your position. I have already showed you OTHER sources that agree with the Red Book.

                      That would really be a common sense action on your part for a change. Take care.

                    • Brian

                      You have showed nothing. But you palls in the pro nuclear pr industry will fav you anyway. Read the links folks.

                      He want’s you to believe the pro nuclear PR agency “data free” conclusions. He did just what I said he would. He will not state what “sources” the conclusions presume. Because it’s fantasy.

                    • Mike Carey

                      Gosh, Brian, your memory is fading as fast as your typing skills.

                      Here is the abstract of the other published paper that I HAVE previously shown to you. The “sources” of the conclusions in the Red Book are contained in that publication itself. You know, the one you keep referring to? Take care.
                      Long-term outlook for global natural uranium and uranium enrichment supply and demand
                      situations after the impact of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident

             Matsuo, Yuhji (Inst. of Energy Economics, Energy Data and Modelling Center (EDMC), Tokyo (Japan)); Murakami, Tomoko (Inst. of Energy Economics, Strategy Research Unit, Tokyo (Japan)), E-mail:

                      [en] In this paper, the authors propose long-term projections of global nuclear power generation,
                      uranium production, and uranium enrichment capacities by region, and estimate the
                      trade flows of natural uranium and uranium enrichment activities in 2020 and 2035.
                      In spite of the rapid nuclear power generation capacity growth expected especially
                      in Asia, the natural uranium and uranium enrichment trade will not be tightened by
                      2020 due to the projected increase in both natural uranium production and uranium
                      enrichment capacities, which may cause a drop in natural uranium and uranium enrichment
                      prices. Thus, there is a great possibility that the current projects for capacity
                      expansion will be delayed considerably. However, in the ‘high-demand scenario’, where
                      nuclear expansion will be accelerated due to growing concerns about global warming
                      and energy security issues, additional investments in uranium production and enrichment
                      facilities will be needed by 2035. In Asia, the self-sufficiency ratio for both natural
                      uranium supply and uranium enrichment activities will remain relatively low until
                      2035. However, the Herfindahl-Hirschman (HH) index of natural uranium and uranium
                      enrichment activity trade to Asia will be lowered considerably up to 2035, indicating
                      that nuclear capacity expansion can contribute to enhancing energy security in Asia.

                    • Brian

                      Nope. Where is the projected increase going to come from. You refuse to say. Your link does not work.

                      RAR is clear. Read the IAEA document folks, Look at the graphs.

                    • Mike Carey

                      Of course, Brian, anyone can read the IAEA document and look at their graphs.

                      Again, here is what it says:
                      “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 AND WELL INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.”

                      And here again is what that other source says that you have now seen many times:
                      “However, the Herfindahl-Hirschman (HH) index of natural uranium and uranium enrichment activity trade to Asia will be lowered considerably up to 2035, indicating that nuclear capacity expansion can contribute to ENHANCING energy security in Asia.”

                      Take care, Brian.

                    • Brian

                      Gee, currency defined. You know that includes probably and possible reserves, right? Of course you do. It also include alternate methods that don’t exist commercially.

                      RAR. that is the standard, the one you CANNOT admit, because it’s your job not to.

                      RAR. Get it? Reasonably assure resources. Get it yet?

                    • Mike Carey

                      This is really simple stuff, Brian, I’m sure you can figure it out.
                      The RAR was “currently defined” in – wait for it – 2 0 0 1 .
                      Got it now? Take care.

                    • Brian

                      And it was the same in the 2014 report too. Get it now? The same date 2025 in the graph.

                    • Mike Carey

                      Oh, Brian, here it is again form the 2014 report:
                      “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to
                      meet high-case requirements through 2035 AND WELL INTO THE FORESEEABLE

                      Such a waste of time for you to deny the obvious.
                      Take care.

                    • Brian

                      Again, that includes “possible reserve” speculative reserves” new extraction methods, breeders and reprocessing! None of which are real commercial.

                      You believe the pr from the pr agency and igrnoer the RAR facts.

                      good troll.

                    • Mike Carey

                      Oooh, Brian, do you have to be abusive to make your case now?

                      So, as i see your argument here it goes like this:
                      – see this *2 0 0 1* IAEA speculative report on uranium resources is really great because it estimates that there could be a shortage
                      – now, don’t look at the later IAEA reports of uranium resources, well, because, they don’t agree with my scary predictions anymore.

                      Let me repeat it for you:
                      “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 AND WELL INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.”

                      Take care.

                    • Mike Carey

                      Of course, Brian, anyone can read the IAEA document and look at their graphs.

                      Again, here is what it says:
                      “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 AND WELL INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.”

                      And here is what that other source says that you have now seen many times:
                      “However, the Herfindahl-Hirschman (HH) index of natural uranium and uranium enrichment activity trade to Asia will be lowered considerably up to 2035, indicating that nuclear capacity expansion can contribute to ENHANCING energy security in Asia.”

                      Take care, Brian.

                    • Brian

                      Again you refuse to explian for the readers what they are counting besides RAR. You have to, it’s your job. Again you quote the pr, and not the numbers. Again you report PR instead of facts. Over and Over again. That’s what your job is.

                    • Mike Carey

                      Brian, it is YOUR claim that there is not enough uranium available.

                      YOU have to justify that statement based on something other than YOUR confused understanding of what the IAEA says.

                      Again, if you don’t like the TWO sources I have provided, find at least ONE of your own. Take care.

                    • Brian

                      I have been quite clear: RAR. You have continued to evade. I have presented other sources as well. 10 years till shortage. fact.

                    • Mike Carey

                      So, again Brian, ‘your’ “lies can be infinitely creative”.
                      Take care.

                    • Brian

                      Yes your are.

                    • Mike Carey

                      Your words, Brian.
                      “Lies can be infinitely creative”.
                      Take care.

                    • Brian

                      My words, your words are always different lies, haven’t ya noticed? You accused me of saying the same thing.

                    • Mike Carey

                      No, Brian, I’ve accused you of being totally hilarious.

                      Like just now –
                      “And, NOW, you want me to explain why YOUR source, the IAEA, is not credible when it reports in *2 0 1 4* that –
                      “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 AND WELL INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.”

                      That really is hilarious. Take care.

                    • Design Build

                      The fact that the Atomic industry has shill-trolls on comment sections speaks volumes as to what their true agenda is.
                      Putin employs people to do the same.
                      They lose.

                    • Michael Mann

                      The facts are that nuclear energy is currently the safest way to produce electricity

                    • Brian

                      What’s hilarious is you think you are winning the argument. You fellow trolls fav you and you get inspired.

                      Ask yourselves a few questions. What is “the foreseeable future”?

                      Well, that’s what you think you can predict.

                      How many years is that.

                      Please, tell us all. It will be amusing.

                    • Mike Carey

                      Oh, Brian, you are just so hilarious.

                      YOU are trying to make the case that something that that the IAEA said was “currently defined” in – wait for it – 2 0 0 1 – is still the best available indication that there will be a uranium fuel shortage sometime in the future.

                      And, NOW, you want me to explain why YOUR source, the IAEA, is not credible when it reports in *2 0 1 4* that –
                      “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 AND WELL INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.”

                      That really is hilarious. Take care.

                    • Mike Carey

                      By the way, Brian, when you cite the IAEA document saying,
                      “As we look to the future, presently known resources
                      fall short of demand” –
                      why did you fail to tell everyone reading your comments that it was copyrighted in – wait for it – 2 0 0 1 ?

                      You know what folks say about those who keep doing, and saying, the same thing over and over and over with no result, right?
                      Take care, Brian.

                    • Brian

                      Truth doesn’t change, lies can be infinity creative.

                    • Mike Carey

                      Yes, of course, Brian, ‘your’ “lies can be infinitely creative”.
                      Take care.

                    • Brian

                      RAR dude, deal with it. 10 years till shortage.

                    • Mike Carey

                      The Red Book report hasn’t changed, Brian.
                      Deal with it –
                      “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 AND WELL INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.”
                      Take care.

                    • Brian

                      It includes possible resources and new tech.

                      You believe a pr agency’s pr. You poor child.

                    • Mike Carey

                      More hilarity from you, Brian!

                      YOU are claiming, now, that the source YOU use for your erroneous claim that there will be a uranium fuel shortage is – wait for it – “a pr agency”.

                      Which is it Brian?
                      – Why were you a dupe of the IAEA’s “pr” when you used their outdated *2 0 0 1* analysis
                      – but now their updated *2 0 1 4* report is just more “pr” when it says,
                      “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to
                      meet high-case requirements through 2035 AND WELL INTO THE FORESEEABLE

                      This is just too funny, Brian. Take care.

                    • Brian

                      You read the pr conclusions instead of the data, and you want folks to do the same. But you pro nuclear pr fans fav you, so you think you making a point.

                      If they aren’t Reasonably Assured Resources, then they are



                    • Mike Carey

                      Wrong, Brian.

                      You have been caught using a 2 0 0 1 IAEA analysis to pretend that there was a shortage of “currently defined uranium resources”, when in fact the much more recent 2 0 1 4 IAEA Red Book presented their data to conclude –
                      “The currently defined uranium resource base IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE to meet high-case requirements through 2035 AND WELL INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.”

                      That is not truthful, Brian. It is one of many reasons that *no one* believes anything you write without independent verification.

                      Take care.

                    • greenthinker2012

                      Also if Brian is using a 2001 IAEA document to draw his conclusion that the world will run out of Uranium in 10 years then he still must admit his conclusion was flawed because 15 years after the report was issued (2016) we still have plenty of uranium.

            • Michael Mann

              Brian, I never said it was too small to grow big, I just showed how tiny it was compared to nuclear generation.

              • Brian

                Nuclear power is too small to matter. 2% we can easily replace.

                Solar though currently small, is growing exponentially. Silicon solar pv has no material limitations and is 4 times cheaper.

                It odes not melt down either.

                • Michael Mann

                  You’re funny, 2% is too small to matter, but 1/25th of that is significant.

                  • Brian

                    Yes, because 2% and short of fuel soon and moribund. Versus doubling every 2 years and with free fuel forever. hard to understand?

                    • Michael Mann

                      So in two years it’s 1/12 two years later 1/6 two years later 1/3 that’s assuming that it can ramp up as fast with much larger total requirements of materials, waste and manufacturing? It’s not me that seems to have trouble understanding.

                    • Brian

                      Really fractional math? Zeno’s paradox. You though you clever, huh? You really lost your soul.

        • Design Build

          Brian, they’re so desperate to hold on to what they’re losing rather than switch to a new, safe energy source. What’s the saying about old dogs?
          Truth always prevails. Even if it takes a few decades to get out.

        • Brian

          Notice the reply has no content.

        • Karen Orlando

          Brian does this currently show nuclear in the united states energy mix? (PS. This chart only shows electricty generation…if you notice there is just this tiny little sliver that says petroleum and when you consider that petroleum is the most used fuel then in the united states I guess you will get a sense that just this graph alone doesn’t cover the whole energy picture.)

          Why would you want to get rid of this chunk of that graph that shows nuclear and electricty production in the present?

    • Chronic Pain Coop

      Michael the Maniac Mann will sell his own mother to promote nuclear power.

      • Michael Mann

        What do people do when the have nothing to back up their statements? They make up silly names and accusations. You discredit yourself with every post.

    • Design Build

      Rather than come off as a selfish shill, powered by the fear for your flailing career-choice built upon selling the public an inefficient use of decommissioned nuclear warheads under the guise of “nuclear power.”
      Can you do anything useful(selfless) with your life… for the benefit of successive generations, for once?
      Write a book for the masses about the truth of the nuclear fallout (Cs-137, Cs-134, Ba137m, Pu-239) and radioactive exposure from Fukushima. It’ll sell.

      • Michael Mann

        Nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. I post under my actual name. I am not a shill, that is a construct of your imagination, I am not paid to post, I am at retirement age, so I have no financial incentive to post. All I have is the truth and science, how could I hope to compete with innuendo and fear. I am however a technician with over 35 years experience, who can see that clean energy is necessary for a better future. you can listen to people who are paid to induce irrational fear, uncertainty and doubt. Or you could educate yourself , it’s your choice. Whenever people have no facts they make up stuff, like this shill accusation, they know it’s false but they make it anyway to distract people from the issue at hand, Knowledge is better than fear!

        • Design Build

          Come down from that pedestal of yours.
          Nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear weapons?
          Why is it so hard for the United States to determine whether or not Iran’s Uranium enrichment is for “peaceful purposes”?
          You’re not a shill because you use your own name?
          Who said shills aren’t real people with “real” jobs?
          Your industry is a cancer,(no pun intended) you have no remorse, and you psychopaths should be ashamed.

      • Michael Mann

        Why would you post lies?

      • Michael Mann

        I currently ensure the safe operation of a nuclear power plant, providing safe, reliable, clean electricity to about 500,000 homes, avoiding millions of tonnes of carbon emissions. I believe that is pretty important, what do you do? Somehow an anonymous rude post from you without any real information isn’t going to affect me one way or another. You don’t want truth, you want fiction, which seems to be your area of expertise.

  • bbarnicle

    Based on the current U.S. regime’s actions to kill coal, deny domestic oil drilling, oppose fracking, and even the solar scandals, I conclude that it’s all their agenda to remove all competing energy sources – any energy that competes with foreign oil.

    So, based on real actions, I conclude that this article is probably right about nuclear power. And the hype to discredit nuclear power is from foreign oil powers. Ask yourself how “the War on Coal”, anti-fracking, the BP spill (domestic oil), the President’s ignoring of a judge’s decree to allow domestic oil permits, anti-Keystone Pipeline (bi-partisan support), solar scandals/failures, and the Fukushima nuclear ‘disaster’ all have in common, and all in such a short period of time. These anti-foreign oil efforts are beyond normal coincidence.

    • d-dectiri

      Exactly the opposite conclusion makes more sense.. the attacks and rigged disasters are to PROTECT THE WARHEAD INDUSTRY FROM THE DISCOVERY AND AWARENESS OF THORIUM ALTERNATIVES and end the hegemony of the uranium nukes….

      Look at the timing… the uranium nukes are all 50 years old or thereabouts and are facing their natural demise and need for re-licensing so it’s those who want to PROTECT THE URANIUM NUKES who deny us decent adequate energy resources to take their place and shut the door on re-licensing

      The foreign oil barons are in no need of such heavy lifting when all they need to do is PLAY WITH THE PRICE OF OIL the way they are doing now… they destroyed Russia back in the 80s playing that card, simultaneously destroyed the nascent solar and wind in the US and now taking down the tarsands oil, all with the flick of the price fingers

      • bbarnicle

        You’re a step ahead of me. Very interesting.

      • psychicbloodbrother

        Where did you get your degree in oppression studies?

  • Brant Ra


    How could nuclear power be considered safe when they are dumping radioactive water.

    “As of now of now, there are multiple NPP workers who have died, but only the ones who died on the job are reported publicly. Some of them have died suddenly while off work, for instance, during the weekend or in their sleep, but none of their deaths are reported. …

    “Not only that, they are not included in the worker death count. For example, there are some workers who quit the job after a lot of radiation exposure, such as 50, 60 to 70 mili Sieverts, and end up dying a month later, but none of these deaths are either reported, or included in the death toll. This is the reality of the NPP workers”.

    • Brin Jenkins

      Yawn.. wake up its all about bringing on an energy crisis for political purposes. A 20% short fall will cripple us, and 50% most certainly collapse society.

      Global Warming is fraudulent science and Marxism leads to the ant heap that will be trimmed back in size.

      • d-dectiri

        Globbal warming is definitely a fraud BUT SO ARE URANIUM BASED NUKES… the military industrial complex is feverishly trying to cover up the HORRORS OF URANIUM NUKES LEST THEIR DEMISE SHUT OFF THE TAP FOR WARHEADS AND PERPETUAL WARFARE…

        If you want nuclear energy that lives up to the power and clean AS WELL AS BEING DISASTER-PROOF, YOU NEED TO SWITCH TO THORIUM NUKES…

        The thoriums were developed and came thru excellent but their materials processing disadvantages the warhead warmongers as well as other terrorists all the way back in the 60s and 70s… the McCarthyites won the day for the uranium nukes and the truth (of NUCLEAR WASTE WITH NO END AND THE INCREDIBLE HAZARD DIFFERENCE) was hidden in the industrial frenzy to launch their infrastructure covered with golden promises that glorious science would make it all clean and safe SOON… all a lie to support the production nuclear warheads.

        The writer defending fukushima is a warmonger-serving flunky mouthpiece protecting his own income. TEACH him or trash him…… ttyl

        • Scottar

          It depends on the reactor design. Some nukes were geared toward plutonium production, a necessary ingredient for nuke bombs. Bomb grade uranium has to be enriched by centrifuges.

          Back when they where experimenting with thorium reactors the DOE abandoned that over plotonium producing reactors for bomb making at the height of the cold war with Russia.

          There are more asymmetrical ways to destroy a country now over nuclear mass destruction.

          I’m all for 4th and 5th designs and thorium reactors but there are still technical issues to overcome.

          Those who think renewables will replace fossils are living in fantasy land.

          • d-dectiri

            Thorium beats the others hands down for multiple reasons….
            1) it ends the developing inundation of the western world (or whomever they can dupe) with MILLENNIUMS of nuclear waste LIABILITY
            2) THORIUM IS UNIVERSALLY ABUNDANT… so even 3rd world struggling peoples can build their future without being hostages of those who own current limited resources

            The only place I’ve seen a credible calculation of how we could eventually be strongly and desirably more renewables oriented for sustainability is in work done by Amory Lovins… quite a display of energy “choreography” with long term clearly needed which was reviewed at several places, one of which was IndyMichael(dot)net, but it was a few posts ago….

            • Scottar

              I’m well aware of the thorium reactor technology, I have several technical presentations/articles on it. What you need is a realistic view on nuclear technology because you have a distorted view on it.


              And on that site is a PDF file: HOW TO MAKE NUCLEAR

              It will update you on the status of the nuclear technologies.

              I have been to Lovin’s site and although he is great at innovation on energy efficiencies he was biased on renewables and there capabilities. The fuel that renewables depend on is anywhere from 0.1% to 5% that of coal. You can’t effectively harvest that. Wind and PV solar are good for remote or things like pumping or heating water. You might as well try to mine gold out of the oceans when it comes to supplying grid power.

              • d-dectiri

                Well it’s NOT so clear that you understand that NUKE WASTE DISPOSAL IS *NOT* JUST A POLITICAL ISSUE as your ‘breakthrough’ agenda CONVENIENTLY ATTEMPTS TO MAKE THE READER SWALLOW……

                and i’d question your allegiance to truth since those ‘breakthrough’ claims you propose we should listen to, are to convince the global warming believers that only nukes can save us… rather like speaking out of both sides of your mouth…

                So of the savior models all that’s left is thorium molten salt fast reactors… the others with claims of reusing the toxic stuff admit they would never use it all gone…. just never getting out and generating more with running on new uranium.. unsatisfactory (except for ONE dedicated strictly for spent fuels and when that’s done only thorium is allowable in that one also)… end the toxic waste creating, we will not have it… politically and medically you’re done…….

                • Scottar

                  It’s obvious to me now that your some kind of nut. Although Breakthrough might justify it’s nuclear advocacy for solving the bogus AGW claim their info is spot on. All you do is give incoherent, unsupported ranting, about what some AGWer alarmist would rant.

                  Rant away loon, many won’t be paying too much attention.

                  • d-dectiri

                    “spot on” rotfl.. ONLY IF YOU WANT THE MASSIVE NUCLEAR TOXIC WASTE DISASTER THEY HIDE AS UNIMPORTANT (so they can ignore it in their spot-on analysis)…. now that’s sheer loonacy… try hiding yours

                    • Scottar

                      What I would expect from a loony, alarmist nut. Thanks for proving my point- all rant, no facts.

                    • d-dectiri

                      Apparently your closed mind is unable to read the facts as we have and emphasized — in your own doc at breakthrough– where the con-artists eliminate consideration of the toxic nuclear waste AS MERELY A POLITICAL ISSUE… rotfl..

                      and your favored breakthrough ‘conclusions’ fall on their face if that’s disputed… READ your own DOC SO YOU’LL HAVE THE FACTS WE PUT IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC… assuming you’re interestingly able to notice facts in front of your face……. otherwise you’re the ranting fool that all (who read the doc’s premises) can see is falsely hiding your fraud’s exposure

                    • Scottar

                      Well if you actually read and comprehended the pdf file you would know it’s not about an emotional issue, it’s a technical issue, and I think breakthrough is biased on AGW anyhow. But that pdf file was spot on about the technical hurtles that remain. Where do we have a working thorium reactor? The feasibility is there, as with the others 4th or 5th geners.

                      But granddad told me you cant argue or talk to a nut, all you can do is crack them. rotfl-rotfl-rotfl-!

                      Take a hike you nut quacker!

                    • d-dectiri

                      FACTS are that there was a thoroughly WORKING THORIUM REACTOR 50 YEARS AGO… when the warhead droolers chucked our chance to have decent nuke power.

                      What there is now is NO-NONE-ZIP ALTERNATIVE since all of them continue the march to doom with their production of toxic waste that already exceeds yucca’s full capacity and is not wanted anywhere because it is lethally dangerous without end… so the technical diddling is pointless, not ‘on point’…

                      too bad your granddad isn’t here to show you that your breakthrough bogosity report is the ‘nut’…

                    • Scottar

                      Too bad you can’t verify the claim as I’m also aware that research was proceeding on a thorium reactor engine for long range bombers back during the cold war but then came along ABM missiles and the energy department wanted reactors that could produce plutonium for the nuclear warheads. So the thorium research essentially got canned.

                      But I ask you for a link, not more buttspew, there’s plenty of that going around. There are technical issues with the various thorium designs that need to be proven out and that will take time, especially with the draconian regulations of the NRC. But that issue seems to evade you.

                      And you can’t rule out other 4th and 5th gen designs, you can’t hang the energy future just on one type of technology.

                      And as long as other countries have Nukes then we will need more plutonium to replenish the aging stocks as the warhead degrade with time.

                      So take your head out of your ass, it’s not a sure thing from what I have read. In fact I have read of other technology, not renewables, that can supersede fission nuclear reactors presently that works off the sun, but it may be just wannabe technology which has happened before. Just look up Dennis Lee on his bogus free energy generator.

                    • d-dectiri

                      Check the memoirs of Alvin Weinberg of Oak Ridge Natnl Labs for the work he did in testing MOLTEN SALT NUKES on the THORIUM path and in OPERATION from 1965 to about 1969… including demonstrating its extreme safety… IIRC he regretted the choice and was vocal about it…

                      As for the need for more warheads, the recent evaluation of the handling of those “protections” for our country, we’ve come closer to NUKING OURSELVES so many times that you’d wonder whether we shouldn’t donate them to our enemies……

                    • Scottar

                      “Check the memoirs of Alvin Weinberg of Oak Ridge Natnl Labs”–

                      There are various designs of MSR both thorium and uranium:




                      But according to this site there are still problems.


                      And note the validation schedule.

                      Reference: Molten Salt Reactor Systems

                      Then there is this MSR design that can burn up waste and old Nuke fuel.


                      Integral Molten Salt Reactor

                      And besides that I have various files on various Thorium designs.

                      So I don’t understand why you are so stuck on one engineers belief when there has not been full testing done how more or less advocated it in an AGW panic mode. His passion could have made him overlook things. According to SNETP he apparently ran his prototype somewhat crippled but it’s duration and safety is notable.

                      “As for the need for more warheads”–

                      The defense department having no nukes is like the army having no guns, we could get rid of ours if they got ride of there’s- but that’s not what’s happening. In fact Russia is building more, as is China and then there’s Iran and their Kabuki claims. If BO doesn’t stand up to Iran then Israel may likely initiate WWIII, and don’t think the Russians or Chinese would be afraid to use them.

                      In fact the most likely scenario is a EMP nuke weapon that would easily take down the grid since Congress stupidly won’t take preventive measures. Instead the “progressives” are throwing money at renewables which don’t really do much for energy on the grid. ”You talk like some dumbass millennial.

        • psychicbloodbrother

          Touche, the writer trashing Fukishima would also be a peacemonger-serving flunky mouthpiece. Nice side track. While there is much truth in your posts your last sentence is irresponsible and emotional giving away your true intentions. I agree that Thorium and a modern nuclear solution is an answer BTW, but I am not a nuclear scientist. ……..”Peace is a dream, reality is a knife”

          • d-dectiri

            Wow what a crime against humanity, being a ‘peacemonger mouthpiece’… Thank you for the compliment…..

            Maybe ‘reality’ wouldn’t be such a ‘knife’ if universally it was possible to achieve abundance… my what a dream WORTH PURSUING… agreed?

            Or is your nihilism overwhelming your ability to plan and execute….

            Even renewables have their place and it might even be substantial if we can eliminate the frozen idea that criminals can thrive…… don’t you agree?

            Clearly you have been injured…. as have we…..

            • psychicbloodbrother

              Objectivism is a treatment for nihilism. We will not return to the garden and we will never find the pot of gold at the end of the utopian rainbow. Individual salvation will bring about inner peace, narrow is the path that leadeth to life, and few there be that find it.

    • Gold Stars

      Did you even read the article?

      • psychicbloodbrother

        The progressive mindset is impermeable to facts, reason, logic and evidence. The ability to leap reality in a single bound !!!

  • FreemenRtrue

    the money wasted on AGW and ‘green’ power should be used to develop small scale, modular, fail safe reactors such as Babcock & Wilcox have in process; or on fusion research; or on burning spent fuel; or on Thorium reactors; or on pebble reactors; or on gifting small reactors to third world countries to allow them inexpensive energy to develop their economies; or on ……..

    • Richard Martin

      “don’t worry” the next one will be safe, said in an infinite false feedback loop.

    • Brian

      Solar and wind are available 4 times cheaper than nuclear before gov breaks. We already have the energy breakthrough: it’s solar pv and wind.

      Since it is all solar, you can think of it as controlled fusion, distrusted for free by sunlight.

      Search Lazard energy version 9.

      Why are you fighting the future?

      (backed with hydro and fuels from wastes, with efficiny 50% gain and electric vehicles. )

      • Michael Mann

        The future is nuclear energy, I’m not the one fighting it. Solar and wind are only cheaper for a short period of time on a few days a year and that is not looking at the negative environmental impacts of their entire lifecycle and the unreliability of the energy they produce.

      • Brian

        Nuclear needs as much or more reserve generator energy for load following and peak as solar and wind do for gap filling. Yet the pro nuclear folks never count nuclear’s need for load following.

        Nuclear life cycle is 100,000 years of deadly wastes, 1000’s of times more mining required than solar pv, and the dirtiest mining and wastes of all.

        Solar silicon pv panels are about 90% glass and aluminum. completely recyclable. Even the solar cells are silicon and aluminium and completely recyclable as well.

        All the pro nuclear pr folks have is opposite world.

        • Mike Carey

          Oh, Brian, still talking to yourself, but not making any sense, as usual.

          For example, when you say,

          “Solar silicon pv panels are about 90% glass and aluminum. completely
          recyclable. Even the solar cells are silicon and aluminium and
          completely recyclable as well”,

          you are forgetting all the toxic chemicals that were required to make the other exotic parts of the solar panels. Like:

          1. hydrochloric acid
          2. trichlorosilane gas
          3. silicon tetrafluoride
          4. sulfur difluoride
          5. tetrafluorosilane
          6. sulfur dioxide
          7. sulfur hexafluoride
          8. sodium hydroxide
          9. potassium hydroxide
          10. hydrochloric acid
          11. sulfuric acid
          12. nitric acid
          13. hydrogen fluoride
          14. phosphine
          15. arsine gas
          16. phosphorous oxychloride
          17. phosphorous trichloride
          18. boron bromide
          19. boron trichloride
          20. lead
          21. trichloroethane
          22. ammonium fluoride
          23. phosphorous
          24. phosphorous oxychloride
          25. diborane
          26. ethyl acetate
          27. ethyl vinyl acetate
          28. ion amine catalyst
          29. silicon trioxide
          30. stannic chloride
          31. tantalum pentoxide

          Unfortunately, the lakes of toxic sludge outside the Chinese solar panel factories are not being recycled now, or anytime in the near future. Stay blissfully ignorant if you choose, but other readers should not be misled by your inaccurate information.
          Take care.

          • Chronic Pain Coop

            Mike Carey the Scary is another Nuke Troll Pimp. Google Mike Carey Fukushima and see all his post about Fukushima. Nobody post that much unless there paid.

          • Brian

            Disqus is weird, I don’t see a comment I though I made here, sorry, I do not mean to spam and repeat myself, but nuclear creates 100’s of times the toxic chemicals of solar or wind. The listed chemicals are actually mostly corm nuclear, not renewable.

            Isn’t it cute that many pro nuclear folks think that all the chemicals used to make solar panels are in the finished product? How quaint.

            Again, nuclear power mining and wastes are 1000 times as toxic and as massive and are not recyclable. The metals, the fuel, the mining refining, all use a massive amounts of toxic chemicals. I would guess nearly every chemical the pro nuclear folks claim solar uses are used by nuclear power as well, plus thousands of other radioactive, heavy metal super toxic stuff.

            Read up on it.

            BTW hexavalent chromium is used by the nuclear industry but NOT by the solar industry. hilarious huh?

            Here’s some more nasty nasty chemicals that nuclear power uses in the mass quantities.

            The pro nuclear folks claims of toxicity from solar is laughable compared to nuclear power or fossils.

            Organics wastes from nuclear power.

            List of nuclear power chemicals and wastes: In order of quantity per KWH:

            Contaminated materials from nuclear power disasters, toxic mining overburden 100k fuel, toxic mining tailings 30k fuel, contaminated leaching acid , depleted UF6, LLW, Spent fuel rods*, dry casks, decommissioned reactors, boric acid, hydrazine, Cd, lead, Perchloric acid , sulfuric acid, SO2, Nox, SO x, Hydrofluoric Acid, nitric acid, Uranyl nitrate, Hydrogen fluoride gas, contaminated plastic filters ion exchange resin, Ammonium hydroxide, ammonium diuranate, ruthenium tetraoxide, Arsenic, Ammonium fluoride, Magnesium fluoride, mercury, cadmium, Se and beryllium, as well as a number of chemically toxic organic compounds. Dichlorobenzene, Ethanol, Isopropyl alcohol, Methylethyketone, Toluene, Trichloroethane, acetone. Equipment cleaning for maintenance includes degreasing agents, which may include halogenated solvents, and decontamination and metal cleaning agents which often contain strong acids, oxidizing agents, and complexing agents. Any of these waste streams may become contaminated with fission products, uranium, and plutonium. (tributylphosphate) PCB (Poly Chlorinated Biphenyls) , benzene , hexavalent chromium, Dioxins and furans, Hexachlorobenzene, Asbestos, molybdenum, contaminated oils, tri- and tertiary amino-compounds, picolinic acid, ethylene-diamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) , carbon tetrachloride, perchloroethylene , Freon, sodium dibutyl phosphate (DBF), butanol, Magnesium Phosphates, hydrogen peroxide.

            rare earths and materials that limits the expansion of nuclear power: Uranium, Thorium, silver, In, Gd,

            Reprocessing: n-dodecane contaminated with fission products. N2O4!or!hydroxylamine. Ditertiarybutyldicyclohexanone 18 crown 6, !acetohydroxamic!acid!

            • Mike Carey

              Go back to sleep, Brian, no one trusts your comments or links.

              Take care.

              • Brian

                yeah, over 80% of the USA folks want more solar and wind, a minority wants more fossils or nukes. Who is “no one”?

                • Mike Carey

                  Oh, Brian, you still have a reading comprehension problem, huh?

                  When you say – “Who is “no one”?” – the answer is:
                  No one who reads your comments has ANY reason to believe them after they actually follow your links.

                  It is always a waste of time. You really have to provide direct quotes before anyone should follow you down those rabbit holes.
                  Take care.

            • TimS

              It is becoming ever clearer that anti-nuclear/pro-renewable cultists are nothing except compulsive pathological liars. They do not inform the public that wind/solar only works during windy/sunny daytimes, requires large land area, made in polluting factories with pollutants sealed inside the panels, which deteriorate over time and must be replaced, requires a lot of water to clean dust and dirt off the panels, not readily available in the desert, operates at low efficiencies, very poor compared to other power sources, requires large batteries to store power, which must be replaced regularly. They do not inform the public that wind/solar kill more people and produce more ecological impact per gigawatt produced than carbon-free nuclear power. Worse, they do not inform people that wind/solar is strongly dependent on fossil fuels to mine, manufacture, transport, and to compensate intermittencies.

        • Brian

          Then the pro nuclear, anti solar pv people love to bring up the toxic chemicals used in solar pv manufacturing. Yet Nuclear fuel processing uses 1000’s of times as much of some of the same chemicals, and many many more much more toxic chemicals.

          Isn’t it cute that many pro nuclear folks think that all the chemicals used to make solar panels are in the finished product? How quaint.

          Read up on it.

          BTW hexavalent chromium is used by the nuclear industry but NOT by the solar industry. hilarious huh?

          Here’s some more nasty nasty chemicals that nuclear power uses in the mass quantities.

          The pro nuclear folks claims of toxicity from solar is laughable compared to nuclear power or fossils.

          • Michael Mann

            I didn’t see anyone anti-solar PV just pro-truth. There is no free ride, ignoring the toxic chemicals in solar PV doesn’t help anyone.

          • Mike Carey

            There you go again, Brian. Running away and talking to yourself instead of replying to the comment I posted to you.

            I’ll repeat it since you didn’t actually respond to the nonsense you posted about solar panels being recyclable:
            “Unfortunately, the lakes of toxic sludge outside the Chinese solar panel factories are not being recycled now, or anytime in the near future. Stay blissfully ignorant if you choose, but other readers should not be misled by your inaccurate information.”

            US nuclear power production safely accounts for its manufacturing materials. Chinese solar plants do *not*. Your claims of equivalence are BS as usual.

            I wonder why you post so frequently? Are you more interested in pushing the number of your comments up higher and higher? You are over 19,000 now. Does that do something useful for you?

            Misstating the facts doesn’t do anything to inform other readers, so why are you doing what you are doing, huh?
            It’s a mystery to me. Take care.

          • Brian

            Notice that they want to focus on a single Chinese factory, and ignore the 1000’s of times more much more deadly junk nuclear creates and cannot stop created.

            I’ll repeat it since you didn’t actually respond to the nonsense you posted about solar panels being recyclable: SOlar panels area recuclebe, so much for nonsense.


            they will buy used old broken solar panels for recycling. The cells are the most energy use, and can recycled with far less energy and about the same efficiency. Stripe surface, bake, resurface.

   Solar Recycling Companies


            100% recovery of wafers from panels.

   98% pretty much just the glue that holds it together, and half a KWH of energy is needed per panel.

          • Brian

            Here’s what nuclear power Madurai mining does:

            1000’s of times more deadly toxic material from nuclear as solar pv.

            It’s a simple fact. Search it.


  • Bob Armstrong

    The problem CFACT and the quantitative rational minority faces always reminds me of my favorite bad pun : You can lead a horticulture but you can’t make her think .

    • gbrecke

      This is my favorite comment of the week, how true! I’m not sure some of these people have harbored a doubt since childhood.

  • Adam_Antatheist

    I wonder how many deaths are directly attributable to radiophobic idiots like Brant Ra?

    The Japanese government acted hysterically in response to the rantings of the anti-nuclear brigade and the screams from the media, driven by its ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ philosophy. It’s tantamount to, and as criminal as, screaming fire in a crowded theatre.

    Having been the subject of “…the most cynical experiment ever carried out in biology…”, you’d think the Japanese people and the government would make more rational decisions than the rest of us:

    • d-dectiri

      Gee apparently your favored GE Prism breeder reactor webpages reveal why you’d let the theater full of humans bur to the ground with all inside til impossible to escape, just so you could claim you didn’t want to panic anyone unnecessarily…. rotfl at your openly exposed nuke-employment treachery..

      • Adam_Antatheist

        Your tortured brain allows you to put pen to paper with moronic comments that some poor people believe.

        The media love you for the screaming headlines they can extract from your ravings.

        You and they really do have blood on your hands.

        • d-dectiri

          Glad to see my noticing the GE ad for breeder reactors on your page has your treacherous knickers in a knot

          • Adam_Antatheist

            Keep ranting about radiation levels at Fukushima. Over 1600 deaths from evacuation by mid 2013. Deaths from radiation – zero.

            You should be able to chalk up a few more fatalities if you can keep residents away from their homes a bit longer.

            Everywhere in the exclusion zone – except the nuclear plant itself – have radiation levels at a fraction of those of that popular holiday destinations – the Guarapari beaches.

            • d-dectiri

              The impact of radiation is not what is being reported because govt authorities only count deaths from being fried as radiation deaths… ignoring the body’s inability to survive ordinary ill events when being damaged by fukushima’s destructive mess. Japanese people know they are being lied to in the nuclear industry / govt coverup… for example the liars said it was a level 4 originally, then couldn’t hide the severity so relented as outsiders scrutinized the disaster til they finally admitted it was a 7… A 7 not a 4

              Meanwhile the JP govt is focusing on getting the 2020 Olympics and trying to sweep their lying embarrassment they hid under the rug, leaving those refugees to suffer and die needlessly……


              Even here in the US we see a reluctance rotfl of govt to fund the research into how radiation harms infants and the elderly… the glorious standards are still based on external hitting of the body of 20year old males, instead of investigating radiation that enters the body by being ingested…. sweeping under the rug the spikes in death rates — primarily infants — after the first wave of radiation sweeps along the planet, which was observed, not only after Chernobyl but also after fukushima, and to a lesser degree after TMI… 14,000 deaths that look like ‘normal causes’ but occur in suddenly higher numbers… but the warmonger-nuke-liars and the warmonger-govt are not interested in anything but dismissing results…. and EPA ups the level considered safe, and ceases to measure along the CA coast… your govt at your service to protect you…..

              so take your coverup lies and pander them elsewhere

              • Adam_Antatheist

                Calm down! You’re being overwhelmed by garbled stories of government plotting and and conspiracy theories.

                Take a nice holiday on a Guarapari beach – take your MP3 with you and educate yourself on the subject of genetic mutation.

                The programme is called ‘Genetic Mutation’ and there’s a whole 40 minutes from experts with no axe to grind about nuclear power. It’s a BBC programme, so it must all be true:

                In particular, listen to what Steve Jones has to say at 14:40, when he describes a nuclear experiment, where mutational meltdown was anticipated – and the results.

                If you really want to fry your brain, worrying about sources of genetic mutation, you’ll have a lot more to worry about by the end of this programme.

                You’ll get a tremendous amount of enjoyment by constructing other conspiracy theories relating to these multifarious sources.

            • rossd

              Thousands of people have had to leave their farms, their houses. Fishermen can’t catch fish which have been irradiated and two nuclear cores have melted into the soil under the plant. It is so radiocative that even robots can’t get near to the melted cores to try and clean up the mess!

              • Adam_Antatheist

                Here’s a great game for you to play:

                There’s only one spot in the whole of Japan that has a higher measurement of radiation than the beaches of Guarapari – at 19,963 nSv/hr.

                Let us all know, if and when you find this location, where it is and also tell us all what the next highest reading is.

                “…Guarapari’s beaches, a popular seasonal tourist attraction, where readings of up to 175 mSv (millisieverts)) per year have been measured…”

                Please come back with a sensible sounding comment. You really do give the impression of being a ranting radiophobe.

                • rossd

                  You’re just avoiding the issue…i.e. that Nuclear power generation is not safe! It’s not cost effective or carbon neutral either. It is economics that has prevented any new nuclear power plants being approved for construction in the US since 1973. This is true, eventhough safety, waste-handling and storage, security and weapons proliferations
                  remain real contentious and unresolved issues.
                  President Barack Obama announced a a US$8.3 billion (A$9.3billion) government loan guarantee to a private company to build twin nuclear reactors in the southern state of Georgia.Without such a massive financial crutch, private companies and their investors have declined to fund any new nuclear plants for 37 years —
                  not just in the US, but anywhere in the world.
                  Every new plant or new design is promised to be simpler,
                  cheaper and quicker to build but proves to be the opposite. The most notable
                  example is the plant being constructed by the French state-owned company Areva
                  at Olkiluoto, Finland, which has doubled in costs and construction time. Can you name an insurance company which will insure a nuclear reactor? Thought not….because the risks are too high and Insurance companies aren’t stupid.

        • Scottar

          Yep, some people are over the top about things. I think we will need several of the reactor designs for sustainability and old nuclear waste burnup. It would be ironic if a working fusion plant got developed by the time these other reactor designs have been proven out.

          What we need now is better backup systems for a grid outage for the older BWRs and LWRs before they get phased out.

  • EnviroReporter

    Rip-roaring hogwash. We had to check the calendar to see if this was an April Fools joke but it apparently isn’t.

    The title of the piece, “The lesson of Fukushima — Nuclear energy is safe,” is so outrageous that it could inspire a series of such vapid vignettes like “The lesson of Columbine — Guns work” or “The lesson of Chernobyl — Massive meltdown creates lovely park preserve.”

    But, seriously, if you want to learn about the kind of jive you’ve just read, take a peak a *real* investigative piece at “Fukushima – The Perfect Crime?” at

    Snarky stupidity like this piece by a South African nuclear power advocate is breathtaking. Literally. This could have been on the Saturday Night Live 40th Anniversary as it is that unintentionally hilarious. Thanks for the chuckles.

  • IGnatius T Foobar

    Nuclear energy is, and has been, safe. The communists need to vilify it because it gets in the way of their manufactured energy crisis. Inconveniently for them, even their “climate change” scam does not fit well with nuclear energy, which does not produce the carbon dioxide that warmists want us to believe causes global warming. So they have to manufacture *another* lie about safety concerns.

    The economy thrives on abundant and inexpensive energy. As long as proper safety protocols are followed, we should be building as many nuclear plants as we can. Current policies hinder the economy (an effect liberals love) while funneling money to oil-producing terrorist countries (which liberals also love).

    In the words of Jethro Tull: “nuclear – the better way!” (Stormwatch, 1979)

    • d-dectiri

      Boy are you braindead backwards in your logic… the global warming was a military industrial ploy that FAVORS NUKES so it’s easily seeable that’s where it came from… climate economic warfare exempts their partner nukes… CFACT WAS ‘TAKEN IN’

      No disagreement on the need for abundant energy but NOT THE CURRENT FLEET OF NUKES which are not only UNSAFE AS THEY AGE and are now reaching senility, *BUT* are in perpetuity a COLOSSALLY GROWING MONSTROSITY OF TOXIC WASTE…



      imagine 9-11 (instead of taking down the about- to-be exposed financial treachery of the military-industrial complex in the Towers’ SEC government bond-monitors and the Pentagon’s 4 trillion dollar investigative offices) had aimed a slight bit over to the decrepit, disastrous nukes on Long Island shores…!

      Doesn’t that reveal the real trigger-pullers while showing the decisive LIABILITY OF THE URANIUM NUKES!!!

      Tull was off… THORIUM… THE BETTER WAY

    • Gustav Kuriga

      Funny you say communists, since China is probably going to be the largest user of nuclear power, in the form of pebble and other forms of nuclear power, in the coming years. :3

      • IGnatius T Foobar

        Ironic, isn’t it? *Our* communists are enamored with wind and solar, which do not scale.

  • Mervyn

    This is the type of good news the environmental movement would prefer to have locked up in some basement vault, never to be released again.

    It demonstrates the stupidity of Angela Merkel and the greens who were getting off on enviro-gasms as the Fukushima disaster unfolded.

  • Example

    TEPCO should have written oFf the reactors sooner and implemented seawater injection. This accident could have been much better based on that alone. I’m sympathetic to other 99% of the article.

    Ex-navy nuke here.

    • Scottar

      Yah and the US offered to help but TEPCO refused. It’s the arrogance of the Japanese that lead to today’s situation.

  • Jim Clancy

    Have you lost your mind or you just need another grant to pay off the Mercedes ?

    • Richard Martin

      well said, the nukists are the worst of the “consumers”

  • vlady47

    This article is just more hype from the criminal nuclear cartel.

    The lessons learned are: nuclear energy is dangerous, expensive.and not worth the risks.
    MATTHEW CARNEY: Sorting out Reactor Four will be the easy part. Fixing reactors one, two and three will be much more difficult.

    They’re full of molten nuclear fuel. Humans can’t enter. It would result in instant death. And robots have yet to be invented that can withstand the massive radiation levels near the melted cores.

    TEPCO admits it doesn’t know the exact location and extent of the meltdowns. They claim it will take 40 years to fix, but others say centuries.

    KENICHIRO MATSUI, PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPT., TEPCO (voiceover translation): We don’t know the exact situation in detail. Fuel has been melted down, but nobody has seen it. We need to develop technology with help from around the world to know the real situation.

    • Aaron Oakley
      • Chronic Pain Coop

        Aaron Oakley the Dopey why Is there 1200 Becquerel’s of Cesium from Fukushima in the soil in Hawaii? __www(dot)hawaii(dot)edu/news/2016/06/03/geology-graduates-investigate-fukushima-derived-radioactivity-in-hawaii/

        • Aaron Oakley

          Childish insults aside, do you realize just how small 1200 Bq is?

          For perspective, 1 kg of coffee will give about 1000 Bq –100% natural.

          • Sam Gilman

            He’s got confused between m2 and Kg. Poor thing.

          • Chronic Pain Coop

            They not insults they are specific digital markers. For example, Google Sam the Gimp Gilman. And by the way there are NO SAFE limits of cesium in soil. And if you read the article the limits of cesium is in straight correlation to how much rain fall it receives. And since Tepco continues to dump 400 tons of radiation into the Pacific and since the rainfall comes from the Pacific it will only accumulate and get worse. And they only measured one isotope. Where there is cesium, there is plutonium, uranium, strontium, tritium, cobalt 60, polium, technium and about 700 more long lived isotopes. So do the math super troll.

            • Michael Mann

              Radiation is not measured in tons. You need to go back to school and learn some science; your assertion about plutonium, uranium, strontium, tritium, cobalt 60, polium, (sic)technium (sic) and about 700 more long lived isotopes is not true except that naturally occurring isotopes are found everywhere and have been around since before nuclear power plants existed. You just make yourself sound silly

              • Chronic Pain Coop

                Michael the Maniac Man you make your self sound silly by going to every article on the internet trying to convince people that nuclear energy is good for them.

                The particles are not just of Caesium-137. They contain other long lived radioactivity, Strontium-90, Plutonium 239, Uranium-235, Uranium 238, Radium-226, Polonium-210, Lead-210, Tritium, isotopes of Rhodium, Ruthenium, Iodine, Cerium, Cobalt 60. The list is long.


                • Aaron Oakley

                  You sound silly with your childish name-calling and use of junk science to spread fear and ignorance of atomic energy.

            • Aaron Oakley

              “they are specific digital markers” for various people’s efforts to educate you, apparently.

              “there are NO SAFE limits of cesium in soil”. To make that claim I would expect you to have some peer reviewed publications or data from some reputable scientific organizations. And if you believe it, you must be afraid, because all soil contains some degree of natural radiation.

              “400 tons of radiation” is a misleading figure, isn’t it? Most of that 400 tons is water.

              “So do the math” You are the one making claims, so I suggest you present some data on those radionucleides. BTW, where local geology contains uranium and thorium, you will find daughter nuclides from their decay chains.

              • Chronic Pain Coop

                Arron Oakley the Dopey I do not need education from you and Nuke Troll Buddies. The article from the university of Hawaii clearly states.

                For soils, there is no specific safety limit for radiocesium, but McKenzie found cesium inventories were not high—up to 1,200 Bq/m2 cesium in Hawaiʻi soils compared to 200,000 Bq/m2 in forest soils found near the Fukushima Power Plant.
                And we know it is 400 tons of water but in reality it is way more that if you count the underwater rivers and all the radioactive water washing into the pacific from the river run off. And I guess the 200,000 Bg/m2 in the forest of Fukushima is low levels too eh?

                • Aaron Oakley

                  “there is no specific safety limit for radiocesium” is not the same thing as “there are NO SAFE limits of cesium in soil”.

                  “McKenzie found cesium inventories were not high” kinda deflates the scaremongering, doesn’t it?

                  “all the radioactive water” is vague. I prefer hard data.

                  • Chronic Pain Coop

                    Here is some HARD data for you Aaron Oakley the Dopey.

                    30 Fukushima kids diagnosed with thyroid cancer in second check, upping total to 131 but radiation ‘unlikely’ cause.
                    This is precisely why all you Nuke apologist should burn in hell. There are children being giving cancer by nuclear reactors. Without our children there is nothing left of humanity.

                    Yes I know your going to say that the 131 children with Thyroid Cancer was caused by EL NINO.


                    • Aaron Oakley

                      Key point “but radiation ‘unlikely’ cause.” You should know about the “screening effect” when it comes to data like this.

                      “burn in hell” Right back at you. Because exploiting the suffering of others to spread fear and ignorance is inexcusable. And, I might also add: lobbing insults from behind the cloak of anonymity is cowardly.

                    • Mark Duffett

                      Spot on. The data are unequivocal that fear of radiation has been far more lethal (to the tune of hundreds to thousands of lives) than radiation itself. To the extent you are contributing to that fear, Chronic Pain Coop, you are a murderer.


                    • Chronic Pain Coop

                      Here is some Peer Review data from actual scientist. Not from arm chair nuke trolls like Arron Oakley the Dopey, Sam the Gimp Gilman, Michael the Maniac Man, and Atomic Rabbit with a Habit.

                      Oh look conspiracy website CBSNEWS talking about 20 year olds with thyroid cancer. in Japan.


                    • Aaron Oakley

                      Apparently you don’t know the difference between a news item and peer reviewed science.

                    • Chronic Pain Coop

                      Thank you Aaron Oakley the Dopey I missed a link.
                      And there are many more peer reviews studies that say Tokyo was heavily radiated but you do your own research Nuke Troll.

                      Here is a clue Google Peer Reviewed Fukushima


                    • Aaron Oakley

                      Oh dear. Don’t you realize that SciAm is not a peer reviewed scientific journal? Its a science news magazine.

                  • Chronic Pain Coop

                    Aarron Oakley the Dopey You are the coward putting children’s lives at risk by spreading lies and disinformation. You say that I am spreading rumors when all I am doing is quoting THE JAPANESE TIMES. Why aren’t you accusing them of spreading harmful rumors. And my profile is hardly annoyomous . I have had this same profile for years. And I have all ready printed my face book profile to the rest of your douchebag Troll friends and it can be found if you want to dig through my discuss comments. 131 children with thyroid cancer when the normal rate is 1 in 1 million children.

                    May 14, 2015 – Thyroid cancer remains a rare disease in children less than age 10, with an annual incidence of less than one per million. It is more common in …ThyCa: The Thyroid Cancer Survivors’ Association,…/about/Pediatric Thyroid Cancer | ThyCa: Thyroid Cancer Survivors …

                    • Aaron Oakley

                      To bad the actual scientific literature doesn’t back up your fearmongering. So I guess it is you who is spreading disinformation. And attempting to manipulate people through fear and ignorance.

                      “The prevalence of thyroid cancer detected by advanced ultrasound
                      techniques in other areas of Japan does not differ meaningfully from
                      that in Fukushima Prefecture” –Prof.
                      Takamura, writing in Epidemiology May 2016 – Volume 27 – Issue 3 – p e18

                      “if you want to dig through my discuss comments”
                      Just as I dislike the idea of cleaning septic tanks, I have no desire to dig though your Disqus comments to find your Facebook profile.

          • Michael Mann

            The last thing Chronic Pain Coop wants is perspective, and a rational response or ignoring his childish behavior only seems to make him even less coherent.

  • Dart

    My father designed the pressure vessel for the worlds first nuclear electricity generator at Calder Hall and commented that the UK has never built archaic reactors such as the Boiling Water Reactors of Japan. They are fuel inefficient and prone to instability because they operate close to atmospheric pressure so the water can rapidly become too gaseous to be an effective heat remover and moderator. When I first told my father that the reactors were BWRs he refused to believe the Japs would be so stupid as to run such an antiquated design. (He said it would be like driving a 1950 Morris Minor in the year 2000 and wondering why it was forever breaking down)
    After Chernobyl he commented that the RMBKs were an accident waiting to happen because they lacked an outside power supply and only had diesel generators which took more than a minute to boot up (much too slow).
    The problem seems to be more one of plant operators not really understanding what it is that they are running. Chernobyl would never have melted down had the operators started the diesels prior to doing maintenance work. Fukushima would never have been a problem if a reactor SCRAM had
    automatically started the diesels and the housing had been in a flood-proof zone.
    The lack of safety protocols and stupid site of the reactors near the beach leaves one wondering about the qualifications of the builders.
    Mr Kemm fails to mention the toxic effect of radio-nuceides or how Caesium 137 looks like carbon so is incorporated into living matter.
    Good article but rather one-eyed.

    • Scottar

      The Chernobyl accident happened cause the Soviet masters where running dangerous experiments on a commercial reactor. The operators where never properly trained, probable on purpose as the Chechen where like the underclass in Russia.

      The reactor had engineering flaws that made it unstable during shutdown. Those flaws where later corrected and the other 2 reactors there ran without incident.

      I have to agree with your dad about Fukushima BWR reactor choice.

  • James Penn

    Where’s my damn cool-aid. I had it here a minute ago. Now I feel unable to participate.

    • Richard Martin

      Ya must drink deeply blue pill Koolaid, to tolerate the lies of the nukist

  • Ian_L_McQueen

    Why do my postings disappear? This is the second time that I have typed the following.

    Minor correction. The article says: “It is also instructive to note that there are two Fukushima nuclear power plants; Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini. Daiichi, meaning ‘number two’ was the one the world watched; Daini, meaning ‘number one’ fought its own battles, virtually unnoticed.”
    Correction: The names are backward. “ichi” means “one” and “ni” means “two”.

  • potentcocktail

    Daini means “number two.” Daiichi means “number one.” The article has them switched.

  • GrammarNazi

    In section “The Other Fukushima”, the world skillful is misspelled.

  • Dr. A. Cannara

    Good article. The key to Fukushima’s tragedy is simple — poor regulation that allowed poor construction, or in 1 word: Onagawa…

  • axmickl

    It is kind of like 3 mile island. There were no deaths, no animals harmed, no radiation spillage but the rhetoric from the chicken-littles was devastating to an industry. We would not be arguing about pipelines or cartels if these chicken littles had just shut up and left the problems to be solved by the pros. The Jane Fondas of this world have caused more harm and loss of infrastructure than any other group any where.

    • Richard Martin

      Is that satire?

  • rossd

    The ‘truth’ is that Nuclear power never has and never will be a safe form of generating power unless the reactor is 93 million miles away (i.e. the Sun) and even then skin cancers are still caused by the radiation! There are 2 melted reactor cores inaccessible even to robots due to their high radioactivity contaminating. Every day hundreds of tonnes of irradiated water flows under the reactor to the Pacific Ocean, contaminating fish, crustaceans, seaweed and the sea bed. Can scientists and politicians guarantee that other reactors around the world won’t be damaged by tsunamis, terrorists, earthquakes, wars or simple human error?

    • Scottar

      You don’t understand nuclear. look u Gen4 and gen 5 reactors. BWRs are yesterdays solution.

      • rossd

        There are over 400 nuclear power stations around the world. How many are Gen4 or Gen5?

        aging US reactors costly. The
        operators of 20 of the nation’s aging nuclear reactors, including some whose
        licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper
        dismantling. If it turns out that they must close, the owners intend to let
        them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while
        interest accrues in the reactors’ retirement accounts. Decommissioning a reactor is a painstaking and expensive
        process that involves taking down huge structures and transporting the
        radioactive materials to the few sites around the country that can bury them.
        The cost is projected at $400 million to $1 billion per reactor, which in some
        cases is more than what it cost to build the plants in the 1960s and ’70s.
        Mothballing the plants makes hundreds of acres of prime industrial land
        unavailable for decades and leaves open the possibility that radioactive
        contamination in the structures could spread. While the radioactivity levels
        decline over time, many communities worry about safe oversight.

        The Energy Department is poised to
        approve $6.5 billion in federal loan guarantees for the first nuclear power
        plant built from scratch in the USA in more than three decades. The $14 billion Vogtle nuclear plant is now under
        construction in eastern Georgia. An $8.3 billion loan guarantee was
        tentatively approved for the project in 2010 as part of President Obama’s
        pledge to expand nuclear power and other energy sources. More than two dozen
        nuclear reactors have been proposed in recent years, but experts now say it is
        likely that only five or six new reactors will be completed by the end of the
        decade. The once-expected nuclear power boom has been plagued by a series of
        problems, from the prolonged economic downturn to a sharp drop in natural gas
        prices and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.

        • Scottar

          “There are over 400 nuclear power stations around the world. How many are Gen4 or Gen5?”

          From what I have come across, China, Russia and India plan to build various designs that are either in prototype or research stage. It like saying we could never make it to the moon as it’s so far away. what’s far away if people technical understanding of the benefits of advanced nuclear reactors as renewables can’t even approach replacing fossil.

          And on that site is a PDF file: HOW TO MAKE NUCLEAR CHEAP

          “Decommissioning aging US reactors costly. The operators of 20 of the nation’s aging nuclear reactors, including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling. If it turns out that they must close, the owners intend to let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues in the reactors’ retirement accounts. Decommissioning a reactor is a painstaking and expensive.”

          They waste more money on illegals than that. Where are you getting you info from, from what I have read they already have accounted for the decommissioning.

          “Mothballing the plants makes hundreds of acres of prime industrial land unavailable for decades and leaves open the possibility that radioactive contamination in the structures could spread. While the radioactivity levels decline over time, many communities worry about safe oversight.”

          Where are you getting this drivel from, the radiation is contained in the plant, are you referring to the Hanford site that is a disaster as the builders knew little about the hazards back in the 40s and 50s?

      • Richard Martin

        There aren’t any, if they even become production, they will be too expensive to make sense.

  • classifiedquip

    if fukushima so safe, why cant people live in their houses yet?

    About the Author = paid nuclear shill.

  • Scott Cook

    Nuclear Power Plants? Sure. Coal Plants? Forget about climate change, the cure will kill us.

    • Scottar

      And now it’s getting colder. Hows that for climate change!?

      • Scott Cook

        I’m saying Climate Change is a possibility but there is nothing we can do about it. Doing something about it will weaken the United States. I’m saying let’s rock on and live for today. Fossil Fuels = Money, Power and Freedom. Democrats and Republicans are trying to wrangle us little people into a one world government, I think.

  • TGS

    I liked the article. Nicely written, thank you. One error you could correct: in Japanese, “ichi” means one and “ni” means two.

    • Richard Martin

      Uh, thats the only problem you see? LOL

  • igrandunifier

    The truth is the pro-nukers will only n continue to spread lies… That’s the bases of the nuke industry. They always want to say ‘No one die!’ So I’m going to tell u that u LIE!!! The FDNPP’s plant manager Mr. Masao Yoshida die of throat cancer at the age of 58, less than 2 years after he entered the exploded, lethally radioactive reactor room to try to ‘put out the fire’ after the accident. He was in perfect health in 3/11. When he die it was TEPCo who stated in the media that “He didn’t die of radiation.” N We can be sure to never hear about the developing health conditions of the ‘Fukushima 50’ who worked along side of Mr. Yoshida, remained around the crippled NPPs to try to do their best during the onset of the accident. Unless the nuke industry would go to the extend of imposter-ing the Fuku 50–n that’s not far too fatch, consider pro-nuker like Drt. Kemm can write an article as deciving as this. A young sailor in his early 30s on the USS Reagan who was in perfect health condition until soon after his humanitarian effort to Fukushima. His health quickly deteriorated after his return to the States, with degenerate muscles n other radiation related illness. He’s dead now. More than 300 USS Reagan sailors have developed various radiation illness n r now suing TEPCo. If Japan don’t have the doctors n the media under the State Secretcy Law control, we could see the real radiation illness data spreading amongst the general population. Just like we are now starting to see n hear more of all the radiation illness and deformity amongst the general population in Chernobyl, . Countless number of the evacuees have die, if not from radiation, from the shock of being uprooted from Fukushima’s debarcle. It’s insanely inhumane to promote nuke power for consummer use. When ever there’s a nuclear accident 100s of thousands of people’s lives r turned up side down, n 1000s of square miles of land rander inhabitable, if not for decades then centuries, with tax payers paying for the bulk of all the damages. What kind of BS is that? How can one even begin to think that nuke power would be more economical, safer, n environmentally friendly than renwabls, like solar n wind, Dr k. Kemm?

  • Eirin Lankwarden

    Reading the title “The Lesson of Fukushima is that nuclear energy is safe” i had assumed it had to be from a witty satirical piece and that it was so overtly sarcastic i felt something more subtle may have been more fitting. Infact i had to read the bloody thing three times before my mind would accept the fact that the author was being serious and that it was completely void of satire or sarcasm altogether.

    To claim nuclear energy is safe and use Fukushima as an example of this point is so far beyond delusional, i would question the sanity of the author. At what point does propaganda stop being propaganda and become the delusional rantings of the clinically insane.

    The ignorance demonstrated by Kemm is shameful and quite frankly embarrassing.

    Firstly i would suggest that Kemm familiarises himself with a book by Janette D. Sherman.

    Its a collection of translated some 5000 medical and scientific studies performed by multiple scientists, who observed first-hand the effects from the Chernobyl fallout. The landmark study carried out by Russian scientists that absolutely devastates the position held by the IAEA and WHO and blows the lid off the fraudulent methodology of the Chernobyl Forum. Can something be called “science” if it intentionally ignores relevant empirical data in spades?

    Sherman’s findings are worth quoting at length:

    “On the 20th Anniversary of Chernobyl WHO and the IAEA published the Chernobyl Forum Report, mentioning only 350 sources, mainly from the English literature while in reality there are more than 30,000 publications and up to 170,000 sources that address the consequences of Chernobyl. After waiting two decades for the findings of Chernobyl to be recognized by the United Nations, three scientists, Alexey Yablokov from Russia, and Vasily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko from Belarus undertook the task to collect, abstract and translate their work into english.

    The greatest amount of radioactivity fell outside of Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia, extending across the northern hemisphere as far away as Asia, North Africa, and North America, while the greatest concentrations continue to affect the 13 million living in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia….

    Thus data from multiple scientists estimate the overall mortality from the Chernobyl catastrophe, for the period from April 1986 to the end of 2004, to be 985,000, a hundred times more than the WHO/IAEA estimate….

    1 000 000 dead from the Chernobyl disaster and Kemm says Nuclear energy is safe.

    Kemm should also familiarise himself with the reports by the US Government Stating that the 100% meltdown in three reactors at Fukushima, yes 3 x 100% meltdowns, involving over 750 tonnes of live nuclear fuel rods excluding the rods stored above the reactors in the SFP’s which is also a huge ongoing concern.

    The 3 100% meltdowns that the US Government Report concluded resulted in total containment failure in all three reactors also known as “China Syndrome” within 12 days of the tsunami, which is an absolute worst case scenario and is quite literally a situation without a solution.

    Kemm may also want to comment on the UN Report that now indicates the amount of radiation released just into the pacific ocean is 20% higher than the total release of Chernobyl, and that this figure excludes the land numbers. The links to pages for all three points are below.

    Fukushima is the worst nuclear disaster ever to befall our planet and possibly the worst man made disaster of all time. If Kemm believes nuclear energy is so safe and Fukushima such a shining example of robust safety for the technology. He should put his ego where is propaganda spews from, take a trip to the Fukushima prefecture and spend a few weeks there living in the now REINHABITED EXCLUSION ZONE as he claims, eating the fish, rice, seaweed from the area, breathing the air, sleeping in the beds. Film that all for three weeks and then post his videos.

    I will commit to setting up a disease countdown clock for him that counts the number of days before he is diagnosed with either thyroid or lung cancer, or any number of low survivability diseases including heart disease, immune diseases, cognitive function degradation, muscle degeneration, reproductive abnormalities, gene mutations or premature aging.

    I will also provide him with a projected death date and see how close to the mark i get.

    Idiot, you should be ashamed and i hope your propaganda may be used in the future to criminally prosecute you in the event any poor soul read your delusional insult to intelligence and suffered from it in some way.

    I am ashamed to be South African today.

    • Richard Martin

      Indeed, these people have really drunk the koolaid, and couldn’t see a raging bronto coming at them and know it meant harm.

  • anonymous droidbot

    “Nothing happened at Fukushima” from the triple meltdowns and explosions huh??
    All those tanks with radioactive water are safe for drinking huh??
    Nuclear is “safe” huh??
    “Dr” Kelvin Kemm is a pro nuclear shill. What Kemm is doing is criminal misrepresentation of the scientific reality. The water stored in all those tanks IS HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE!
    Massive increases in cancers are already occurring. Japan’s population is plummeting since Fukushima began. Massive die offs of all types of marine animals and birds is underway. Kemm is suckling at the shriveled teet of a dying nuclear industry. There is no answer for waste storage. Reactors, like Fukushima reactor #3, are GIANT DIRTY BOMBS!!!
    Kemm, if Fuku is so safe why don’t you move there so you can put that pro nuclear mind to work cleaning up the vast quantity of radioactive contamination? You have all the water you can drink!
    If you can’t Pu t your money where your mouth is then maybe you should shut it.
    Your shabby baseless lies are beyond shameful; they are criminal.
    Maybe you will get cancer and die, who knows?

    • Aaron Oakley

      “Japan’s population is plummeting since Fukushima began. Massive die offs of all types of marine animals and birds is underway.” Simply not true.

    • Michael Mann

      No, most of the water stored in the tanks at Fukushima is very slightly radioactive, as in less radioactive than ocean water before Fukushima happened….It doesn’t help anyone to continue these falsehoods. Fear and anxiety do have negative consequences.

  • Nuke Pro

    93 lies of the nuclear industry

  • Richard Martin

    The author is an evil wide faced sociopath.

  • greenthinker2012

    To put the Fukushima nuclear crisis into perspective, while nuclear power was busy killing zero people, cantaloupes killed 13 people and sickened 72 others in the USA.

    • Ahmed Shaker

      Now if only the public accepted food irradiation.

      • Michael Mann

        Yes, many lives could be saved…. there is hope.

  • Brian

    While the nuclear industry was busy killing 2 million people with cancers, solar and wind doubled every 2 years and now cost 1/4 nuclear.
    Solar and wind are available cheaper than fossils and 4 times cheaper than nuclear

    before gov breaks.

    Nuclear is fraud, It’s going to be short of fuels in ten years. Really.
    “As we look to the future, presently known resources
    fall short of demand.”
    Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
    fig 20 also show shortfall.

    Over half of all new power installs are solar and wind.

    16 years and solar and wind will be more energy than the world is projected to use, not just electricity. over a million deaths. 200,000 people will die from the 400,000 cancer they will get.

    But the pro nuclear people think you should believe the IAEA, which controls all UN paper and reports on radiation deaths. The IAEA charter is to promote nuclear power.

    You really want to believe industry pr and propganda? really?

  • Brian

    Nuclear power is 4 times the cost of avaible solar and wind, takes 12 years to install, at which piont solar and wind will be 16 times cheaper and already fulfilled the world’s energy needs (add waste to oil and gas, efficiency, eletric vehicles and hydro), kill millions of people with cancers, causes trillions of dollar in damages from disasters, leaves behind million years wastes that will cost 100B$ plus in dry casks storage even for only 100,000 years, and will be short of fuel in ten years. Maybe 20, I don’t think so. That’s all for just providing 2% of the world’s energy. 2%!!!!! for only 50 years! and look at the damage it’s done and will do. 27 tons of deadly million year wastes, 2 M tons of mining overburden, 100,000 tons of radioactive tailings, per year, per reactor! There has never been a less safe energy source.

    What’s hilarious is the use of unreasonable sources. That’s what left when you are done with RAR: “reasonably assured Resources”

    “In fact, we find that it will be difficult to avoid supply shortages even under a slow 1%/year worldwide nuclear energy phase-out scenario up to 2025. We thus suggest that a worldwide nuclear energy phase-out is in order. “

    I now have the pro nuclear power industry folks debating 10 years or 20 for avaible nuclear power fuels. I use only uranium RAR because that’s what the world’s reactor can use, and nothing else. The pro nuclear propganda and PR IAEA shows the data for RAR uranium and it clearly shows 2025 as the likley start of shortages, both in the 2001 and 2014 reports. They had to, it’s established fact. The very fact that the 2014 report shows the same 2025 shortage point, indicates we aren’t finding a lot of new uranium ore.

    Yet the Nuclear pr folks, that’s the UN and the IAEA, say we have plenty forever. We should trust them, right? Even when their own data says otherwise. The conclusions are preceded by several pages of discussion on unproven resourceful, alternative sources, and other magical future fantasies.

    Let’s add that nuclear power will kill millions of people with cancer when you use LNT. But remember the UN pro nuclear IAEA sasy 4000 deaths tops. The IAEA has sole authority to vet report and set standards. The other UN agencies pretend to write independent report,s but they are all the same people. They go to the same conferences, they move from agencies to agency and the IAEA has the last word. They use the same data. But the pro nuclear folks love to list them desperately then call you nuts for disagreeing with ALL those UN agencies. LOL.

    Did I mention:

    The IAEA charter is to “promote nuclear power”.

    Trust them it’s safe.

    God help us.

    • Brian

      Oh, and read the 2014 report.

      It’s the same numbers,m the same 2025, but with much better pr and marketing “conclusions”.

      “Estimates of tonnage and grade
      are based on specific sample data and measurements of the
      deposits and on knowledge of deposit characteristics.
      RAR have a high assurance of existence.”

      Remember that. Everything else is fantasy.

      Even in the low growth scenario, RAR will run short in 2040. That’s shutting down more nuclear, not building it up.

      “The deficits are even more dramatic in the high
      demand case. For example, known resources fall short of
      market based production requirements by 2 394 000 t U in
      the high demand case. A shortfall of 2 950 350 t U is
      projected between production from known resources and
      market based production requirements in the high demand
      case. The first deficit between production from known
      resources and requirements is projected to occur in 2026
      in the high demand case”

      Gee, sounds a lot like what I said.

  • TimS

    “Opposition to nuclear power has already killed millions of people, and will continue to kill millions more.”
    “Fukushima hasn’t caused a single death due to radiation exposure”
    “Fossil fuel, not nuclear, is killing millions yearly, according to scientists.”
    “Germany – home to the much-hailed ‘Energiewende’ green revolution – suffered more premature deaths linked to coal plant pollution than any other EU member state, research by health and environment campaigners has found.”
    “Air pollution from coal and lignite-fired power plants in Germany and Poland cause more than 4,600 premature deaths annually beyond their national borders, according to a new report.”
    “Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power”