Start A Petition

Fukushima Disaster Still A Global Nightmare - Via Eco Watch

World  (tags: World, Fukushima disaster, Nuclear Power, Japan, Article )

- 1447 days ago -
Three years after the nuclear disaster on 11.03.2011, an ice wall will be built at the site, as at least 300 tons of heavily contaminated water still pours daily into the Pacific. Japanese judges have ruled Japan will not continue with nuclear power.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Maria Teresa Schollhorn (42)
Thursday June 5, 2014, 1:57 am
Very dangerous! Thank you Victoria.

David F (14)
Thursday June 5, 2014, 6:02 am
> Three years after the March 11, 2011, disaster, nobody knows exactly where the melted cores from Units 1, 2 and 3 might be
= BS.
Doe the author think they magically disappeared. Or that Starship Enterprises' Scotty beamed them into the sun?
- probably not. Ergo the corium (you DO remember the images from 'nobyl, i hopes?) is sitting right below where the reactors are/were, and --as by now well known-- it is sitting there in a ground-water-stream

> three extremely volatile fuel assemblies
- VOLATILE fuel assemblies ??? whats that supposed to mean ?

David F (14)
Thursday June 5, 2014, 6:08 am
> An accident at any one of the [SFPs #1,2,3] could result in significant radiation releases
= correct
> which have already far exceeded those from Chernobyl
= UTTER BULLSHIT (assuming that Chernobyl = "Chernobyl-'86-disaster and not Chernobyl-SFPs)
> and from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
= BS. Releases from SFPs are unknown. And release of short-livbed isotopes (like I-131) from LittleBoy & FatMan were certainly larger than and possible releases from Fuk.Dai-ichi's SFP's

David F (14)
Thursday June 5, 2014, 6:13 am
correction: .. release of short-lived isotopes (like I-131) from LittleBoy & FatMan were certainly larger than any possible releases from Fuk.Dai-ichi's SFP's
and, to put the Fuk.-Dai-ichi-disaster into some perspective:

Cs-137 RELEASED by Chernobyl'86: 85 PBq (about 1/3 of total inventory)
... RELEASED by Fuk.Dai-ichi in 03/011: 36 PBq (a bit less than 10% of inventory)
... RELEASES by Fuk.Dai-ichi: ONGOING ...
... RELEASED by combined atmospheric bomb-tests: 1200 PBq -- more the than half of them, and the dirtiest ones by the Unites $tates of Amnesia & hysteria.

Thus, (e.g.) *U$A-produced* Contamination is more than 15 times as much for longer-lived more-volatile isotopes (like Cs137, Sr90), 100+ times as much from longer-lived less-volatile ones (U,Pu) and ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE as much for shorter-lived ones (like I-131) than Japans's.


Ben O (171)
Thursday June 5, 2014, 7:20 am
Why am I so pessimistic? Why am I getting depressed? Why am I mad as hell? -You tell me... : ~ [

Robert O (12)
Friday June 6, 2014, 12:56 am
I have a sick feeling that it's going to be that way for decades to come since Fukushima was a catastrophe of epic proportions.

Terrensa L. (0)
Friday June 6, 2014, 1:01 am
when we think of france with 70% of its power generated by nuclear power plants the first thing i wonder about is how do they decommission all of them or do they just keep extending their use with the attitude of , "no worries."

Past Member (0)
Saturday June 7, 2014, 12:41 am
Fukushima is not a global disaster. 26,000 people died from the earthquake and tsunami that led to the Fukushima incident, but Fukushima is what it has always been, a localized disaster that has killed no one. The Pacific Ocean is not a death zone. The Pacific North American Coast is still safe to enjoy. The seafood is still tasty as ever. Hysteria is no substitute for science.

Ondine J (134)
Saturday June 7, 2014, 1:05 am
Thanks Victoria, I was and remain very concerned.

Frances Darcy (133)
Saturday June 7, 2014, 2:30 am
HELP ....Iam confused between the article and David F's comments...

Victoria Oakey (124)
Saturday June 7, 2014, 4:54 am
Frances I think that the truth is that Fukushima has happened and IS affecting the world with water-borne radiation, although some people are in denial about that, probably because of their blind belief in ethically dubious science. David F appears to be angry about some of the article, and I think it's best not to try to compare Fukushima with other nuclear disasters as the journalist tries to do so I actually agree with him about that. Brian M. in answer to your comment, where have you been for the past 3 years? You cannot know anything about radiation then or water-borne contamination so your grasp on science is not as firm as you think it is. Denial is not a substitute for the facts. David F and Brian M, you can belittle the truth as much as you like but it's only your angry opinion based on a blind faith in unethical science and a denial of the facts. Thank goodness Japan is not longer nuclear!

Past Member (0)
Saturday June 7, 2014, 5:30 am
This is wrong if this radiation is leaking into the sea then eventually every river and lake in the world will be affected by the rainfall spreading this radiation worldwide.

Lady Suki (446)
Saturday June 7, 2014, 9:47 am
This is true.

Past Member (0)
Saturday June 7, 2014, 7:41 pm
Victoria, in answer to your question, I have been on planet earth where serious researchers have concluded that the global impact of Fukushima is non-existent. The only things you appear to know about radiation is the hysterical "sky is falling" propaganda of the Helen "I wear tin foil helmets" Caldicott crowd. You clearly don't understand anything that you are talking about. I bet you don't believe in gravity. Hysteria is no substitute for facts, Victoria. Try reading serious research starting with:


Past Member (0)
Saturday June 7, 2014, 7:55 pm
By the way, rather than increase their dependence upon fossil fuels, Japan plans on restarting their reactors soon.

Gabriele Jefferson (147)
Sunday June 8, 2014, 3:52 am

noted, shared on fb, twitter, g+, thx,

Victoria Oakey (124)
Sunday June 8, 2014, 10:20 am
Brian M, I wish Fukushima had not happened. I am sorry you have to insult my intelligence or my knowledge about the science, would you like me to send you some information? How can you deny the FACT that it is still leaking radioactive water three years after the fact and that this is having consequences. I am perfectly calm, it's you that's angry and brainwashed, I feel sorry for you actually. Oh and by the way, trolling the facts, sad..

Terrensa L. (0)
Monday June 9, 2014, 11:30 pm
Well here are two ways: plutonium oxide remains deadly for over 100,000 years. Some elements of nuclear power plants remain deadly for twenty five million years. Kind of makes the fear of long lasting effects of foolishly building more nuclear power plants not like simply the "Luddite" fears of the "unscientific" caveman regarding fire doesn't it fiddie ?

Past Member (0)
Tuesday June 17, 2014, 7:51 am
noted, tnx!

Past Member (0)
Tuesday July 1, 2014, 12:59 am
Hysteria is no substitute for science, and sharing real information, not anti-science propaganda, is NOT "trolling." Perhaps you should read "All The Best, Scientifically Verified, Information on Fukushima Impacts" @
"The Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant accident: UNSCEAR's assessment of levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami" @
"West Coast Kelp Safe from Fukushima-Related Radiation" @

Of course, these sites are based upon science and not anyone's technophobic ideological agenda. Fukushima is a localized incident with little impact upon Japan outside of the incident zone and of no consequence to the rest of the world. But that's just the facts with no spin.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.