Armageddon!

Or maybe not...

What staggers me is that 1,000s lie dead and yet all the media leads with is the unfolding nuclear "catastrophe". The public have an irrational fear of radiation, fed by a media chasing a sensationalist headline. In the final wash up, I imagine the deaths from the tsunami will be 1,000s times more than die from the nuclear incident.

How many died at Three Mile Island, the only other analogue? (Chernobyl was a reactor without a containment system). The answer is Zero. To be honest, I'd be quite happy to be in Tokyo right now and would ignore the requests of our Government.

And those thinking that all nuclear reactors are susceptible ignore that fact that the affected reactors are 1960's and 70's technology. Hasn't the technology moved on since then!

Threat of nuclear meltdown?

It doesn't take much investigation on the internet to realise that the risk associated with a "meltdown" are being completely overstated by all media.

The incident is currently a level 4 on the INES.

Andrew Bolt links to a description of the incident and the likely consequences. As long as the tertiary containment remains intact, the consequence of a nuclear meltdown will be abandonment of that reactor but no impact on the enviroment. Bolt also links to a list of deaths per TWh for different generation methods. Guess which one is the lowest!

It is clear that there is an irrational fear of nuclear generated energy, completely disproportionate to the actual risks posed. Deaths associated with nuclear power number in the 100's over the past 50 years; coal numbers in the 1000's per year!

And let's not forget we get the majority of our energy every single day from nuclear fusion!

UPDATE: And it continues. David Shukman of the BBC was just shown explaining a nuclear reactor. Apparently if the steel wall of the container stays intact, there won't be a leak. Hang on, what about the tertiary containment system designed solely for the purpose of containing a meltdown!