Comments on: Japan Nuclear Meltdown Will Seriously Affect World Environment

By: cleaning a volcano vaporizer

cleaning a volcano vaporizer — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:56:11 +0000

This is very interesting, You are a very skilled blogger.
I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks!

By: Doug J

Doug J — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:25:16 +0000

Of course we have to pity the Niger conditions just as we should recall the autrocities our natives faces at the old Eldorado mine in Radium City on Great Bear Lake who were not given adequate protection equipment as other workers were. Much of this has little to do with product and more about taking advantage of the impoverished. Canada still being the largest producer is generally happy with it’s mine sites. While these situations are products of human greed. The fact remains that this is the greenest option but needs stricter guidelines. Wind power is anything but green or renewable but it’s promtion satisfies politicians and their friends subsidies,

By: Jacqui

Jacqui — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:14:51 +0000

To Doug J
Why does everyone pity the coal miners and not a peep about the horrendous conditions at uranium mines. Do a small search into conditions in the Niger, Africa, where France gets its uranium to see another side to that story.
In Johannesburg, South Africa, the water running into the dam supplying the city is radioactive and toxic from current uranium mining and old gold mines (gold and uranium are commonly found together. A very small percent of uranium can be extracted from uranium rich rock – the rest “tailings”- finely ground uranium rich sand- is left in unrehabilitated dumps and sludge dams to poison watercourses and surrounding communities forever.
It all depends how desperate you are to turn on those lights I guess. But the clean and green alternative that it has been promoted as – nuclear- surely is not.

By: Maurice Picow

Maurice Picow — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 07:17:11 +0000

I fully agree!

By: Marcus

Marcus — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:11:20 +0000

There would be enought power for Japan in wind energy.
They should get to work and built 1-10GWe Windpowerplants.
In ten years they could shut down the last nuke.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5538
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyjp8Afiu5c

By: Karin Kloosterman

Karin Kloosterman — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:36:32 +0000

In reply to Christopher Lee. Our server is powered by wind energy in Texas.

By: Christopher Lee

Christopher Lee — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:28:52 +0000

“American aid troops in the region are moving away from the nuclear plant after a plume of radiation was detected 100 miles from the reactor core.[sic]” Please source your claims and provide links to back them up. This is claim is spurious and scientifically false.

I am a proponent of clean energy, including the eventual decommissioning of Nuclear Plants should a better, cheaper, and more reliable energy source become available, but this article amounts to fear mongering, and from the facts presented, suggests that the author did little research into the Chernobyl disaster and the Science of Nuclear energy. Its hard to fault the author though, since Prophets are notorious liars and often just make stuff up.

Some helpful links for those trying to understand the current issues facing Japanese reactors:
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/17/130915882/tracking-the-latest-at-the-fukushima-nuclear-plant?ps=rs
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/understanding-japans-nuclear-crisis.ars
http://www.iaea.org/
http://eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/intro.html

For more on the Chernobyl disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

As a final thought, has the author considered that without Nuclear Energy this website would not exist?

By: Luke

Luke — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:10:20 +0000

I for one think this meltdown will fully occur. day to day situations have got worse at the plant. day 1 was a level 1 (on the nuclear accident scale or w,e) quickly reached a level 3. by mondays explosion its now a level 6 ( out of 7) and very little news over the past 2 days and not once has anyone speculated that these “containment vessles” can actually prevent radioactive material. i also read that these Reactors are much larger then the 1986 explosion.

By: Justin Alexander

Justin Alexander — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:32:53 +0000

To Maurice,

The current world electrical demand is 16TW, that’s never going to be safe, even if it’s produced by wind farms, solar panels, geothermal, hydroelectric, or people on treadmills.

Even reduced to fractions of that by efficiency and (please no) population control, we are talking about huge sums of energy. And this is before we bring on-line the worlds poor in India and Africa, who need energy to lift them out of poverty.

Billions are starving. And this can be prevented by bringing them electricity and safe clean industry. The only technology on tap NOW that can do that is nuclear.

Scaring people away from nuclear costs lives. Real lives, not theoretical ones.

Do the honest research.

By: Maurice

Maurice — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:35:27 +0000

Hi Doug,

Nothing is entirely safe, but when it comes to nuclear energy, a lot of people do remember those movies like Silkwood or The China Syndrome – aswell as the cartoon character Homer Simpson coming home from the Nuke Plant with a piece of radioactive material in his pants pocket.

Just too many bid vibes about nuclear energy I guess. After the “Japan Syndrome” I suppose there will be even more bad vibes.