Recent comments

Absurd reasoning. If global warning represent a progressive danger to biodiversity, nuclear accidents can become its worst enemy in no time. While it's possible to counter global warming by replanting trees, it's not even possible to counter nuclear fallouts. The dangers of nuclear energy far exceeds that of coal burning. The more nuclear power plants are built, the higher the risks of more frequent accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. While humans can always engineer ways to survive the visible effects of global warming, how could anyone survive food chain contamination with radioactive isotopes, let alone the food and water shortage that would result from it? I live in Japan at the moment and I cannot buy any process food or go to restaurants anymore. I have to buy locally made veggies when available, spring water from southern Japan (in limited supply). My entire lifestyle has been affected and I don't even live anywhere near Fukishima, but way south. I had to stop eating fish and sea weeds, beef and dairy products such as cheese and milk, as they are mostly made in Northern Japan where radioactive fallouts are highest. If a complete change of lifestyle is not a concern to anyone, what about food and water shortage. Most people in Japan cannot buy more than 2 liters of water per day due to shortages. Also climate change is nothing new. Humanity has gone through warm periods and ice ages, and we have adapted pretty well even during the stone age. But will humans ever adapt to high doses of radioactivity? Unfortunately that's physically impossible. Our intelligence might allow us to adapt to progressive changes in the environment, but our body won't adapt to cell and DNA damaging ionizing particles in our environment. While the earth could survive through multiple ice ages and global warming, it cannot survive the ultimate life destroyer known as radioactivity. We have created a monster. Plutonium for instance did not exist on this planet and now there is enough of it, within reactors, reprocessing plants and nuclear dumps, to destroy life on this planet entirely and many times over, for 100 thousands of years. Accidents do happen. What will be next? A super volcano that effect other nuclear reactors? A huge solar storm as predicted for 2012 going through a hole in the magnetic shield of the earth and shutting down the power grid and again affecting multiple nuclear plants? We don't know what can happen... It could even be a comet or sabotage, a sophisticated and targeted computer virus like Stuxnet. Is the risk worth it? Answering this question is hard for those not affected by Fukushima at the moment. Most people could care less once their attention is diverted to something else by the mass media. However there is another question worth asking: In a democracy, can we expect workers to go die trying to shut down a troubled nuclear plant? Can we send in the military like did Gorbachev in the ex soviet union and plug the radioactive leaks in a matter of days or weeks? Apparently not... Japan hasn't been able to send its military as suggested by Michio Kaku as the ultimate solution. Whenever there is a radiation spike workers are evacuated. No one actually wants to go die in the plant, or sacrifice lives. No politician wants to take the risk of being held responsible for death due to intense radiation exposure. This is why Nakao Kan, the prime minister looks nothing like a commander in chief. But in the meantime, radioactive fallouts are not stopping and could very well get worse, pending more incidents in reactor 3 (MOX fuel), 5 and 6. At some point humans lives will need to be sacrificed to end this ongoing crisis. It may turned out to be unavoidable. At the moment, they (decision makers) are just trying to avoid the unavoidable, by doing very little, and hoping for the best case scenario or a miracle to unfold. Should they come to accept the need to bury these reactors quickly, lives will be sacrificed, lies will be manufactured, and the entire nuclear lobby will find it hard to justify the risks and the threat it poses to democracy and human lives. But in the meantime, while the bureaucrats ponder how to protect the nuclear industry, and stop the crisis, Fukushima is constantly spewing radioactive isotopes in the ocean and atmosphere. The cumulative affects could have far reaching consequences that might turn out to be as detrimental to the nuclear industry as sacrificing human lives to put an end to the crisis. This crisis has become a chess game for the bureaucrats. They are faced with 2 choices: 1) Contaminate the entire northern hemisphere and wage a powerful media disinformation campaign to save the nuclear industry 2) End the crisis quickly to stop contamination by implementing the Michio Kaku solution: Send the Japanese military and bury the reactors, then deal with the wave of leukemia, death, post traumatic syndromes in a way that doesn't affect governments and the nuclear industry. How could that be done? By glorifying the patriotism of those who saved the world while ignoring their real plight. The same has been done with the 911 first responders. Even though they are now suing the government and dying of leukemia and other weird syndromes (due to nano-particles, which according to independent scientist are the byproducts of highly sophisticated explosives ), their voice has been mostly unheard in the mainstream media. Should their voice be heard, it would open a debate about these nano-particles and in turn the inside job theory that threatens the establishment and our entire manufactured world view. Unfortunately the nuclear industry and its lobby might prove so powerful that whatever grave implications from Fukushima are revealed, dissent will be buried in a massive disinformation campaign that has already well started. Let's hope the citizen of this world are smart enough, starting with the Japanese (I highly doubt it), to realize all that is at stake now, and for future generations.