Updates on Fukushima
I like to maintain a level head when it comes to nuclear, and not overplay the danger issue. Having said that, when I come across an article like this piece on Fukushima, I have to say that I feel a certain sense of outrage. The editorial staff of the Washington Post calls the event “scary but non-catastrophic.” I know I sometimes publish stuff that I wish I hadn’t, but this really is a shockingly poor choice of words.
Here’s a good source for updates on the Fukushima disaster.
Saying that Fukushima was not a catastrophe is irresponsible. The financial loss was billions of dollars; if that was not a catastrophe, I don’t know what a catastrophe is.
Catastrophy is a qualative descriptor. Sure, it means a big, bad event.
To put it in perspective though we need to look at the wide range of disasterous prediction for nuclear power that were hung on the industry to try to prevent implementation for commercial power production.
Here is a list of widely publicized predictions that were made about the catastrophic fallout from a core melt down.
1. It will explode like a nuclear bomb. It didn’t
2. Many thousands of people would die instantly. They didn’t.
3. Biological life could not exist for many miles around the reactor. Life does find a way to come back in the most hostile environments.
It is a catastrophe on many levels including health and financial damages but it should have been far worse if the doomsday folks had been creditable witnesses at the hearings when they were making the case for end of the world scenarios.
LL