Despite all that, the Japanese are going to increase their reliance on nuclear energy.
If you're asking what was the disaster in terms of human lives lost, you are probably correct that the number of deaths from acute radiation sickness is very low or zero. It is difficult to say what the long-term effects will be, if for no other reason than no one has a clear picture what is going on there right now.
If you're asking about financial costs, it will certainly be one of the most costly disasters ever. Cleanup costs alone are estimated to be 58 billion dollars--which does NOT include the costs of replacing the 6 nuclear reactors. Additionally, lost value in the exclusion zone around the plant is estimated to be 250-500 billion dollars.
Very speculative estimates for the total cost are over 1 trillion dollars. I think most people would consider that a disaster.
By comparison, the "Republican Tea Party Disaster" (financial terrorism by Tea Party members of Congress) is only estimated to have cost 24 billion dollars.
EDIT for Mae: Lots of people are out of pocket. The 24 billion comes from an estimate by Standard & Poors. It's not the federal workers, since most of the just ended up with a paid vacation (more stupidity on the part of Congress), it's the people that need the government to be open to do their business. Personally, I lost at least a few hundred dollars and perhaps as much as a thousand.
EDIT for Caliservative: You should have stuck to Latin, now that you've written something in English your lack of reasoning is there for all to see.
First of all, the reason why the question is on topic is that it is pretty much futile to even try to curb greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power. Perhaps one day, decades in the future, we may be able to store the energy from solar and wind power and use it when the wind isn't blowing and the Sun isn't shining, but that is decades away.
And where was the Fukushima disaster? Even though fearmongers would love for use to believe that Fukushima has made it dangerous to drink milk in Canada, as you said, there is no evidence that people have or will die because of Fukushima.
There was no disaster.
28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima
October 21st, 2013 The Truth
3. Along the Pacific coast of Canada and the Alaska coastline, the population of sockeye salmon is at a historic low. Many are blaming Fukushima.
5. A vast field of radioactive debris from Fukushima that is approximately the size of California has crossed the Pacific Ocean and is starting to collide with the west coast.
8. One test in California found that 15 out of 15 bluefin tuna were contaminated with radiation from Fukushima.
A nuclear plant was built in a region prone to various seismic events, without sufficient safeguards against same. A tsunami, and inappropriate reaction to same, led to unnecessary exposure to radiation for a lot of people.
I'd count it as a very minor disaster--worse than 3-mile island (where, as far as I know, *no one* was actually exposed to any significant radiation in that event, there was just some degree of risk that people might be), but far, far less than Chernobyl.
I would not consider it cause to stop using nuclear, it is likely that coal power plants have caused more deaths worldwide (even excluding global warming, just considering direct pollution like soot) than nuclear plants have, even *including* Chernobyl. It just suggests that we need to be more careful about exactly *how* we build our nuclear plants, especially in seismically active areas. There should be more safeguards against any of the problems that occurred with Fukushima, part of how we progress is by trying to make sure we don't make the same mistake twice.
A decision was made by bureaucrats to build a nuclear plant in an area that is prone to tidal waves and earthquakes and time caught up with them.
What is the extent of the damage? We don't know. The truth only trickles out. Hopefully it isn't another Chernobyl.
The tragedy is that we have an abundance of coal which renders the proliferation of nuclear plants an atrocity.
The coal-hating greenies caused this tragedy.
Why is this somewhat off-topic anyway. The environment has been wrecked in a who-knows-how big of an area.
So, Peg, if the shutdown "cost" 24 billion, where did that money go? Who is out of pocket?
It depends on radiation . there is the Low kind which
is everywhere brick walls etc.
The high kind inside of a reactor .
The Russian disaster is over some of the wildlife is back .
the mice genes are scrambled but their still mice .
But the USA has the Obama disaster .
It was a disaster in that all confidence in nuclear power plants was lost, Germany decided to shut down it's nuclear power plants, and is now building coal fired stations, a step backward in my opinion.
Nuclear has got to be our future.
The (non) disaster is more evidence (as if it were necessary) that the alarmist position follows the laws of emotionalism, and not those of logic. The facts do not matter where the emotions are engaged.
Tsunami leading to loss of cooling of reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_D...
This question may seem off topic but it really isn't. Part of the question is to try to figure out why.
We all probably have our own definition of a disaster although I suppose there are a few events we would all41 agree are actual disasters like the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.
My question is, what exactly was the disaster in Fukushima?
