In the interview the mother is not exactly all in it for ending it now.

As for the Yellow dust, it's the same stuff that was seen after Chernobyl. It fell all over Tokyo for a couple days, and the media said it was blown in from the Chinese desert. Only problem is people with dosimeters checked the drains where it had gathered during a rain after it fell. Very very high levels. It was fall out, period.

It's one thing to be optimistic about clean nuclear energy, or just to see that Japan has a need for it for the moment, but to belittle truthful information, or stories because it may hurt the industry is a whole other thing. Even if you really are just concerned for the Japanese economy, or world economy, I strongly disagree with the notion that we should not allow voices to be heard because they may disrupt an economy.

We live in a dirty corrupt world. The corrupt make their voices heard loud and clear through public media daily. I think it is quite alright for a little family to speak out about their feelings on a triple melt through that occured 30 miles from their home.

You don't know me Vitaliy, but put simply, I don't BS. I know what I saw, and I know there will be some very sad stories to come from the disaster. I am a bit amazed by the amount of denial some have about the dangers of nuclear energy. First it is stuff like "It's perfectly safe to live near a nuclear reactor", then it becomes "it is perfectly safe to live 30 miles from a triple meltdown (Melt through actually)". I am very curious where the line of safety is drawn for those that feel so cozy with this energy source.

@mee

I really suggest to research topic.

And propose to make new horrible interviews about .. coal. As most human induced ratiation comes from coal, not from nuclear stations. Btw, living near nuclear station is much much better than near coal based one.

If you research topic, you'll find simple reason why suddenly Japan and Germany want to shut down nuclear sites. Problem is with Uranium supply, and countries who still lack full sovereignty had been ordered to do so.

I don't disagree with the fact that coal is very dirty and very bad

I am not talking about dirt, I am talking abour artificial radiation. Most if it comes from coal :-)

The easiest way to think of it is little tiny bullets flying around. Some pierce your cells nucleus, and usually that cell dies, however sometimes it does not, and that's when mutations/cancer occur. The more exposure, the more tiny bullets, the more chance of a mutation.

It is just wrong. You can google interesting research that small radiation do not harm, and in reverse, is even good for health.

Both are not needed. But I know you either believe it or don't. Put simply, if we put half the energy and commitment both of our countries put into getting people into orbit, we could have solar and wind fields as far as the eye can see, and no more of these arguments.

LOL. Look at blog posts and look at serious energy reports.
No one even plan that "green" energy will play any significant role. In fact, as soon as you remove goverment donations whole sectors collapse quite fast.

Just like nuclear. Same thing. They always get ridiculous subsidies.

:-) Nope, not even remotely comparable. Just open same good reports and look at EROI.

Problem with nuclear is that only few countries who have enough skill and sovereignty can have independent politics here. Plus big issues with Uranium supply exist (also few contries control this).

USA spent 53 billion on Fission Power RD 1973-2003. And here's some charts for you and I think my charts are a lot better than your charts. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html

This topic now is place for very strict moderation.

Wikipedia links are not allowed.

@peternap

In fact, it is very simple, as coal contains radioactive materials.
And if you burn a lot of coal, well, they are out in the open :-)

let's be pragmatic ! let's buy some Cameco shares :p