Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Uncontainable: Tsunami to Nuclear Crisis: Reason Enough to Abolish Nuclear Power

Fukushima earthquake damage

Almost two and a half years ago on March 11, 2011 an unprecedented earthquake, 8.9 on Richter scale, which was felt for hundreds of miles, struck Japan triggering a 14 metre tsunami, crashing through Japan's eastern coastline, which swept away most anything and anyone miles inland, followed by 50 aftershocks, with seven being at least on the 6.3 Richter scale.

These series of natural events caused approximately 15,870 deaths, 6,114 injuries, and 2,814 reported missing.  It led to the destabilization of Nuclear power plants in Northeastern Japan.  Operating reactors shut down automatically, with control rods inserting into the reactor cores as a result of the earthquake.  To worsen the situation the tsunami caused by the earthquake, disabled all AC power to Units 1,2&3.  The tsunami also carried away the fuel tanks for the emergency diesel generators.  Water injection failed in the emergency core cooling system of the same three units.  With the normal cooling system being inoperable, a pressure valve was opened manually to reduce the pressure in the reactor container.  Instead hydrogen explosions further damaged the facilities and eventually, radioactive material was released into the environment.

After the Tsunami

Mutated dog after Chernobyl

Fukushima Diiachi like Chernobyl, which occurred in 1986, in Ukraine are level 7 nuclear accidents.  Right off the bat an estimated in excess of 14,000 American lives have been lost 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdown, mainly consisting of infants under 1 year of age comparable to the 16,500 lives lost in 17 weeks after the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant explosion. According to a Japanese newspaper, The Fukushima plant is still leaking 300 tons of radioactive water into the ocean a day.  Japan is haunted by two lingering questions from the aftermath of this disaster.  How the radioactivity might contaminate ocean life, that represent a source of seafood to humans in the long run? and second, Whether or not they can stop the leaks of radioactive water from the Fukushima plant?

Child mutation due to Chernobyl

The later deaths from low level radioactive exposure, which cause diseases such as thyroid cancer will cause the death toll to rise as it did with Chernobyl. It will do the same with the Fukushima Diiachi incident.  Here it is two years later and the Fukushima Diiachi Nuclear Power Plant is barely standing with "duct tape" repairs and a "kick stand", so to speak, and nuclear waste is still leaking into the pacific ocean.  Though it's been 25 years since the meltdown, Chernobyl's plan to entomb its nuclear power stations fourth reactor is progressing very slowly due to a concrete shortage. The question(s) to that is... "Could it work?"  "Should Japan follow the same solution?" and "Do they have the resources?" Should these two disasters be enough to abolish nuclear power and support and enforce solar power?  Should the fact that we are slowly being poisoned be enough for a change that could save the earth?

Lets have a comparison and you make the choice.

Lets start with our tax dollars.  Our tax dollars are literally going towards our own detriment.  A brief history lesson.  Nuclear power was invented in 1942 by Ricardo Husada.  His team created the nuclear chain reaction and the nuclear reactor was born.  In 1954 Russia built the first nuclear power plant.  So lets do the math.  That is almost 70 years of air pollution and though Chernobyl was one of the worst, it wasn't the first.  The first nuclear accident occurred at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), also known as RocketDyne, in Ventura Country, California, on July 13, 1959.  Despite being much smaller than the Three Mile Island Reactor,  SSFL is believed to have released up to 240 times more radiation than the 1979 disaster.  That's over 65 years of water pollution.  Not to mention, it's snowballing with each incident.  Notice there are more and more cancer cases each year.  My question.  How much more trial and error will they have to go through before they either get it right or take the necessary steps to do away with or at least minimize nuclear power?  How much more of taxpayers money will be spent?  How much more poisoning?  How many more "casualties", will there have to be....?

Now on to price.  Solar power is substantially cheaper than nuclear power.  It is generated by nature, more efficient, and it is cleaner.  For example hybrid cars generally get more miles to the gallon and cause less pollution.  Now for those of you who are worried about looking cool and think the hybrid cars look "dorky", for lack of a better word.  There are some really great concepts out there as well as concepts for motorcycles.  But, back on topic.  Even if it was more expensive than nuclear it would still be worth the price to save the very elements we need to survive.  The water we drink, the air we breathe, the grass and leaves that recycle the air we breathe.  These are the very elements and entities that are vital to our survival as a human race.  The best thing about solar or other sources of energy other than nuclear is that it in non-contaminant, non-destructive, and there is too much energy from these sources for us humans to use up because the sources replenish themselves .  Not to mention that the cost of nuclear power is increasing more and more each year and causing more and more damage to our Eco system as the years pass.




If you don't think nuclear power is damaging answer these questions.  Have you ever tried breathing in smoke?  Have you ever noticed the difference in the air and your ability or lack there of to breath in areas with smoke versus areas without?  If you saw so much as a spec in your glass of water, much less if it were murky would you, still drink it?  What  would you do or think if you could actually see how contaminated your water and air actually are?

With that said, before you start using the tree-hugger card think about how much better it would be to cheapen your utility bills, breath cleaner air, drink cleaner water, and be apart of the earths growth instead of its destruction and eventually the destruction of the human race or the so called "end of the world"?  Because the earth isn't going anywhere, people, we are.  If this path of destruction does not cease and desist, the earth is just going to rid itself of us and shake us off like a bad case of the fleas.  If there were ever a better chance to make this earth a better place for our future, our children, this would be it.

Feel free to comment, question, state any concerns or criticize.  I am most open to constructive criticism. Thank you for taking the time out to read my blog and I hope it will help and or change for the better.  I'm out.

P.S.  Humans are the only species that pay to live on earth.  Why not try to get our moneys worth?