In Japan, the zone that is still considered dangerous is right at 10 miles around Fukushima.

It's crazy that the big story became the nuclear plants that killed ONE person, vs building on the coast in a tsunami zone that killed 20,000 people.

And they are rebuilding on the coast! Can you imagine if they decided to rebuilf the nuclear plants with the same design in the same location?

They didn't even have elctronic calculators when they designed these plants 50 years ago.

Of course the designs are far safer now. And they know not to build them on low ground on the coast.

But it reminds me of what someone said in California. They said what if we had a 9.0 earthquake in CA? What would happen to the nuclear plants?

My response is: You will be dead, so it won't matter. California couldn't take a 9.0. Or a 20 foot high tsunami. Both of those would kill millions, and the nuclear plants might kill a few people.

If you are worried about a nuclear plant accident killing you: then you will never step in a train, plane or car. You can't use stairs or a bathtub. All of those are several to hundreds of thousands of times more likely to kill you than a nuclear plant.

Never underestimate the gullibility of the average person. Also, never underestimate the propensity for a company to make a profit from such gullibility by selling you something you will never need. I'm surprised there aren't higher snipe hunting gear sales.

It is still a bit early to be stating the number of people killed, as it will take years to decades for cancers to develop amoung the exposed populations.

Mmmmmm ...mmmmmmm...mmmm. Snipe! Funny, but I irradiate mine, for storage in case of nuclear fallout. Then I braise them in an orange/iodine marinade. Now THAT'S good eating.

Annoyedbyidiots - Denver has twice the radiation levels as Philidelphia.

But because the levels are low, you can't say: X number of people die because they live in Denver.

Same thing in Japan. There were a few workers with heavy exposure. They may die earlier than otherwise would be expected. But otherwise, people have been excluded from the danger zone ( the real danger zone is limited to the plants themselves, but there is about 10 miles where the public isn't allowed.)

The reason the Fukushima and BP oil spill stories have faded is that the extreeme predictions were way off, and the damage is so very limited that there's not much you can scare consumers of media with.

And without the hyperbole and fear - the story doesn't sell ads.

Do you really think they are going to report good news?

How about developing Thorioum??????? Do the research, no explosions, far far safer, far less waste, far more efficient, far more fuel from far more places, but sadly. its reactors do not make bomb fuel like traditional ones do. Forget pills, thorium reactors burn waste as fuel, and do not have the safety risks of traditional nuclear.

But, there is no lobby, and no one in big business or politics seems to care, despite the fact that we have been ignoring it for 50+ years. Do the research, thorium has far more potential than traditional, or any other power source, but no lobby, and no money means that China (who is developing it now), will beat us on this one.

There is no lobby for this yet. If you want plentiful cheap energy, look into it, and encourage others to do the same. Ignore it, if you want China to get this amazing tech first.

Nothing wrong with being prepared.

Stars12; I don't think there is anything at all wrong with your thinking. The worst case scenario is that you will never need it. What's the harm there? I try not to be paranoid about such things but I'll tell you, I would never trust the US Government to tell us the truth about any of that stuff. They have lied to us before.

whats ridiculous is the inability of some to look at the numbers and instead take every nuclear accident as gospel of a doomed energy source, rather than seeing that these accidents are extremely rare. you're more likely to die in a car accident than be harmed by a nuke plant.

It goes beyond ignorance of nuclear power and radiation - it's a complete ignorance of science and math and logic and statistical analysis. There's another story on MSNBC today, screaming about how many women get raped or sexually assaulted every year in the US Military and folks are weighing in screaming about how awful our troops are. However, if you do the math, you find out that the rate of assaults/rapes for women in the Military is only about 8.8%, which is considerably lower than the rate for college coeds in the USA ("20%" per Pres. Obama and "21.6%" per the NIJ). People believe as the headlines tell them to believe because they are either or both too lazy or ignorant to figure out what things really mean. Don't believe me? Try discussing "global warming" - regardless of which side of that debate you prefer, you have to be appalled by how ignorant people are when it comes to such basic things as "The Empirical/Scientific Method". How can you weigh in on policy when you don't even understand the underlying arguments? It's been the death of discourse in America. We are ruled by the passions of those who scream the loudest because we are simply too stupid to think for ourselves.

Solar and wind are too regionally dependent to be useful, plus battery technology needs to be improved before we can rely on them as a primary, consistent, power source. odds are you will only see these as supplementing a primary power source.

Geothermal is often left out, when discussing renewables. But, in reality, we drill enough deep "dry holes" to power a large portion of the USA. The downs? Expensive initial investment ; We get cheap coal ; There's no electricity shortage ; Like James said: lousy battery performance for cars ;

Sure, we can go nuke, solar, hydro, wind, and geothermal.... But, without long range battery power, cars will still need a higher energy-density chemical fuel!

Thorium MSRs all the way!

Exactly Roadkill. While I have been following the technology of electric cars, until they become more consumer friendly (cost wise) and the battery power updated so that we can drive more than 100 miles they aren't really feasible for the average car buyer.

Until then we have to stick with gasoline.

Federal government should provide a nuke pill to all? WHY? I love my child, but that's just stupidity.

And much safer batteries. The size of the lithium-ion batteries in cars can cause severe fires in accidents if they just get cracked.

Nobody can guarantee "safe" radioactive exposure because we're all exposed to radiation, constantly, and the effects are long-term, uncertain, and untraceable. All a scientist can do is tell you how much radiation will almost certainly kill you quickly.

I think that's what scares people about radiation (other people, anyway, I'm more afraid of bees than nukes or nuclear plants); the invisibility and uncertainty about it. There are, of course, thousands of more likely threats in everyday life, but they're familiar, and usually visible. Radiation can't be seen, felt, or detected without special equipment. Like the common horror movie trope, sometimes nothing is scarier.

None of this, however, is a good reason not to use nuclear power. If for no other reason than because the risks are easy to minimize and the alternatives don't pan out. You're worried about a nuclear plant contaminating a ten-mile area in a worst-case scenario? Coal, oil, and even gas plants constantly contaminate the same area, and (probably) contribute to worldwide environmental damage. I'll bet you my right lung that more people have gotten sick or died due to fossil fuel plants operating normally than have died or ever will die from nuclear accidents.

Life is rough. It doesn't come with guarantees.

Hail the mighty atom!

Most other things dont present the possibility of poisoning large areas of land, and exposing large numbers of people to something that can have long term negative health effects. That entire area around Fukashima is now off limits, and will remain off limits for a very long time. Just like the very large area around Chernobyl is off limits.

What the 10 miles around the plant. The reason people aren't going back isn't the radiation. It's because the surge of all the salt water contaminated the soil. Too much salt, nothing is growing. The radiation levels are low. You'd get a larger exposure during an intercontinental flight. Chernobyl is off limits because the Russians didn't have the same safety designs as the everyone else. The iodine is gone (little over an 8 day half life) and the cesium is there but being aggressively monitored in the food supply.

But how about all the petro-chemical facilities around the country. They have the potential to poison large areas and expose alot of people. Especially to short term health effect like say...death.

Consider this if you reply. I'm here in Japan working and monitoring the cleanup first hand. I'm also a PE and CIH. So I know the potential in what's out there in industy. A nuclear plant should be the least of your concerns.

And the long term effects for the radiation exposure will not be seen for another 20 years. I suggest you look at the statistics surrounding the Chernobyl accident. Estimates are thousands of people have died due to exposure from that accident. And it will continue to poison the environment for hundreds of years. It will be the same for Japan. They will see many deaths for many years because of this disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

Radiation kills.

Come on, the Us dropped a bomb on Japan and it hasn't been 100 years and people live there already. What's more there are reports that say that the people who received low level radiation are healthier for it.

16,000 people died as a result of the earthquake and tsunami and we are talking about an accident that would have given someone standing at their fence, the same dose of radiation in 3 hours that mother nature gives them every day of their life (and that decayed off very quickly).

Damn. I did not know that.

When do you suppose the Japanese government's gonna let those 80,000 displaced nuclear refugees return to their homes and lift the bans on the contaminated food products?

Guess you know something they don't.

Probably when the cleanup has been done extensively enough that people stop freaking out for fear that the ground is going to light them aflame from radioactive-ness.

Who knows when THAT will be.

Probably when the cleanup has been done extensively enough that people stop freaking out for fear that the ground is going to light them aflame from radioactive-ness.

I'd say their fear has more to do with the abnormalities already being found in their children's thyroids myself. For one thing.

Not really, no.

If fear were only confined to those under legitimate threat, the world would be almost placid.

I can guarantee you that many, many more people are afraid of the irradiated areas than those who have such "abnormalities" in themselves or children, or those that have been exposed enough to plausibly develop problems. Or even those that could plausibly BE exposed to radiation in the first place! That is what this article is about, after all.

Food bans are lifted. All products from the surrounding area is monitored. Farms are wanting agencies to come test their products. The farmers markets want to see independent proof that it's been tested. Most is done by private companies or universities. The central government lost all credibility after the disaster when it came to information release. The daily monitoring is going out less than 24 hours now from sample time. Was almost a week at the start.

I agree with you, but why is it a short-term solution? Do you think that nuclear power isn't feasible in the long term (like, say, a few centuries)?

Kind of a no-brainer.

Only if you have no brains to begin with. Your three choices are still go fossil, go nuclear or go dark. Nothing else is even close to supplanting those three. With many old coal plants about to close in the next three years (thanks to the EPA and mercury), something needs to be built now to replace the generating capacity or we can go dark.

@JAtkings: I don't know if you have looked at any actual numbers, but fuel costs (e.g. mining, processing, and preparing uranium) for nuclear reactors is almost irrelevant in cost per kWh. The price of uranium could double or triple, and it would result in at best a 1-2% increase in energy production cost.

Matt: he is probably harping on the cost of dealing with the spent fuel rods, which is a political problem, not a technical one.

Nuclear power isn't the cheapest when you consider the massive regulatory burdens that have to be overcome (cleanup costs aren't included in most projections of nuclear power costs and benefits, since they're so rare). And what's with railing against the owners of the plants? You think energy should be provided for free, or what? You don't provide any evidence, either. If I'm stupid for not seeing it, there should be a readily available and undisputably verified body of proof to back you up, right?

SF accountant: JAtkings and his ilk want to blackball nuclear power anyway they can in favor of their darlings, solar and wind, neither of which can pull their weight yet.

Probably, but if he wants to make such a bald claim, I'll hear him out. If he'll show me his figures, maybe I'll have to give the subject some thought.

>Neal - Check out the Wikipedia page for "Nuclear and radiation accident" not sure if linking is allowed so I put in the title of the wiki page. It does give figures in MILLIONS of estimated costs. I tried to do that with Oil disasters but there isn't a column there with estimated overall costs. Of course you could look at the cost of the barrels but then you also have to account for inflation for older disasters to estimate what those would cost today. I'm not that super at statistics, but I still feel that when you consider, from the cost of what it takes to find it, mine it, contain it - keep it safe - and ensure that idiots aren't payed to work at the facilities maintaining it. Costs in my opinion far outweigh what we are getting from it. I'm finding it hard to see where nuclear power saved me any money today. Can you figure out how nuclear power has saved YOU money today, in a direct way?

JAtkings: Never claimed nuclear was as cheap or cheaper than oil or coal, just that it was one of the only options currently available to pick up the load. I would guess if you asked the run of the mill citizen, they would be hard pressed to choose between the total dangers/costs of coal versus nuclear. Total costs would include comparing the death and health of the respective minors, transport costs, regulatory costs, etc. and their accompanying dangers. I would not be surprised if a new coal plant that complies with the current EPA standards on mercury is found to violate some new standards on some other pollutant, causing more refit. It all seems part and parcel of a conspiracy to ban coal in favor of so-called "clean energy" which currently cannot pick up the load. If such a conspiracy does exist, its intent must be to keep America energy poor.

So you're judging the cost of nuclear power by the cost of cleaning up accidents?

I assume those estimates are based primarily from Chernobyl, right? Three Mile Island never experienced a meltdown, and Fukushima is still in the midst of cleanup efforts. And the Chernobyl reactor was, of course, a worthless product of shoddy Soviet construction.

Given that I consider the chances of a catastrophic incident in the United States as very unlikely, I don't feel inclined to include those figures when calculating the real cost of nuclear power to the average consumer; the vast, VAST majority of which are never going to be affected directly by a nuclear accident (of course, we already pay for it indirectly, since nuclear power becomes more expensive the more regulatory hurdles and safety measures the government demands in response to accidents).

Even so, I don't know if nuclear power has saved me money. My power bill is low; I honestly don't care. As an energy and environmental policy, however, nuclear is a viable and indispensible part of America's generation portfolio, and I'd like to see more reactors replacing more smoke stacks. If this results in people getting jittery about radiation poisoning, well, so be it. More potassium iodide for everybody!

Three Mile Island never experienced a meltdown

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You can keep saying it, and it'll still be a lie.

Because adequate cooling was not available, the nuclear fuel overheated to the point at which the zirconium cladding (the long metal tubes which hold the nuclear fuel pellets) ruptured and the fuel pellets began to melt. It was later found that about one-half of the core melted during the early stages of the accident. Although the TMI-2 plant suffered a severe core meltdown, the most dangerous kind of nuclear power accident, it did not produce the worst-case consequences that reactor experts had long feared.

Three Mile was a partial meltdown.

It sounds like a semantic difference, but in practical terms the difference in damage caused is huge. There's no comparing Three Mile to Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Although the TMI-2 plant suffered a severe core meltdown, the most dangerous kind of nuclear power accident, it did not produce the worst-case consequences that reactor experts had long feared.

That's because the reactor vessel was built properly and the safeguards (even without the adequate cooling) did their jobs.

Then let's just call it a meltdown, shall we?

For accuracy's sake. It was a meltdown. A MELTDOWN.

Okay, it was a non-China syndrome meltdown, handled by the design of the reactor. Minimal radiation leakage and a potential giant paperweight of a reactor vessel (if it could not be de-contaminated). You wish to emphasize the meltdown aspect and I wish to emphasize the non-disastrous result.

Oh, and here's the story of another American nuclear meltdown that's relevant (although perhaps less known) just because it was a story today and surely should be included in a cost discussion of the same. We're still dealing with the effects of it.

http://shakalac.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/06/10590861-rocketdyne-radiation-is-still-abundant

After looking it up, that reactor appears to be an experimental, scientific lab reactor, not a commercial one.

Whatever argument you can make about the risks of employing nuclear power plants for ordinary power generation, I don't consider accidents at experimental reactors relevant. By their nature, they're likely to be used for processes which aren't fully understood and may involve risks that haven't been thoroughly researched (as they're in the middle of that same research), and whatever happens there happens in the name of advancing science and human civilization, not powering my Xbox.

Pointing to lab reactors that may have melted down - or partially melted down, because I still find that to be a valuable distinction - has nothing to do with whether or not we should employ nuclear power to generate our electricity.

So how about all the hundreds of current nuclear plants that have not contaminated their surroudings? I can understand Japan realizing they have no stable place to put outdated designs and thus are shying away from them, but other countries are building new designs as fast as they can. They can't be all stupid can they?

duplicate removed.

Yes they can. I mean....the Japanese government acted like nothing was wrong for the first week. Just a tsunami and a little accident at the power plant. Everything is ok, nothing to see here. GEEZus. Of course they can be that stupid. I imagine it's like anything that suddenly goes to dust in your hands. Initially you freak out and try to contain it but can't really talk much because your too busy freaking out. Then you have to figure out explanations to cover your ass. Which is exactly what TEPCO did. You could see the fear and unbelief of their situation when they put their lackey's up to a mic for the Press. The Nuclear industry is in trouble since now ALL of them are under more scrutiny. And they very well should be. Even ex employees of these facilities have said as much.

Then I guess since coal is verboten (BHO said so), we go dark.

JAtkings-You just don't understand the part of Japanese culture of saving face. They didn't know what was really happeningand didn't want to cause a panic. How do I know this? I talked to the plant operator. The engineers actually doing the work not the talking heads of uniformed reporters. They knew that 3 reactor where overheating and doing everthing they could to contain it. The problem with reactor 4's cooling pond wasn't known for awhile due to damaged electronics.

If you want to blame the plant design, ok then. See if you can do better. The only critical damge from the quake was the cracks in the cooling pond. The waves did the damage. But the plant was built to survie a 6.5 meter wave not the 7 meter one that hit it. Guess they didn't plan for it since one that size hasn't hit that part of Japan in over 200 years.

Need to reprocess those fuel rods first. Congress has blocked it at least twice. You want 200,000 jobs (GAO est.), build more plants and reprocessing centers.

JAtkings: don't know where you got the idea I said it was cheap. It isn't. I claim it is one of only two viable choices for increasing the total reliable electricity supply in this country. I pretty much hate coal plants as much as the next person. The people who claim that there is such a thing as clean coal are hallucinating. Coal is dirty, hard to clean up and kills miners quickly or slowly (black lung) every year. The gasses that come out of the stacks will be poisonous regardless of scrubber technology, the ash that comes out of the burners has its own problems as most of the impurities in the coal are now concentrated in it. Its only redeeming feature, for now, is it is cheaper than just about anything else. If we rely solely on coal and abandon nuclear, our cities will look like Beijing in about fifty years.

How would anyone know if they'd been exposed to radioiodine 131 until after it was too late to do anything about it?

Were you born before 1965? If so then you were probably exposed, open air bomb testing.

Hope your kit contains some weapons (no need to tell me here) so you can hang onto the rest of your stuff.

OpSec obliges me to not divulge what all I have, but I'm quite ready to defend my "stash" if it comes to that...

I doubt that anyone who actually thinks about disaster preparedness can avoid the necessity of providing for self-protection. Katrina was nothing more than a highly localized (largely man-made) flood and look at the violence it spawned. Can you imagine the mob reaction to a more terrible and widespread disaster?

Actually I can imagine it. Definitely keep to OpSec. Good luck in the future.

that includes a top quality Katadyn water purification system with extra filters (good enough for 800+ gals. of water - without the need to store 800 bottles of water).

I have that plus 3 Berkey's and a 3000 gallon water tank. water is my most worried about commodity, I have all the other things as well. I doubt i will ever need any of it but it does not hurt to be prepared just in case.

Good job oldefarte. thumbs up to you.

Do you have you bag with you at all times? In the car? Or at home? If you're out and about will it be benificial?

If you know/follow the 9 second rule then good. But at least you are prepared unlike most of the masses.

I have a bag in the car(small bag and large bag) at home(small,large and x-large) at work(small bag only) and i have one buried between home and work.I keep a small kit on me at all times.

If you know/follow the 9 second rule then good.

I know the 10 second rule i am not sure about the 9 second rule, Could you help me out with that one?

I consider myself to be well prepared but I still learn more on a daily basis.

Any help will be much appreciated.

It's used in military CBRN training. Time from when the agent or hazard is around until you have your mask on.

Thank you for the information,I will need to get my family to practice this so we can make the 9 seconds. I will be honest,We have the mask and they have been fitted to us but we have not tried to put them on in a hurry and as of now i doubt we could do it in 9 seconds.

I have no idea why i did not think to practice this, probably need to try it under stress as well.

thank you.

Relevance?

As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

That should be the governments slogan.

I'm sure I'd rather keep drinking my tap water in ignorance than live in constant fear of whatever health threat is alluded to on random message boards.

But thanks for the psuedo-warning. I'm doing fine with my water.

ron-1902603: Here's real-time information on Geiger counter reads from throughout Japan: http://japan.failedrobot.com/.

Here are more updates: http://www.facebook.com/Tokyo.Radiation.Levels.

Yet more are here, including information that will allow comparisons of readings in Japan with readings elsewhere: http://radiationnetwork.com/.

Safecast (http://blog.safecast.org/) likewise provides a source of independent readings.

It is not clear what you mean by "than advertised," ron-1902603, but all of the information available in these sources is in line with what government and quasigovernmental sources report.

I'm sure I'd rather keep drinking my tap water in ignorance than live in constant fear

Never said that, all i said was test it yourself but i see now that you rely on others to do your work for you.

I do. I pay my landlord, who pays my water bill. So I give money to someone else so they can pump me water that I use on faith that it's not poisoned or contaminated.

And so far, I've been drinking it for years without using a separate filter or purifier (never got into the whole bottled water fad either) and it hasn't killed me yet, so it's good enough for me!

Well then, I doubt your water is any worse than say a pack of smokes a day.

but it's good enough for you.

It may even be pure.