Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster (Unabridged‪)‬

Too important to be this biased

Do you believe in climate change? Of course you do. What causes it? Burning carbon (oil, gas, wood, etc.). Shall we stop it? Okay, but you have to replace it with something. There are more than seven billion people who need to cook food and warm their homes.

Books like this only scare people from making the correct choice, nuclear power. Instead, like Japan and Germany, they close nuclear plants and open gas or oil burning plants. Carbon from carbon plants kill a million people a year with emphysema. You don’t have to like that information, but it’s true. Look it up.

So you ask: How many people did the Fukushima “disaster” kill?

That’s a very good question. Don’t look for it in this book though. It doesn’t support the author’s bias.

No one was killed at Fukushima. Compare that to a million a year killed with carbon smoke. I’ll wait.

Before we move on, think about that number zero. In the course of an hour, Fukushima was hit with a 9.0 earthquake. The fifth biggest ever measured. Zero people killed at Fukushima.
Then Fukushima was hit with a 45’ tidal wave. You saw the videos. Still no one killed at Fukushima.
Then after those two unique events, three of the four reactor cores melted. Still no one killed at Fukushima.
Do you not see what an incredible, improbable miracle of safety that is?

Yet, the authors of this book would equate the “disaster” with the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Not only is it not true, it’s unfair, and, as stated above, it will lead to millions of deaths from carbon pollution.

The problem at Fukushima was the walls protecting the backup electrical generators weren’t high enough. That’s it. The nuclear part was sound. Losing the backup power caused the problems.

Then the authors compared Fukushima to Cherynobel, where they were happy to point out the 26 people were killed. Although, they failed to mention most of those died in the fire. But there is no comparison between the two events. The Russian reactor was built without a containment building (the eight foot thick dome that keeps radiation from escaping). Fukushima was sealed and enclosed. Yes, it melted down, but when that happens, the core blends and mixes with the steel and concrete and loses its ability to produce fission. The authors left that out as well.

You would think the Union of Concerned Scientists might cover basic facts like those. I did. I was wrong. This is a biased work that will kill more people than Fukushima in the long run through increased carbon dependence and global warming.

Let me share one more pathetic bit of bias. The authors went to great lengths to describe the chaos at the site. There was no power, no way to see into the cores. They were spraying water blindly at the buildings hoping some would cool the exposed fuel. Okay? Got that? There was no info available. Then the authors lambast radio host Glen Beck’s attempt to explain the meltdown with a wok and candy. The point being: what a buffoon, he’s right wing, what does he know. Then, not ten minutes later, the authors proudly state that the Union of Concerned Scientists were holding press conferences in Washington and answering questions, because the NRC wasn’t.

Do you see the Bias?

By their own words, no one knew what was happening. So what was the Union of Concerned Scientists adding? They didn’t know what was happening in Japan.

In fact, on the buffoon scale, Scientists should have known better than a radio host not to spread unfounded information.

Well, I’ve said enough. Why give it two stars? The dates were correct and the events did happen. I give the history two stars and the analysis of the events 0 stars.