Fukushima Meltdown is a Triumph, not Tragedy for Nuclear Power

By: Wes Messamore

The devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan proved once and for all that nuclear energy is a remarkably, I daresay, miraculously safe source of clean and reliable energy-- though you wouldn't get that impression from watching the mainstream media coverage as events unfold at the earthquake-stricken Fukushima power plant in Japan.

With overblown scare headlines using loaded words like "Nuclear Disaster" (m), "Nuclear Nightmare" (m), and "Dramatic Escalation" (m), you'd think the media was trying to sell more newspapers and garner more viewers.

While body counts as a result of the earthquake and tsunami number into the tens of thousands, establishment media outlets shamelessly try to outdo each other in their alarmist and sensational rhetoric for a bigger piece of the public's attention. But the truth is often less dramatic, exciting, or scary.

Another reason for the brazenly biased coverage of Fukushima is a strong underlying prejudice against nuclear power that has always confounded and annoyed me. While activists with an axe to grind may want you to think that nuclear power is unsafe, consider what really happened in Japan.

To paraphrase one clever Facebook user's recent status update regarding Fukushima: a 41-year-old nuclear reactor got rocked by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake- Japan's worst in over a thousand years, slammed by a 7 meter tall tsunami, and then hit by multiple hydrogen explosions that destroyed parts of the reactor housing, yet the nuclear core remained intact and contained. And you're telling me nuclear power isn't safe?

Read the rest of the article at The Humble Libertarian


  1. Hopefully, melt and partial melt can be controlled shortly. Cesium-137 is
    a very bad actor..and unfortunately is
    the most common fission product.

  2. Wouldn't speak too soon. Caesium has been detected -


    At least a partial meltdown must have occurred.

    "Caesium-137 (137
    55Cs, Cs-137) is a radioactive isotope of caesium which is formed mainly as a fission product by nuclear fission."


    (PS I am not an expert, just a layperson)

  3. oops I got beaten to it...lol

  4. This article really translates that you can't find anything more to write about than this, and that you love nuclear power to the point of being happy to compare its so-called 'safety' compared to media headline hype. Just because there wasn't an immediate meltdown after a major earthquake and tsunami, does not mean that toxic radiation isn't horrendously life-threatening...besides that, I hate cancer.

    The amazement that the metal rods at the power plants still have not completely melted may get you all excited about technology and power; but, I guarantee you, the majority of the world is concerned about the effects of its contents.

    Yes, I'm telling you nuclear power isn't safe, and it's because all your safety mechanisms can fail. We can only control so much, after that, then what?

  5. Gina, would you propose we stop using electricity altogether? Coal ash produced by coal power plants has more radiation in it than nuclear waste (source: http://bit.ly/4zKQty). And if you click the link and read the rest of the article on my website, I put the radiation leaks in perspective by comparing them to bananas (which believe it or not, are radioactive... radiation is everywhere). The fear of radiation exposure is totally blown out of proportion.

    Other commentators- I know there's some meltdown occurring- it's in the title of my piece. The point is that it's the result of a nearly inconceivable, once-in-a-millennium natural disaster and that it's been contained. No ejection of nuclear material has occurred here as with Chernobyl (and Chernobyl didn't prove nuclear power plants are dangerous if you ask me- it proved that communism is).

    There is simply no rational basis for hating and fearing nuclear energy like we do, unless we are willing to hate and fear fossil fuels even more.

  6. Obviously the markets disagree with your ramblings.

  7. http://twitter.com/#!/Reuters/status/47629229952741376 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale durr dee durr

  8. I like fossil fuels. Clean coal. Nuclear, I am wary of (and now a lot more wary of, lol). Wind is a bad joke (and it kills the birds). Solar and geothermal are probably the best for the future; coal for now.

  9. Yeah, I'd shampoo my hair with oil, I run away from the microwave.

  10. I am skeptical of what the media says. It sure makes it hard to know what to believe. I do know that the liberal press has an agenda --- kill the nuclear power plants. And they are willing to use anything, anything, to politicize what they hate. They use whatever they can; they have no moral compass, period.

  11. I was listening to Sean Hannity on the radio. He said that "Life has risks." And that his heart goes out to the people of Japan. But that modern technology has risks. Would we be saying that people shouldn't be flying any more because of a accident with an airliner? Would we not drive any more because of car accidents? Would we not build houses any more because someone might get hurt? Personally, I hate it that the people of Japan had this earthquake, that they had a tsunami. But like I said before, the media is using it, and using the poor people who suffered and are suffering, for their own agenda.

  12. Wes - A well written article. Much good information.

    The fact that this "disaster" was caused by the forces of a nature we have no ability to control should not deter us from using nuclear energy to generate power. It is efficient and cost effective.

    That's not to say we shouldn't continue to research methods to make nuclear power plants safer.

    Having said this we should develop efficient and cost affective means to harness the alternative energies mentioned in this comment stream as well.

    I guess for me the various technologies that create alternative energy sources, and the infrastructure to support them need to go forward.

    We need to harnesses and use all forms of energy generation in the future. Apply each in areas where it is most efficient and cost effective to do so.

    We have our work cut out for us and a long way to go to get there.

  13. Well, if these power plants are as safe as you say, then why don't you take some water buckets, walk up to that fukushima 1 power plant, and help the guys over there cool the reactor a bit...

    What's the current radiation level in front of that reactor building again?

    I think, your optimism was a bit overhasty...


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.