Scientific Sense

There is a kind of madness that has overtaken the media - we have had a real disaster - the earthquake and the tsunami - and yet if you look at the headlines you would think this was nothing in comparison with events at Fukushima nuclear power stations. On the BBC news last night, a mention of the Fukushima disaster was followed immediately by a statement about the fact that thousands had died. How many nervous people watching this and other news items will have presumed - because of the hype - that somehow these deaths were caused by Fukushima, rather than the earthquake and the tsunami?


More from Watts Up With That - a heartfelt plea for a return to scientific sense regarding nuclear power - by a physicist Dr Peter Heller:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/20/a-plea-for-a-return-to-science-on-the-nuclear-power-issue/


James Delingpole also quotes Dr.Heller:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100080636/japan-whatever-happened-to-the-nuclear-meltdown/

Jamess Delingpole also says, interestingly, that the lesson to learn is that "if your country is hit by a monster earthquake and tsunami, one of the safest places to be is at the local nuclear powerplant." Apparently, other Japanese nuclear power plants - which have survived the quake - are sheltering the homeless in their buildings, which are not only still standing, but have heating and lighting.

And here is another article bringing the number of deaths caused by the nuclear industry into comparison with that by the wind power industry. More people are killed by wind power than by nuclear power:
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Fukushima-is-not-Chernobyl,-wind-power-causes-more-deaths-21064.html

And what about coal? Where are the screaming apocalyptic headlines about this disaster? Pakistan - 52 feared dead in Mine.
It just doesn't make sense, especially when you remember that no one was killed at Three Mile Island. Is it because fatal accidents are so rare in the nuclear industry that they make such headlines?