~Interesting Headline of the day, from GE owned MSNBC: Japan widens evacuation zone amid radiation fears.
Should read; Japan widens evacuation zone amid radiation facts.
Below is a link to a General Electric propaganda cartoon or public relations video on nuclear power made for "educating" kids. I was shown this video as a fifth grader on a school trip to the Indian Point nuclear power plant just outside New York City. The cartoon talks about nuclear power in a way a fifth grader could understand and fittingly enough also depicts the recognizable Fukushima reactor design.
I think fifth grade was a premature start to my nuclear education. I was still trying to conquer simple mathematics and spelling. Fifth grade is way too early to learn about nuclear power. However it is not too early to learn an opinion on nuclear power. Of course the intent on bringing fifth graders to a reactor, showing them a film and then having a question and answer session with ten year olds on nuclear energy was to teach an opinion.
In reading the "reporting" of much more successful writers, "journalists" and "environmentalists" who are supportive of nuclear power makes me certain that many of these people must have began their education prematurely on practically every subject they have studied. For they seem incapable of dealing in facts and analysis, having already learned opinions. Anyone who is still for nuclear energy is anti human and anti entirety even, with the mentality of a selfish, sugared up fifth grader.
Chernobyl has destroyed a swathe of land, a whole section of the environment of planet Earth. A twenty mile circumference is uninhabitable and the surrounding area is infested with radioactive elements. Rare sickness is on the increase in the area and the radioactive particles were blown into Germany and France and all over. German hunters no longer can eat most of the wild boar, for they are too radioactive. This is supreme environmental destruction.
With that in mind, what "environmentalist" would support nuclear power then? Surely these "environmentalists" supportive of nuclear power are at best mentalists.
They compare oil and coal to nuclear power as the only other option. Oil and coal are harmful, as well as power derived from nuclear energy. They steer the argument by first basing it on other harmful forms of energy. The conversation is about renewable resources or jeopardizing resources. They further argue that to build the infrastructure for solar for instance is ridiculous, but they ignore the fact that small scale options are best, easy with low impact. Implementation of renewable resources such as growing fuels, building solar, wind, wave or geothermal structure takes time, but waiting for such structure is much better than waiting for Cesium or any other number of radioactive elements to burn out.
They speak of half life as if it means something encouraging. If the half life of radioactive Iodine is about nine days, that means in nine days its power is halved and in another nine days it is halved again and so on. This means iodine is destructive to biological life, you included, for about a hundred days. The half life of cesium is thirty years. The half life of plutonium is virtually forever.