Godlike Productions - Reply to Thread

Users Online Now: 2,115 (Who's On?)	Visitors Today: 1,085,706
Pageviews Today: 1,509,897	Threads Today: 409	Posts Today: 7,314
12:26 PM

REPLY TO THREAD

Subject How bad is Fukushima, really?

User Name

Font color: Font:

In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.

Original Message Prior to the Fukushima disaster, I always believed that a full scale meltdown of a nuclear reactor would result in immediate mass casualties in the thousands in the area surrounding the site with significant die off of hundreds of thousands more in the months following the event.

Fukushima involved multiple meltdowns and several hydrogen explosions. While I acknowledge that there may be an ongoing cover-up, it is clear that there was not a mass casualty event in the immediate aftermath. While many hundreds, if not thousands, have been sickened, I believe we would have gotten word if the hospitals had been swamped.

My question is, just how bad is Fukushima? Are we talking about mass casualties in the Northern hemisphere in the next year, or are we simply looking at a long term increase in cancer cases?

Pictures (click to insert)





\| Next Page >>