Users Online Now:
1,968
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,547,452
Pageviews Today:
2,130,387
Threads Today:
520
Posts Today:
9,482
04:41 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
How bad is Fukushima, really?
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
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.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 7964455:MV8xNzU1MTg2XzI5MTAyNzcwX0M2MjM3QkM2] Not bad enough for anyone else but people who live near it to care. [/quote]
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)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>