Is solar really four times the cost of nuclear? No, but…

[PamW]

10. Sorry - but you are being a sucker for anti-nukes that know Photoshop...

Just as with Chernobyl, the anti-nukes have been dispensing unscientific propaganda for extremely gullible people to lap up. Instead of looking to the photo-shopped pictures from the anti-nukes; why not see what legitimate scientists are saying.

When Congress wanted to know what effects could be expected from Fukushima, they sent for Dr. John Boice, a world renown expert in radiation exposure, professor of medicine, and former President of the Health Physics Society to testify. Here is his sworn testimony to Congress courtesy of the Health Physics Society:

http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf‎

Fukushima is not Chernobyl

The health consequences of Japanese workers and public appear to be minor

The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent.

University of California-Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller, the author of the acclaimed book, "Physics for Future Presidents", had this to say in an opinion piece:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332.html

Professor Muller points out that, except for the immediate vicinity of the Fukushima plant, the majority of the area that has been cordoned off by Japanese authorities have radiation levels that are one-third the radiation levels of the Denver area due to the natural radioactivity in the granite upon which Denver sits.

Is it logical or intelligent to get "all bent out of shape" about the area around Fukushima when it isn't even as bad, by a factor of 3; as the area in and around Denver, which people have no concern about.

Just as I said in another post, Chernobyl is like the Hidenburg. The flaws that caused the Chernobyl accident were unique to Chernobyl and the RBMK reactor, and not at all characteristic of other nuclear plants.

The same can be said about Fukushima. Although the Fukushima plants are based on the GE Boiling Water Reactor design; the Japanese licensed the design, but didn't follow the GE design to the letter. ( GE provided only the reactor for Unit 6 ) Because the Japanese didn't follow the GE design to the letter; Fukushima would not have been eligible for a license in the USA.

It's analogous to what happened several years ago with a Japanese Air Lines (JAL) Boeing 747. The JAL 747 underwent a repair to a part of the tail; but that repair was NOT done to the specification of Boeing engineers. The repair resulted in a weak tail, which broke and resulted in the crash of the JAL 747.

Because the JAL 747 was not repaired to the specs of Boeing engineers, is that a reason to fear to fly on Boeing 747s owned by US carriers? We have an FAA that is much better in ensuring that repairs are made properly than the FAA's Japanese counterpart. Likewise, the NRC is much better than its Japanese counterpart. The Fukushima plant violated many, many NRC regulations.

PamW