You would be surprised to know my credentials. Your post is crap.
Try, if you can, to find how many people have been injured by the nuclear power industry in total and each year.
Compare the numbers to the number hurt or killed in the oil and coal industry.

Japan's reactors were of old design and placed in stupid locations. Modern designs don't even need power to prevent a meltdown.

The only problem I have with nuke fuel is the spent fuel. I think we should shoot it into the sun myself.

Not a bad idea but expensive. The new reactor designs have the ability to use old spent fuel resulting in very little waste.

From the 9billion.com

Seth Godin recently posted this simplified chart, from an altogether more complicated one. He maintains that this is a simple yet non-exaggerated version of the complicated one. The point is that for each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. This is adjusted for how much power is produced by each method of power generation.

He also points out that if we were to take into account such things as deaths from environmental impacts yet unmeasured, due to climate change caused by fossil fuel emissions for instance, the chart would skew even more.

His post is actually focused on the triumph of coal marketing, that we are surprised at what this data shows. How come many of us didn’t already know this? I think it is fair to say that most people don’t think coal is that much of a killer, but there you have it.

Many of us even know that we consume mercury from deep-sea species of fish, yet many of us still don’t connect the dots back to coal – at least not consciously.

Having said that, it should also be acknowledged that the number of deaths attributed to nuclear accidents is a source of serious contention. For instance, this recent take-down of the nuclear power industry raises the possibility that the Chernobyl death toll was grossly underestimated by the Soviets and even the international community. Alternatively, there are also reports claiming the death toll from Chernobyl was over-estimated. It’s all quite confusing isn’t it? How are we to know how accurate the data is?

Personally, as well as other renewables, I’m becoming a bigger and bigger fan of solar technology, and the potential it holds for us all.

The fact of the matter is that there are many less expensive and more productive sources of power available, and have been for years, but the industries that control the dept of energy will not allow them.

Green energy, as proposed by gov't, is a sham. Solendra and the others were all set up to fail from the get-go, no matter how much money was thrown at them, to create the public opinion that they are too expensive or unsustainable to pursue.

Look at the ones chosen to receive these subsidies at taxpayer expense........ billionaire political bundlers and supporters. They invested hundreds of thousands to political campaigns and received hundreds of millions in return as payoffs.

Business as usual!

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/26/soros-may-benefit-from-white-houses-natural-gas-proposal/

You are correct in that the political friends (Solendra and others) of Obama got millions for their donations and the result is a huge loss of taxpayer dollars. They were doomed to failure in the beginning with the "donators" pocketing the money.

There are real solutions to the energy problems that mostly center around transportation. The conversion of vehicles to run on natural gas has been done successfully for years, but no effort has been made to up the scale.

Soros wasn't set up yet....

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/26/soros-may-benefit-from-white-houses-natural-gas-proposal/

These guys were.....

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

That all depends on how you define danger and I would disagree with your assessment for the big picture.

Yes coal miners lead a very dangerous life but it is one they know and accept. Now today's mining methods that just rip the tops off mountains and cause untold pollution is again, just the greed of the corporations, not the dangers of the product. But transporting coal in itself poses no real hazard. With today's technologies, burning coal with the scrubbers and other safety devices has reduced the environmental hazards to very low levels, just carbon dioxide and steam.

Oil, what hazards? the fallacy of man to use shortcuts and reduce costs that cause so much damage, absolutely. Again, the hazards of oil are based on man's handling, not the product itself. In fact it is much easier to clean up oil burning than coal. The real problem here is oil is limited and has much better uses than burning for power.

Natural gas, oh how sweet. Such a clean burning fuel and so much energy per unit. Again, it is not the product that is at fault but man's handling, especially "fracking". The actual environmental impact may not be known for decades but from early results will not be good. Man cannot survive without water and that has been in grave jeopardy for some time but now, it is becoming unsustainable.

But the most hazardous of all is nuclear. First Three Mile Island, then Chernobyl, now Fukushima. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Fukushima is but a portend of things to come. What happens in the future, more power failures and total meltdowns, how do you clean it up. What about spent rods kept in pools, what happens if power fails and they can't be kept cool, another meltdown? What about the radiation leakage, West Coast of US already up by a factor of 5 from Japan and the predictions are it will just get worse.

And what about Chernobyl, what is the real death toll? How many have died or are dying from that disaster. How many more will die in the future from the leakage.

So I stand by my conclusions, nuclear is the most dangerous thing man has done to nature and mankind.

Not really, you posted your credentials most succinctly. No doubt in my mind at all.

I guess he forgot about all the veterans, Iraqis and Afghans now suffering from depleted uranium poisoning....


Have to dispose of that waste somewhere...... war is a good excuse and a foreign country, any foreign country, will suffice

Yeah, something like the byproduct of manufacturing being used in our drinking water, fluoride. A toxic waste that is expensive to dispose of until the brilliant idea to add it to drinking water and then to tooth paste. Well at least the toothpaste has a warning label.

You can't simply call the dangers of oil refining and transportation being due to man and then raise your concerns over nuclear as if the three accidents you mentioned weren't the result of the same problem.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were both caused by operator incompetence.

Both accidents were the result of poor training and other human factors.

Fukushima was the result of horrific planning in terms of location and a complete oversight of the obvious ramifications of an earthquake/tsunami impact on the site.

Oil.. Coal.. Natural gas are all exposed to a much higher degree of human factors than nuclear is.

Therefore, it is more dangerous.. it is more likely to be involved in accidents.. more likely to take lives and create a higher level of contamination.

As you said with coal mining.. the technology has changed to make it safer.

The technology has also evolved and the likelihood of a modern nuclear reactor having any of the failures that the older models has decreased exponentially.

Unfortunately, there are old reactors such as fukushima still in operation.

They need to be taken off line and replaced with the more advanced models.

I can't, but gee I thought I did just that. Is it a small mind that has such a limited view with trouble seeing the big picture. Let me help out.

Oil pipeline breaks because the little piggy squealed and as new pipelines are expensive, big oil ignores it. So it kills some cattle and contaminates the ground water for a couple of thousand people, problem but life goes on.

Coal, an old mine caves in and kills 20 miners, local grief and national news blitz for a few days, life goes on.

Train full of volatile petroleum products explodes and kills hundreds in a suburban area, local disaster, wide wide news story, life goes on.

A nuclear facility fails contaminating local area in the beginning, runoff contaminates the sea killing huge sums of ocean life causing food shortage and many starve to death. Huge clouds of radiation circle the globe, millions die from radiation poisoning. And the effect last for a millennium or so. Life does not go on, life is very painful. Wonder what will replace man as the next dominant species, the cockroach, they seem to survive in a world of nuclear radiation.

Harness the power of the atom, one of ole Albert's failures.

Still can't see the big picture, can you. Well you may soon, not only see it but experience it. But then maybe you live in a lead suit with that inherent trait. Do you also eat the toothpaste?