Okay, well, actually they're not. But I got your attention, didn't I?

Actually, people who are scared of nuclear power are victims of their brains' own faulty pattern-recognizing software, plus a pervasive, wildly-inaccurate perception of its dangers.

This train of thought sprung from Japan recently getting hit by an 8.9 earthquake, plus a thirty-foot high tsunami wave, which pretty much fucked their shit up. I'm sad that it happened, obviously, but at the same time I'm glad to see that they definitely anticipated the hell out of an event like this. Plenty of people had early warning, rescue workers seem to be efficiently and thoroughly doing their job, and the country's even showing humility by accepting aid from their rivals China and South Korea. We can never entirely prevent natural disasters, but Japan is looking like a shining example of how to deal with them before, during and afterwards.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about. What I wanted to talk about is Japan's NUCLEAR EMERGENCY!!! Several of Japan's NUCLEAR REACTORS were DAMAGED in the CATASTROPHIC DISASTER and might EXPLODE, EXPOSING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE TO DEADLY RADIATION!!!!!!

Or so the news would have you believe.

I used to be on the 'nuclear energy is bad' bandwagon too. But thanks in large part to an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit, I began putting this idea under the Magnifying Glass Of Skepticism.

The Japan earthquake has led to such an outrageous amount of blatant, irresponsible fearmongering on behalf of the television news and newspapers that I am genuinely appalled. In today's paper I saw a story about "JAPAN STILL ON EDGE AFTER NUKE BLAST". How's that for an emotionally-loaded headline? The article goes on to paint nothing but worst case scenarios. Gee, do you think the majority of Japanese are still on edge because of something that MIGHT happen, or the gigantic fucking natural disaster that actually DID just happen!?

This has been the pattern so far: the news talks about the earthquake/tsunami victims for a while, but then spends just as much time on 'nuclear concerns'. The reason why is simple: Ratings. Spending time reporting on the real tragedy and the real victims is depressing. People don't want to watch what depresses them. But fear? Fear keeps people riveted to their seats! It doesn't matter whether it's real or not. All that matters is how the story is slanted. The news could just as easily have framed this as a story about how amazing it is that these older nuclear plants had managed to withstand the damage they did. Instead, it's all about how they just might explode and kill everyone at any minute.

I saw an American reporter interviewing Japanese citizens, standing in the rubble of their former city, and asking them in the most pathetically leading way, "Are you scared of what might happen with the nuclear plants?" Um, here's a newsflash: it's immoral to use victims of a real tragedy to perpetuate a story about a mostly-imaginary one.

Yes, imaginary. Most of the reporting on the nuclear plants is not about what HAS happened, but what COULD happen. Instead of focusing on the reality of the situation, they are speculating wildly on hypotheticals. This is not news. News is supposed to be objective reporting. What they're doing is tabloid bullshit.

It's estimated that ten thousand people died in the earthquake and ensuing tsunami. TEN THOUSAND. Keep that number in mind. (Though, considering the size of the disaster, it's a testament to Japan's preparedness that the death toll is so comparatively low.)

So what about these nuclear explosions the news won't shut up about? How many have they killed? So far, I can't find any reports that confirm it killed anyone. Even if it did, the few times I've heard it mentioned, the estimates were in single digits.

Oh, but what about all the POTENTIAL VICTIMS if the nuke plants all blow up!?

Well for starters, if you actually listen closely to the newscasts, you'll soon realize that, even though they are framing the story as a horrifying disaster just waiting to happen, everything they're actually saying points to the opposite being true. One of their experts calmly said that these plants were built in the 70s and have managed to withstand 100 times the damage they were rated for.

Lemme make sure you heard that correctly: FORTY YEAR OLD NUCLEAR PLANTS HAVE WITHSTOOD ONE HUNDRED TIMES THE DAMAGE THEY WERE EXPECTED TO BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND!!!

One expert tonight was asked point-blank what the worst case scenario is. He said that, since the areas it would affect have been evacuated already, if there is a meltdown and it does release radiation, they're expecting an elevated cancer risk. That is a hell of a lot of 'if's. This is not an end-of-the-world type worst case scenario. In fact, it pales in comparison to the actual earthquake/tsunami devastation so much as to be negligible.

But what about the radiation? Some of it has leaked! They said it could affect hundreds of people!!!

Well, on another newscast, a doctor said that Japan's emergency responders were following exactly the procedure they should be, and that, of the 200 people one team tested, 22 showed signs of radiation, and three of them were serious cases.

THREE.

Oh, but here's the kicker: What do they do if someone is contaminated? They give them a shower. Which the doctor said would remove 90% of the contamination then and there.

If you can get rid of ninety percent of a 'deadly threat' by just SHOWERING, then I don't think it's something anyone should really be afraid of.

But I may be wrong. The news has said that six plants are in varying states of trouble, and that there are three which may face a meltdown.

Of course, you have to remember that people are WORKING THEIR ASSES OFF right now to prevent this. People who presumably know what they're doing. Basically, the news is acting as if everyone in Japan is just standing around biting their nails in worried anticipation. No. This is a country that has demonstrated aptly that they are doing a damn good job of getting this whole mess under control. Hell, the Japanese as a culture are stereotyped by their strong commitment to cooperation! I'm not saying there won't be ANY nuclear-related problems in the coming days, but to act as if it's an imminent calamity is an insult to the smart, capable people working to prevent just that.

To be afraid of nuclear power is to assume that everyone who works in a nuclear plant is Homer Simpson. And bizarrely, that's kind of true. The Simpsons has unwittingly contributed to the public perception that nuclear plants are dangerous and ineptly run and could blow at any minute. People are bad at distinguishing cartoons from reality.

But wait, you say! What about Three Mile Island! That was a nuclear plant on American soil that had a freakin' core meltdown! That proves they're unsafe!

Well, no. It actually proves the opposite. You see, accidents will always happen. But there are people whose jobs it is to anticipate and prepare for these accidents. In the case of Three Mile Island, the public judged the plant for having an accident, and not for the fact that it's results were almost completely contained. No one died because of Three Mile Island. Did you even know that? NO ONE DIED!! I can't even find reports of any injuries! And while some people claim that unborn babies and wildlife were affected (which is certainly possible), the official conclusion was that the amount of radiation anyone in the affected area received was literally comparable to a chest X-ray. The core went into meltdown and yet only an incredibly minor amount of damage resulted. I'd call that a success story instead of a horror story.

But what about CHERNOBYL? The biggest, most horrifying nuclear accident of all!

Well, sorry to burst your bubble again, but you can't blame nuclear energy itself for that disaster. It was entirely the result of human incompetence. This was a plant that was already lacking in safety measures (Probably to save money; we are talking about Cold War Russia, remember), and the people running it decided to try an insanely irresponsible experiment with one of the reactors. This was the equivalent of saying, "Hey guys! I'm gonna hold this gun really close to my head and fire it, and see if it'll have any beneficial effects!" Only instead of putting it 'really close', you put it right in your mouth.

Fifty-seven people died in the explosion that followed, and the resulting fallout led to about 4,000 cases of cancer, along with God knows how many other illnesses and birth defects.

Chernobyl was a horrific event. It never should have happened. But the technology was not the cause. People using the technology incorrectly was.

But what if there is a nuclear meltdown in Japan and the radiation reaches America!?

...

Some people are actually afraid of this. Some people are actually worried that lethal levels of radiation might reach us across FIVE THOUSAND FUCKING MILES OF OCEAN. Some people are really fucking dumb.

There are hundreds of nuclear plants around America and I've never heard a peep about any of them. I'm not saying they're perfectly clean and safe, because any corporation is going to cut corners and pollute if it can save money by doing so. But the nuclear industry is not run by retards. They KNOW how bad a reputation nuclear energy has. So it's in their best interests to keep their plants as safe as they possibly can. They know that the slightest bad press will cost them shitloads of money. The Japan explosions are going to hurt them like hell anyway, and it's not even their fault! In reality, scientists designing nuclear energy plants have engineered failsafes like you wouldn't believe. A Chernobyl type disaster is literally no longer possible with the new kinds of reactors designed today. And for transporting nuclear waste, they have designed containers that can literally be hit by a high-speed train and not break! Instead of putting a moratorium on all nuclear energy, a far more sensible idea is to replace older plants and equipment (which are still mostly safe) with newer technology (which is even saferer).

Folks, you have to realize that there are things all around us way, way, WAY more dangerous to us than nuclear energy.

Cars?

Alcohol?

Or how about coal? That's right; the fuel we're NOT afraid of. Despite the fact that outdated coal plants cause so much pollution that scientists say they may shorten as many as 24,000 lives a year (22,000 of which could be prevented) by causing lung cancer. I don't even know how many coal miners die every year, but considering the recent stories about mine collapses and trapped miners all around the world, you know there has to be more incidents than just the ones that make it to the national news.

Do I even have to mention oil? Do I even have to mention BP?

It's simply human nature to be more emotionally affected by something bad that happens all at once, as opposed to something bad that happens gradually. We care more about the 3000 people who died in one morning on Sept. 11th than we do the 435,000 who died that same year from tobacco-related illness. Since I've made you aware of this little quirk of our brains, you have no excuse for not compensating for it anymore. It's understandable how an accident like Chernobyl could taint a generation's perception of nuclear power. But it happened in 1986. Things have changed since then and so should we.

Nuclear energy is not 100% safe and it never will be. But it's better than what we currently have. It's unfair to hold nuclear energy to an impossible standard because the public has a grossly inaccurate perception of it. Any attempt we make at gathering energy will have some drawbacks. I'm sure that there have been accidents involving solar energy and wind energy too. We should judge something not on whether any accidents ever happen, but on how often those accidents happen, how many people are affected, and what happens after they occur. In all those categories, nuclear energy has a better track record than coal or oil.

If you believe I'm wrong, show me statistics. Not what you 'feel' to be true.

Right now, our attitude is to fear something based on perception, while accepting something which is actually far, far deadlier to us, simply because it has a better reputation and we're used to it.

I would rather trust facts than perception.



Two last little points:

1) Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are two different things. Feel free to be scared shitless of nuclear bombs all you want. That makes sense.

2) If you're afraid to use a microwave because it uses radiation, then please hit yourself in the head as hard as you possibly can with a science textbook.



EDIT: This is some pants-shittingly awesome video. Never have I seen such insane overkill trying to destroy something!

EDIT: Today on the news they said that a fourth reactor is having problems and might be leaking dangerous levels of radiation. Okay, fair enough, at least that's a real threat. Then the anchorwoman says, 'The Japanese might be facing an even worse disaster than what's already happened!' NO, NO, NO, YOU MINDLESS CUNT! Even if the goddamn thing blew up it still couldn't be worse than the fucking tsunami damage, you ratings-craving hogbitch!! <eternal facepalm>