The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was a doozey wasn’t it?  In my opinion not really, no.  It was actually a slight mishap in the larger scheme of things.  It was not a disaster because of the nature of the reactor but more so due to bad planning and preparation.  Even with sub par tactics there has still only been one death from the disaster(this is a highly debated statement but what I feel is the most valid).  It was an environmental disaster absolutely but then again 19,000 people died during those days from the tsunami and earthquake and none from the reactor itself.  It’s funny how we only remember the reactor mishap though, it just has enough shock value to stick in peoples minds and create enough fear to be memorable.

The greatest tragedy from the nuclear disaster really was the loss of land and homes for people in Japan.  In a country short of land and prone to tsunami’s, maybe a nuclear reactor isn’t the best idea.  I don’t think it takes away from the viability of reactors as alternative fuel sources for the rest of the world though.  They are far too efficient, clean and there are too many viable places and options for them to exist safely for the world to rule them out.

These Images show before and after the Tsunami

This is what japan has essentially done following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.  In doing so they have switched their focus to other alternative energy sources that may suite an island nation like Japan.  These were mainly fossil fuels and other renewable energy sources for a while but recently they have flip flopped that idea.  They have decided (three years later) to start to look into reopening some of the nuclear reactors.  This is a hard and discomforting idea to hear about in my opinion.  Even though the “disaster” wasn’t as bad as it could have been their ability to deal with the situation was far from brilliant.  Most of the casualties relating to the disaster were actually from trouble transporting the old and sick from hospitals!  If you are unable to unequivocally deal with those most in need from a sub-worst-case scenario than I don’t believe running multiple reactors (54) is the right decision.  Imagine a worse tsunami that managed to take out multiple reactors?  The implications are dumbfounding.  With their inability to enforce their own policies a real study should be made into finding a better, safer way to create power for their country.  It could be an economic boon to their country as well as the world economy if they were to reshape, and reengineer the way they create power.  While this is obviously not the easiest task to complete I believe that it is a better scenario than allowing the health of the Earth to be at great risk again.

http://www.nature.com/news/specials/japanquake/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/02/japan-nuclear-plant-owner-confirms-deaths-facility-workers-fail-contain/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/fukushima-evacuation-has-killed-more-earthquake-tsunami-survey-says-f8C11120007

http://1×57.com/?tag=fukushima