Talk:Fukushima I

Why do nuclear meltdowns receive such tremendous media attention while coal accidents and oil spills do not (BP and Exxon aside). Even Wind Turbines have some negative effects on birds. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably because nuclear power is more a controversial issue with the public then coal power or oil power, and if you're a media company reporting more on controversial issues is good for obvious reasons. 00:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But Nuclear power is controversial because of the meltdowns that are reported. Is the system just circular like that?
 * Seriously, you want to compare Chernobyl with some birds getting struck by windmill blades? DickTurpis (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nuclear is the newest form of mass-produced energy, one, and two, the Cold War-era focus on nuclear stuff is still with us. And, of course, most of the big oil accidents happen in places like Africa that nobody wants to have to care about. 01:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * because nuclear power has that unfortunate thing called radiation?-- il' Dictator   Mikal  01:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When a nuclear power plant melts down, the result is a nuclear explosion. Nuclear explosions can also be caused by nuclear bombs. Being destroyed by nuclear bombs was the dead-serious fear of an entire generation. I think its a bit more controversial for a reason. 01:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Even Wind Turbines have some negative effects on birds.
 * Birds? Wind turbines have negative effects on people.

When a nuclear power plant melts down, the result is a nuclear explosion.
 * Nonsense. From Treehugger, no less. Hmmph (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the contamination radius?
From what I can see in China, a 20km-radius area around the plant is discouraged for the locals moving back into, as of September 2011; Is there any further news? --Teslashark (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

First Subsection is Horribly Written
The section "A Different Kind of Doom" does not nearly approach the quality of writing we expect on this Wiki. There is also a lot of shorthand that makes it look like a nuclear advocate in a down mood chatting with a buddy. I will try rewriting it when I have time. The One They Call Mars (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in rewriting it. It's a rather simplistic commentary with a lot of hand-wringing.  Nothing of value would be lost if we delete that section.  23:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Understatement
While no deaths have so far been caused by the radiation leak, according to linear no-threshold, the Fukushima disaster is expected to kill several hundred people over the next few decades. The number of people saved by the evacuation is projected to be less than the number of people killed by it, so once again radiophobia is deadlier than radiation. Just that the article does need a rewrite. CorruptUser (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Could we get a source on that, please? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a bunch of stuff. CorruptUser (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)