"Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water."~ Albert Einstein
"There is a way of survival which will strengthen and help you. There is also a way of destruction which will push you into oblivion." ~ I Ching

Over the last fifty years it has become apparent that nuclear energy is full of dangers, some of which carry repercussions even greater than those produced by a nuclear weapon. By way of their response to the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi, the nuclear industry, regulatory oversight committees, nuclear engineers, and leading scientific experts have failed the global community. Their actions have proved that they continually underestimated the situation, and did not fully understand it before making crucial decisions.

The quantities of radiation released to date are unprecedented, say the Japanese government, and they are very sorry for having withheld important information. They will also likely claim it "unprecedented" as people across the island nation and northern hemisphere are subjected to short and long term exposure to radioactive materials emitted from the power plants 3 reactors in full meltdown.

It has been known for over 20 years that it would only take one nuclear reactor to contaminate over half of the planet. The old criteria for measuring a nuclear accident, and acceptable levels of radiation exposure no longer apply. There are many medical studies whose results lay in direct contrast to the statistics provided by international nuclear reports. While there have been many other nuclear disasters, there has never been one at this scale. There is rising concerns that fallout from testing during the 1950s may have weakened the immune systems of the youth, making them more susceptible to future biological effects of additional fallout from other disasters.

Science has long studied the effects of stress, extreme disasters, and imminent death on the actions and thought process of those working on-scene, as well as those living in the surrounding area. The danger of radiation is that it is undetectable, and when faced with a threat that exceeds understanding and imagination, the majority of the those affected have trouble believing the threat is real.

Radiation affects the body directly through the tissue, muscles, bones, and other organs in the body. The most terrifying aspect of radiation is that it destroys and mutates DNA in the human body, destroying what makes an individual "human" -- including the unique strand of DNA that sets you apart from all of the other carbon-based life-forms on the earth today. Low-level radiation promotes the slow release of ‘free radicals’, or unstable molecules. Production of the most common, oxygen free radicals, is increased by protracted exposure to the radioactivity of ingested fission products. Oxygen free radicals (unstable oxygen molecules with an extra electron) are attracted to the membranes of cells, which they then disable.

At Chernobyl, there was less than 150 tons of waste entombed in the final sarcophagus. More than half of the Caesium-137 released in the explosion was carried in the atmosphere to other European nations. At Fukushima it is estimated there is close to 10,000 tons of melted corium constantly working to escape the control of TEPCO and the workers on-site.

There is no denying the truth of the dangers of radiation to the workers on-site at Fukushima Daiichi, for the reality of those exposed to high levels of radiation will peel away like their blistered skin.

Historically those workers on site have been left to deal with the consequences of those who have initiated deceptive "security measures" in a vain attempt to withhold the full extent of the damage. This is the practice of "security" that has been initiated after every nuclear disaster in history, the erroneous notion that panic is a greater threat to the population of a nation than the dangers of exposure to radioactive isotopes.

The Japanese government has declared an area 20km around the site of the nuclear power plant at Fukushima Daiichi as a "no-go zone". Recently rises in ground level radiation outside of the evacuated zone has been plauging health officials working tirelessly to keep the public under control. Officials began attempting to pacify radiation fears by equating the levels to the amounts received during trans-oceanic flights, until nuclear experts began criticizing the comparison considering the two types of radiation and the health effects are not similar.

In fact, it is odd that this comparison was suggested in the first place, after the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, it was popular to suggest the idea that the contamination caused by the Soviet nuclear disaster exceeded the contaminating event of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) determined that a nuclear disaster and atomic bombing cannot be directly compared, partially because of the differences of isotopes that were produced from each event.

Governing bodies would have the public believe that even though science cannot compare a nuclear disaster with an atomic bombing, health officials can directly compare the effects of radiation from a nuclear disaster to the effects of radiation received from a plane trip.

These types of misleading comparisons have been a constant in a otherwise ever-changing world of radiation quantification. The first nuclear research reactors were designed to produce 100 Megawatts, while todays industrial power plant on average produces over 1000 megawatts. As the power producing capabilities increase, so does the legal amount of radiation exposure. Since March 11th, there have been multiple increases of allowable radiation exposure limits to workers, adults, and children. This is most concerning to nuclear experts, because they know that deaths have occurred from inhaling or ingesting just one grain of contaminated sand, or a piece of radioactive dust.

In May 2011, the Japanese Government raised the upper limit of safe radiation expsure for children to 20 millisieverts per year, an exponential increase over the previous limit of 1 millisievert per year. The Japanese Government has claimed a cumulative dose of 500 millisieverts of radiation per year increases the risk of cancer. After the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, it was found for a one year old child that only received between 10 and 20 mSv ran the risk of developing a fatal cancer.

According to multiple reports include the UNSCEAR report, up to 80,000 children have been born with congenital deformations in the Chernobyl region, and up to 200,000 genetically damaged children worldwide. The Chernobyl data is known to not be accurate, as medical workers were limited by the government as to how many death certificates they could file listing an effect of radiation as the cause of death. Over the first three years after the initial accident authorities continued falsifying medical data, rendering much of the possible research impossible. According to a WHO prognosis, in the Belarussian region of Gomel alone, more than 50,000 children will develop thyroid cancer during their lives.

Questionable comparisons aside, there are some worrying correlations linking radiation and numerous health effects and death, even as far as the other side of the world. Scientists and health officials for the last 20 years have debated the correlation between radioactivity in milk and mortality rates even in low radiation conditions that are beneath regulation ceilings. .

The seasonal patterns of mortality in developed countries is fairly stable, so much so that the ods of a rise or fall of even 3 or 4 percent is one in one million. Anomalies are investigated and tracked by experts and statisticians. One of the noted anomalies was the death rate in the United States the summer of 1986.

From the Los Angeles Times, Februrary 13th, 1988
Was Chernobyl the Cause of Higher U.S. Mortality?
Over the 80 years before 1986, 31.7% of each year's deaths occurred, on average, during the months of May to August. In 1986 that percentage rose to 33.1%--the highest this century--up from the 1983-85 average of 32%.

The explosion of a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union on April 26, 1986--and, in particular, the ensuing radioactivity plume that reached America 11 days later--may offer a clue. As the radioactivity arrived, rainwater samples in America's Northwest recorded 46 pico- curies (pc) of radioactivity per liter. By May 12, in Washington state, the level had risen to 6,620 pc per liter. In milk samples--a routine indicator of radioactivity--the concentration of radioactive iodine-131 peaked at about 130 pc per liter, compared with 1985's average of below 7. Because the 130 peak was less than 1% of the U.S. government's ceiling (15,000 pc per liter), no action was taken. The levels were, after all, between 100 and 1,000 times lower than those recorded across Europe after the disaster. The highest concentrations were seen in Pacific states such as Washington and California, where the number of deaths in the four months was 5% higher than it had been in May-August, 1985. In areas recording the lowest concentrations--such as Texas and Arizona--the number of deaths was unchanged from the previous summer. That relationship between radioactivity and death held true across the country. Tests showed that for these correlations, sheer coincidence was hardly possible.

Watch the TBS feed AND the TEPCO Webcam simulcast exclusively here.