Written by Bob Maschi   

On October 21 The Atlantic magazine published an article by David Roberts and Reid Tanaka titled “How Fukushima Is Contaminating More Water” ( http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/how-fukushima-is-contaminating-more-water/280671/ ). Given the ongoing potential, even probable, devastating consequences of the 2011 melt downs at that Japanese nuclear power plant, the title seems less than alarmist. But the subtitle (“And yet the health risks have been exaggerated“) was downright calming. If only it were true.

To recap a little recent history, in 2011 an earthquake and resulting tsunami ripped through the Fukushima nuclear plants causing melt downs (the worst of nuclear power accident). The immediate danger was calmed a bit but the threat is ongoing, and increasing, as time marches on. The major clean up and control of the facilities is being led by a company called TEPCO (which owns the plants) and it is in their interest to downplay the problems rather than see consumers panic—and their profitability—nosedive. This is why the Japanese government, which is pro-nuclear energy, has tried to minimize the situation to its citizens and also why here, in the United States, we hear very little about it—even though it is potentially as dangerous to human life as the guillotine was to French royalty.

Back to the article. The authors, Roberts and Tanaka, did such a fine job of downplaying the situation in Fukushima that if they are not under the direct pay of the nuclear power industry—they should be. I am not a scientist and I’ve never been inside a nuclear power plant (though I did try to occupy one, once). But their reasoning, or lack thereof, is easy enough for anyone out of middle school to spot.

For example, when they address the fact that TEPCO has admitted that about 300 tons of radioactive water are being released into the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima plants every day, they basically resort to the standard, pretty much only, defense for this that the nuclear industry can create. Ocean BIG! REALLY BIG! Lots and lots of water… And hey, if it were only a onetime event it might not be too much of a problem. A few dozen dead fish. Some poisoned sushi. An orange glow to the local fishermen, maybe. But what the authors downplay is the fact that this amount of radioactive water is being dumped in the Pacific EVERY DAMN DAY. How much will the ocean continue to absorb without consequence after more months, years or decades of this activity?

At another point, they calm their audience over the continued meltdown at Fukushima, “Time and the laws of physics have also lent a hand—the fuel generates less and less heat with each passing day. Indeed, its potential for overheating is significantly less than it was two years ago and will continue to diminish at a known rate.” And again, I’m no physicist, but I’m pretty sure that if events continue as they have, it will take decades, if not centuries, for all the problem at these plants to drop below the red line.

If their insults to our intelligence weren’t bad enough already, they also compare radioactive water to chlorine (Don’t believe me? Here’s a direct quote: “Radioactivity in some ways is similar to the well-known common household cleaner, chlorine”). Hell, as you know, chlorine in small amounts can even kill dangerous little beasties in water! Or are you a communist against clean, blue swimming pools?!?!?!

There were other trite observations and comments, but this last one truly struck out at me. The authors state: “…though we don’t yet know the long-term impacts the contamination might have on the marine environment (particularly the seabed)…”

If there were criminal charges available for misuse of language, I’d make a citizen’s arrest. Note the sly little way they attempt to separate the ‘ocean’ from the ‘seabed,’ as though they are two completely different things. I’m not an oceanographer either, but I Wikied ‘seabed’ and it is the ocean bottom. They are inseparable. Every ocean has a seabed and polluting one is polluting the other. But why was this distinction so important for them to make? Simple. Most American do not care if Japan’s seabed is polluted by radiation. But many more do care if their Pacific Ocean is also being polluted.

The Atlantic Magazine, along with numerous other media outlets, is currently owned by David Bradley who has described himself as a centrist and a neocon. One has to wonder how much he might also have invested in disasters-waiting-to-happen nuclear power plants. Perhaps the ‘Atlantic’ Magazine should stick to its own ocean.