And how much longer should we keep using that as a “reason”?
Firstly, you must understand that the population was evacuated (and has stayed that way) by government decree and not due to any intrinsic danger of the levels of released radiation. The ZERO fatalities due to radiation? They were predicted emphatically by physicists like Wade Allison immediately after the accident. This is in stark contrast to the well-publicised apocalypse espoused by the likes of Helen Caldicott, and how anyone can take her seriously is beyond me. Furthermore, the many hundreds of deaths due directly and indirectly to evacuation, a result of radiation hysteria and absurd, arbitrary limits, have destroyed families and are ignored by these ideological campaigners.
Secondly, the best science currently points to anthropogenic global warming as the greatest existential threat to the secure future of most species on this planet. Japan’s extended nuclear shutdown, apart from being a fiscal catastrophe, has seen rapid, record fossil fuel use growth with consequent ballooning of carbon emissions. If you truly believe that the risks you perceive about commercial nuclear power supersede the urgency of decarbonising our energy, then I submit you are doubly dismissing the IPCC’s expert conclusions.
Lastly, no matter how rapidly the favourite renewable energy technologies (advocacy of which rarely acknowledges often vast proportions of biomass burning) can theoretically be deployed, combining this with nuclear reactor builds of modern, average duration and costs will achieve faster decarbonisation… so how much delay and otherwise unnecessary potential harm are you prepared to cost the world by refusing to reconsider nuclear energy?
 The First Five Days http://tinyurl.com/q6qsxvt
 http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2014/unisous237.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842
 http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-19/nuclear-energy-required-to-fight-climate-change/5535932 & http://www.carboncommentary.com/2014/06/04/3603
Stripped of emotion and motivated reasoning, the case for considering nuclear energy is clear. There is no shame in admitting the possibility, indeed it is noble, it is the sort of example we set for our children, and it is one of the best ways for us to learn and grow. Even if you personally remain to be convinced, consider supporting the call for amendment to ARPANS and EPBC so that a fully fledged assessment of the suitability of nuclear energy – a successor to UMPNER, if you will – can be undertaken in the long-term national interest.
The images are obviously not Fukushima Daiichi, although the first two will appear in the top results when googled for as such, used in very recent articles, demonstrating a persistent carelessness by some commentators.