God, what a looser...
I love that little boot-note at the end, basically an official recognition from the reg that it's all rubbish (although I would of put it in the title). I don't know what your motives are, but it's bleeding obvious that is isn't public education, because that requires actual facts. I'm not really sure where to start on this, knowing nothing at all about nuclear poisoning, still... i have followed the scientific journals through this, and have heard actual experts analysis (no quotes like "say maybe something like 25%") and they all (an i mean ALL), seem to think this was pretty damn serious. they also seem to think that the effects of this will by in large not be noticeable for 10 to 20 years. so here's the deal. if the workers who worked in saving the plant and Japan start getting sick, you will loose ALL credibility.
I also love how you've referenced this treehugger.com article which ends with "the desperation of the nuclear advocates is becoming more and more obvious. We must be on the right track then" as opposed to the link below from the actual source, which to me indicates that you haven't even read it. Or the fact that instead of quoting scientists, you reference (and badly) Japanese politicians, as some sort of honest authority with no ulterior motives. or that "250 millisievert" which is going to be lowered, without mentioning that it was at a 100 millisievert before the catastrophe, and they've changed it to allow the workers to stay there.
There's also the fact that workers have measured their annual radiation limit in 7 minutes 30km away from the plant. (I can reference this, but I can't be arsed, just go to DemocracyNow.org and find it if you want to)
The one thing I do agree with you is this, many people got hurt by this disaster, this human tragedy is greater then the worst case scenario, and this one was a really REALLY close miss, if it wasn't for the wind blowing to sea, the snowstorm, and the massive sacrifice of the workers inside, it could of been much worst, but there are still many Japanese people who have lost their homes and families in this disaster, and focusing on the nuclear danger while ignoring it is also dangerous.
Anyone remembers this: http://xkcd.com/748/ ?
Why on earth will you want to have LESS regulations, and less safety? Ok, say you are right and I am wrong, better, say uranium (or what ever if in the air there now) is really good for you, has no harmful effects, and in fact prolongs your life, what's the argument for less regulation? Is this just blind trust in that heads on industry know best? (judging by the way you reference politicians on this I guess that's what you believe). I am wondering, have you got any friends in the nuclear and or arms industry? are you receiving nice payout for this? have you got any shares in it?, or are you a truly passionate nuclear enthusiast?
(And Monbiot, don't talk to me about Monbiot)
I am sure you can find "actual" scientists who will have evidence to support your argument (after all there are still scientists who can produce seemingly credible evidence that smoking is good for you and global warming is a globalist conspiracy). Next time, try and reference them, it will make it harder to discredit you (and take the piss out of you too)
As for the public health and safety, only time will tell
I have plenty more where this came from, but for now...
AC obviously, you what's the point of slandering people on the internet if you can't hide your identity!