Don't spin facts the opposite way just because of scaremongering.
I'd rather see some factual instead of opinion journalism, and your articles have still been opinion journalism even if you aren't trying to scare people into higher ratings.
Take your quote about spikes in radiation. The largest spike measured has been over 1,000 millisieverts/hour -- not 400. No, that wasn't sustained, but they didn't let the workers back in until it had dropped an hour later. The highest it got at the NPS border that day was 3.3 millisieverts/hr. It's just as inaccurate to scaremonger by saying that the spike had been sustained all day, or that the rest of the day they measured 400 millisieverts, as it is to deny the fact that spike was powerful enough to have caused radiation sickness to the workers if they had not been evacuated from the plant for that hour. And your little PDF from the Japanese government was for sites well beyond the evacuation zone, not for the actual border of the zone. You misrepresent the facts to support your agenda just as much as the TV news anchors.
What irritates me more than this article is your first one, before that unlovely day when that spike happened, where you essentially said that this was a triumph for nuclear power and that we should be building more reactors based on this. First, the statement was premature as the situation did deteriorate beyond what it was then. Second, look at how difficult it has been for a nation that was as well-prepared as Japan to deal with this. We need to learn as much as we can from this because nuclear power *is* here to stay. Like, making sure that residents around a plant can actually hear evacuation sirens!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
