One of you will end up here next!
Note: I say I am uninformed. For the most part that is true, but I have several friends who were nuclear engineers on submarines and in land-based power plants. Everyone I've ever met who worked around nuclear energy has told me they wouldn't be able to cause a worst-case scenario in the new facilities if they tried to.
I've mentioned this before; while Fukushima is not some cataclysmic event, to claim its "no big deal" is somewhere between ignorant and delusional.
Yes, we are exposed to all sorts of radiation all the time, yes exposure to small amounts of radiation can cause your cells to learn how to repair that damage...there is that grain of truth.
In the big explosion radioactive debris was found 20km away, and the smoke, dust, and flames sent all sorts of particles into the atmosphere where it's now circling the earth.
Then you start using the numbers and projecting models where you allow yourself to make false equivalences; like the "banana equivalent dose". It tries to equate radioactive potassium to radioactive iodine, or other heavy metal radioactive particles, but your body will not handle these particles all the same way.
It does not consider that it's not just the easily detected gamma emissions, but the alpha and beta emissions...
Next, it would treat an X-ray of your chest as X-rays emitting from your chest if you happened to inhale a hot particle.
Or potassium, which is maintained in certain levels in your body, where a certain percentage of the particles are emitting gamma rays every so often... Well, that's already got a mechanism to cope to that radiation.
Whereas, if you ingest a particle of radioactive iodine, your thyroid will absorb the iodine, but then it will not be able to handle that iodine and you end up with that hot particle directly damaging your thyroid gland for a few months before the particle decays. Then years later that damage cumulates with other stressors and you get thyroid cancer...
But if 10 years has passed since exposure, how are you going to make that connection when you have no idea that you even got exposed??
Back to Fukushima, that's devastating for the people living in the vicinity, and will, possibly irrevocably, damage their fisheries. In America, the only risk is to those on the east coast, even in a worst case scenario, it wot be cataclysmic, but it might destroy Japan as a nation.
That said, the nuclear industry has really only been around 50-60 years, an thousands of above and below ground tests, the background radiation of the northern hemisphere is now double the southern hemisphere. Also there have been at least 3 MAJOR incidents in the past 100 years... How many more chances are there??
Which I could detail, but we all know your penchant for ignoring facts contrary to your opinions (like the link I provided saying there's already been a 28% surge in thyroid problems in north America that can be attributed to Fukushima.
Even TMI had a cancer cluster of those exposed that was 7 times higher than the expected rates in the area... But of course, and as I pointed out, since the cancer might not show up for years after exposure it's easy to gloss over and pretend that no harm was done.