Anyone who thinks nuclear is going to be easier to site than solar, wind, or batteries, might want to give these items a look.
My position is hoping for the best, because I’m downwind of one of the big nuclear restarts happening at Palisades in West Michigan. I wish them all the luck in the world.
Having directed the haunting “Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes,” James Jones, who worked here with co-director and producer Megumi Inman, seems to know his way around disasters both natural and, in the case of Fukushima, unnatural. He has the right people to explain both what happened and was in danger of happening. Reporter Martin Fackler, who said that entering post-storm Fukushima was “like entering hell,” breaks down, step by step, what occurs inside a nuclear reactor when power is lost and the fissionable material can’t be cooled. As it happens, the disaster in the northern Japanese city has left the area uninhabitable even today, but the possibilities had approached the apocalyptic. That the worst didn’t happen does not prevent “Fukushima” from being a thriller, though it is also something short of a cautionary scientific tale: While nuclear power would seem to be the answer to climate change, pollution and resource depletion, the downside, as the film makes quite plain, is people. Although it was also an elite Tokyo firefighting team that kept a nightmare from being realized.
It would be interesting for this viewer to know, from someone more familiar with the Japanese psyche and culture, how to read the interviews with the workers who stayed at Fukushima throughout the crisis and are portrayed as heroes by the film, even as they themselves refuse to be lionized. Ikuo Izawa, an operator at the plant who provides a very personal perspective on the story, spends much of his considerable interview time with his eyes closed. It seems to be a symptom of shame, something exhibited throughout the film by other employees of Tepco, the massive Japanese utility company that ran the plant and ended up apologizing to the nation for its oversights and failures at Fukushima.
“It might sound strange,” says a fellow operator who remained at the plant, “but there are things you just have to do, even if it means sacrificing yourself.” None of the workers had reason to think they were going to survive. But they felt remorse as well, as employees of a company that had failed its people. The reluctance of Japanese officials to seek assistance from the American makers of the reactors (there were six) is attributed to the atomic history between the countries and an emotional need for Japan to solve its problems alone. “It was days before we felt comfortable that we were getting good information,” says Charles Casto, who arrived on the scene as an agent of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Many days.” While essentially a disaster film, the visually alarming and nerve-racking “Fukushima” is also a cross-cultural psychodrama, about an industry, and perhaps a society, having a meltdown all its own.
Harvard University, TH Chan School of Public Health:
U.S. counties located closer to operational nuclear power plants (NPPs) have higher rates of cancer mortality than those located farther away, according to a new study led by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
The study is the first of the 21st century to analyze proximity to NPPs and cancer mortality across all NPPs and every U.S. county. The researchers emphasized that the findings are not enough to establish causality but do highlight the need for further research into nuclear power’s health impacts.
The study was published Feb. 23, 2026, in Nature Communications.
Numerous studies on the potential link between NPPs and cancer have been conducted around the world, with conflicting results. In the U.S., these studies have been rare and limited in their scope, focused on a single NPP and its surrounding community.
To expand the evidence base, the researchers conducted a national assessment of NPPs and cancer mortality between 2000 and 2018 using “continuous proximity.” They used advanced statistical modeling that captured the cumulative impact of all nearby NPPs, rather than just one. The locations and dates of operation of U.S. NPPs—as well as some nearby in Canada—were obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and county-level data on cancer mortality was obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers controlled for potential confounders in each county, including educational attainment, median household income, racial composition, average temperature and relative humidity, smoking prevalence, BMI, and proximity to the nearest hospital.
The study found that U.S. counties located closer to nuclear power plants experienced higher cancer mortality rates, even after accounting for socioeconomic, environmental, and health care factors. The researchers estimated that over the course of the study period, roughly 115,000 cancer deaths across the U.S. (or about 6,400 deaths per year) were attributable to proximity to NPPs. The association was strongest among older adults.
“Our study suggests that living near a NPP may carry a measurable cancer risk—one that lessens with distance,” said senior author Petros Koutrakis, Akira Yamaguchi Professor of Environmental Health and Human Habitation. “We recommend that more studies be done that address the issue of NPPs and health impacts, particularly at a time when nuclear power is being promoted as a clean solution to climate change.”
The researchers noted that the results are consistent with the results of a similar study they conducted in Massachusetts, which identified elevated cancer incidence among populations living closer to NPPs.
They also noted some limitations to the study, including that it did not incorporate direct radiation measurements and instead assumed equal impact by all NPPs.
I hope this documentary kicks off a discussion about nuclear reactors, but does not induce fear. Although nukes are outside my area of expertise, I know this: while Fukushima Daichi was an American reactor design (General Electric), Japan took all the blame during the meltdown. Since this was a light water reactor, it was required to employ lightly enriched uranium fuel (which makes it harder to shut down than heavy water designs). IIRC, the backup cooling system was installed on the ground floor which meant that it was damaged when the tsunami flooded that area. If the backup cooling system would have been installed on an elevated platform at the top of the building, then no reactor damage would have occurred (IMHO).