When the Fukushima nuclear plant was largely destroyed by the Japanese tsunami of 2011,

it reignited a worldwide firestorm of anti-nuclear sentiment, causing many to hold up Chernobyl

and Three Mile Island as two more examples proving that nuclear energy is too dangerous to

be used.

Today, we're going to put that assertion to the test.

It's coming up now, Unskeptoid.

You're listening to Skeptoid.

I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com, Fukushima versus Chernobyl versus Three Mile Island.

In March of 2011, an undersea earthquake sent tsunamis thundering across Japan, killing

nearly 20,000 people and creating the most expensive natural disaster in history.

Following the casualties was the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which was almost

completely submerged by the tsunamis, an unprecedented event.

Power was lost, obviously, cooling systems stopped, and the net result was a complete

meltdown of three of the plant's reactor cores.

It was a perfect storm of worst-case scenarios.

And now, even years afterward, some are calling it a worldwide radiation disaster, worse

than even Chernobyl.

It will produce a staggering death count for decades or even centuries.

Today, we're going to evaluate these assertions and see if we can separate fact from fiction.

With the shocking end of the world's scenario headlines, such as, your days of eating Pacific

ocean fish are over, and 28 signs at the West Coast is being absolutely fried with nuclear

radiation from Fukushima, either Fukushima was the worst environmental disaster ever

...