> Having it totally destroyed, or pushed under the sea, although perhaps creating an bad initial spike, probably wouldn't release as much radiation long-term.

> Having it totally destroyed, or pushed under the sea, although perhaps creating an bad initial spike, probably wouldn't release as much radiation long-term. The reactor has generated as much radioactive contamination as it's going to make (note that contamination is not the same as radiation). So in that regard the worst numerical damage Fukushima could realistically do is to eject all of the contaimination into the sea. But even assuming that it would be of negligible impact to radiation levels ocean wide (at least, assuming adequate dispersal). Given that it's easier to assure adequate dispersal for a continuous low-level transfer to the sea than it is to assure dispersal for effectively dropping the cores into the ocean, I think that dropping the cores into the ocean at once would actually be the worst possible thing. Of course there are real concerns with groundwater contamination too, which might make people think that getting the damaged cores as far away as possible into the ocean is preferable. But even that possibility is more of an annoyance than a health hazard, since if the potable water going is radioactive it's easy to detect and avoid drinking it, unlike other chemical and biological drinking water hazards.