A warning to the world .. what, that we shuold pour money into reactor R&D to ensure future reactors are even more impervious to 9.0+ earthquakes .. sure, no problem.

Isn't it a bit early to be getting all hysterical about this when the IAEA says there is no problem and everything has been done correctly?

It's not Chernobyl, nor is it trivial .. so why try to exaggerate it .. (as usual)

I'm sure you'll write an article apologizing if you turn out to be incorrect .. right?

Or will this be like Chernobyl where all the anti-nukes are competing to exaggerate the deaths .. actual deaths .. 33, various claims, 100, 000, 250,000 helen caldicott 1M ..

the tragedy is the tsunami, and it's churlish and dishonest to use that to exploit the people of Japan for your own selfish uncorroborated and unconfirmed claims

conservative journalists are told that to bring up such things as the deaths of illegal immigrants who drowned and the reasons for them being on boats in the first place .. is out of place since people are traumatized, by the same people who hysterically claim the nuclear issues are paramount when the data is not clear, and the tragedy is ongoing ..

a conservative journo was called immoral and unethical in his treatment of much lessor situation, that he was taking advantage to push his own outrageous ideas

what do we call this outrageous exploitation of tragedy .. on a scale of 1 to 100 .. 110?

this is unAustralian .. you should be ashamed of yourself for such blatant political behave and exploitation, but then .. you guys are the ones who blew up children to make some sick point as well

exploitation, the new caring green eco activist tool .. nice

this trivializes Japan's tragedy .. but it's the look isn't it .. not the substance .. have some compassion and wait till we have data .. but that wouldn't be convenient I guess .. there's a name for people who love disasters and other people's misfortune ..

ghoul

Strange rpg- I could swear that you yourself are exploiting the disaster to silence hindisght on the problems with nuclear energy by feigning crocodile tears.
Also, I read David's article and didn't find any mention of 'Chernobyl' anywhere. Just the various costs and risks that go with using it.

Anyway, David that is a very good article and hopefully needs to be considered by our energy considerations in future when even contemplating an energy as unsafe as nuclear.

Although the unfortunate truth is that the amount of damage the quake and tsunami have inflicted upon the whole east coast implies many problems beyond whether a nuclear reactor are located on the site.
The disaster has demonstrated simply how dangerous it is for any structure or person to live in the area- and unfortunately 'not building there' as some would say is more a luxury easier said than done. The only alternatives are better warning systems, routes to escape, and ways to prevent roads and structures from being damaged.

It's truly amazing how passion can distort peoples intellect .
I thought Hiroshima was a no go zone forever ? But reading a travel Brochure at my Medics Surgery I found that I can actually go to the exact place that the Atomic Bomb exploded and the Geophiz is now "Skyscraper Scape" that must have taken decades to build !

Excellent stuff David and so quick out of the blocks? What we love more than anything is your “predictability”.

You really must believe that this “emotional trigger word” writing style is going to cut it.

You will no doubt have an audience of like minded, ill informed “catastrophists” who are as dated as yourself however, you may be in for a shock when you realize that it’s articles such as this that are destroying your credibility. The pursuit of which is contrary to self interest?

<< because no other industrial activity poses the risks of the nuclear trade.>> Really?

So the fact that the nuclear industry is the most regulated and has the highest industrial safely record on the planet doesn’t get a mention?

<< Australia has a direct link to this tragedy because the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) that operates the Fukushima reactors buys and burns Australian uranium.>>

Ah David, the old guilt trip Eh? This is OUR entire fault for selling Uranium. What a sick comment.

<<We must act to avoid the ultimate nuclear nightmare and stop fuelling trouble overseas through our uranium sales>> Ditto guilt trip.

“radiation now threatening”, “ultimate nuclear nightmare”, “dancing with danger”, “Nuclear is a high-cost, high-risk electricity”, “long-lived radioactive waste”, “disaster such as the current situation in Japan”, “weapons of mass destruction”, “uncontrolled radiation exposure”, “catastrophic accidents”, “nuclear terrorism” and “hazardous nuclear trade”.

Yep, you ticked most of the boxes for emotive “trigger words”. All you need to do now is drag yourself screaming out of the 1960’s.

rpg, mind if I coin one of your expressions? I think we just got “Caldicotted”, this is a shocker.

David's article is an example of the extreme moral stances taken by activists.

Nuclear energy is so dangerous because of this incident at the Japan plant for which no actual deaths have been confirmed, that Australia must make a statement to Japan about what to do by not selling any uranium.

Okay, so how many miners were killed in the recent disaster in New Zealand? How many coal miners are killed in Australia each year? (Uranium ore pits are open cut - incidentally.)

What would happen if we agreed with David and decided that all nuclear plants must be closed for our own good? Alternative energy projects have proved to be much less effective than first thought, and cannot be built in the numbers required to replace nuclear.

That means more coal and gas plants, so won't that mean an increase in deaths in coal mining each year? Also coal and gas emissions contain traces of radiation. Put out enough of it and you get a lot of radiation - perhaps more than you save by closing the nuclear plants.

David should provide solutions to those problems rather than take these easy moral stances.

Well, what else would David Noonan say. He is a 'nuclear-free campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation'. I am happy to admit to my own severe bias -- towards rationality. Here are a few rational responses to the horrible events unfolding in Japan:
- Decide not to build reactors wherever there have been severe earthquakes and/or tsunamis.
- Improve the technology.
- Give up, as Noonan suggests.
Millions of casualties occur per annum on the world's roads. When I was young, people were hurt when transmission shafts 'dropped', or steering linkages connecting the front wheels broke, or brake cables snapped, or tyres blew out. These things hardly ever happen today. The technology was improved, and in many more aspects than I have listed. There are fewer casualties as a result. Engineers didn't give up. Personal transport was too highly valued.
Is it rational to give up now on nuclear power? It might have been a rational response 30 years ago. Nuclear power was a useful solution largely for economies without access to cheap fossil fuels. Today, when carbon emissions must be reduced, the need for nuclear energy has a different basis. Over its full life cycle, its carbon emissions are only a few per cent of coal's. The claim from the Noonans of the world is that renewables can perform as well as nuclear but without the risks. But that's just an opinion, generally not shared by the long-suffering power engineers who will have to meet the growing future electricity needs of society. And of course that's where the real debate sits. In the mean time, giving up seems to be a most unwise proposal.