Errata

There are currently over 400 nuclear reactors in the world today.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

As I am unwilling to pay for this science fantasy novel, I am not in the position to comment on individual calculations and assumptions, but I am sure that it will be an instant best seller. This is because it tells the anti nuke activists what they want to hear.

The reality on the ground is very different. The projected deaths due to cancer etc in the UN estimate was based on the results from the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for which there was little clean up or precautions taken.

In the population in the worst fall out areas, clean up precautions and frequent early cancer detections were implemented amongst the few million people living there, with the result that while there were about 4000 additional cases of thyroid cancer, the early detection and treatment resulted in only a small fraction of these dying.

Finally, Chernobyl which is the lightning rod for the anti nuke activists was build by a soviet system that cared little for its citizens, and built a system which was deficient even in its day, compared to those built in the west, and bears as little resemblance to the Gen III and IV reactors of today and tomorrow as the ships Columbus used compares the new Queen Mary II.

The nuclear debate is alive and well, it seems, but the debate is not served well by the IAEA and the WHO, who have been accused by a range of experts of downplaying the evidence of low level radiation health effects, most recently published by the NYAS (see my comments directly above).

The IAEA has a conflicted brief, dating back to 1953, when Dwight D Eisenhower, then President of the US, addressed the UN, proposing the idea of the IAEA. See:
http://www.iaea.org/About/history_speech.

Eisenhower made a number of proposals, including that:
“The Governments principally involved, to the extent permitted by elementary prudence, to begin now and continue to make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an international Atomic Energy Agency. We would expect that such an agency would be set up under the aegis of the United Nations."

A year before, T. Keith Glennan had made clear that nuclear electricity could be profitable if the plutonium was sold to the US government:
" ... dual-purpose reactors are technically feasible and could be operated [so] that the power credit would reduce the cost of plutonium by a considerable amount."
See comments at:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/30159

The IAEA is systemically flawed. It is based on an industry that is only economical if it is subsidised by taxpayers in nuclear weapons states. Its Statute is a global institutionalisation of this economic fact.

Articles 2& 3 of the IAEA Statute say it all to me, and the current sabre-rattling regarding Iran could develop into a catastrophic demonstration of the IAEA Statute's fatal contradictions.

The fatal flaws of nuclear electricity remain much the same as they were 60 years ago, with added imminent crises like peak oil, anthropogenic warming and water scarcity. These compelling problems may further develop into armed conflict on local, national and global scales.

Not only does nuclear electricity technology fail to adequately address the urgency of these ecological issues, it arguably exacerbates them through the influence of its most powerful members.

qanda, see Iran's September 2003 statement to the IAEA.

http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC47/Statements/iran.pdf

Plus ca change -

Ahh, Sir Vivor, to have a friendly game of chess, sharing a vintage port (and an equally vintage fromage) in front of a crackling fire on a cold winter’s night? Yes, I would enjoy.

Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil. Our chess game, sadly ending in stalemate. A logical fallacy when so much, for so many, is dependent on the outcome – not for those here and now, but for those that follow.

Sir Vivor,

While the IAEA is not perfect, their publications are very carefully scrutinized before release in stark contrast to those of the anti nuke activists, whose publication frequently deviate from reality.

Instead of playing the man, considered commentary on the details carries more weight.

Shadow Minister,

I think you ought to find a nearby university library which subscribes, and peruse a few of the copies of the Annals of the New York Academy of Science. Badham Medical Library on the Sydney University Campus is one possibility. That's where I found them when I lived in Sydney. I think you will search at length through the Annals, only to conclude that everything they publish has been, in your own words, "very carefully scrutinised".

Earlier, you were mentioning the high price of this publication. You can join the NYAS for about $150 AUD and get this particular issue as your yearly membership benefit. That's about 75% of the cost of the publication for non-members.

See http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1573317578.html
for the chapter titles and authors.

Here is the abstract, from that link, for those who wonder what Shadow Minister and I are talking about:

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
Volume 1181, December 2009
335 Pages

"This is a collection of papers translated from the Russian with some revised and updated contributions. Written by leading authorities from Eastern Europe, the volume outlines the history of the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Although there has been discussion of the impact of nuclear accidents and Chernobyl in particular, never before has there been a comprehensive presentation of all the available information concerning the health and environmental effects of the low dose radioactive contaminants, especially those emitted from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Official discussions from the International Atomic Energy Agency and associated United Nations' agencies (e.g. the Chernobyl Forum reports) have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings reported in the Eastern European scientific literature and consequently have erred by not including these assessments."

Shadow Minister, I don't think I'm "playing the man", and I don't think I'm "playing the institution", either.

What are you playing?