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.

WARNING - ACF CORE MELTDOWN
RESTRICTED AREA - ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK

Thanks David

"The spectre of a nuclear debate will delay and potentially damage Australia's pathway to a clean, renewable energy future.

It will unnecessarily absorb large amounts of political capital, energy and attention."

Nuclear energy has given France about 80% of its base-load energy for decades. No problems. China is committed to expanding its nuclear generating capacity, as are many other countries, from the USA to Finland.

Japan has 30+ other reactors that are operating OK. My understanding is that the current (serious) problems with one of them has nothing to do with nuclear technology per se, and much more with its location - in an area within reach of tsunami.

Australia must have a debate about this proven and safe energy source. Important issues surely deserve the expenditure of "political capital, energy and attention."

In an energy-starved world that will have a population of 9,000 million by 2050, do you (and the ACF) seriously believe the country can justify quarantining its 35+% of global uranium reserves and prevent other countries using it based on irrational fears?

Ironical that you seek a zero-carbon world and yet reject the only proven technology that will at least give you a start on the long and winding road to Ecotopia.

Alice (in Warmerland)

NO!

Newer Pebble bed reactors are not dangerous like the Japanese units. They need fluid to sustain fission. They shut-down when fluid levels fall.

Nuclear is not a dead option. Government lobbying Entrpreneurs & INVESTORS will make money from PBRs before long.

Nuclear ain't over. But there is a multidisciplinary GEOTHERMAL/THERODYNAMIC/GENETICS lesson here.

The Earth's core is getting gradually cooler and smaller. It is dying. And when it goes so will complex life on this planet.

There are reasons why huge populations thrive around the GEO-unstable Himalayas, Euro Alps, Pacific Ring, Apalachias, Rockies, Andes & African-Rift-Valley. The bulk of humanity depends on Geological free-energy for maintainence of of its Biological pulse. A corollary is, despite greedy fools, Australia's thermodynamics will never sustain large populations.

The trick is to harness GEOTHERMAL energy via Hot Rocks(5Km-7KMdepth) and move populations laterally away from the danger-zones. The tapping of such GEO-energy will have a core calming effect. Its the Earth's THERMODYNAMICS trying to get rid of excess heat by the 'second-law of-thermodynamics' that causes earthquakes. Try holding the lid on a boiling pot and see!. Remove and use that heat to drive your civilisations and the danger zones become a lot safer.

The real problem over the next 1-2 millenia, IF we humans don't overbreed and wipe ourselves out in a flurry of sexual competition and greed, is that when Geothermal energy is too deep to tap, we are going to need to find a new planet. Solar energy was barely enough to sustain paltry Neanderthals. It will not carry billions of 4WD, Iphone toting, 3-children monsters such as we.

So, lets all pray that the Earthquakes keep coming regularly. And get heavy with property-investors wishing to make quick bucks squeezing more people into danger zones.

The reality? Seismic events are our Godsend, NOT our Nemesis.

Be warned and look to a new crop of leaders who have the scientific insight to lead us to a GEOTHERMAL future. Even if we need a few PBR nuclear reactors in the mix to get the ball rolling.

Oh, Want to talk Solar-Wind-Power? Talk to a NEANDERTHAL!

Building reactors in a highly active seismic/earthquake areas like Japan is intrinsically dangerous, hence longterm plans to build reactors in Indonesia in an equally active zone are dangerous.

Very low earthquake areas like Australia are much safer places to build reactors, oil refineries or any other types of large factories.

Pete

Oh My God.

There ARE Neanderthals!

I will show more respect for the nuclear argument when they will talk about the ineffeciencies.

That argument is used against solar when nuclear has not even got close to the efficiency of solar.

By product of petro companies owning the patents perhaps?

Seems to me a bit more regulation of the petro companies ownership of alternate energy technology may be a good thing.

Not holding my breath as it is probably to late.

However Nuclear does not stack up on efficiency, only convenience.

I think it's fair to say that whilst we all agree this is a tragedy, there needs to be a balanced and considered resolution at the end of it all. Whilst I think many would agree that there are "significant risks" involved with nuclear power generation when incidents like this one occur; but that's true of every alternative if you get the right combination of extreme events that triggered this one - huge earthquake + resultant tsunami = ruptured power plants & major disaster.

The idealists have their points of view on halting the mining of uranium - that's going to ease their conscience, but uranium will be sourced from elsewhere so it won't stop the problem.

The alternatives of gas and coal powered generators present their own set of problems with pollution and the ongoing issues there.

Wind and solar options are nice; but are they practical - can they achieve what's needed? I honestly don't know the answer to that one; I can only hope.

If we accept that nuclear power generation is the only "practical" solution today, then we have a responsibility to ensure that (as a minimum) we:-
- Don't build them on a known fault line!
- Ensure that the critical "fail-safe" systems (like a supply of water to cool the rods) is incorporated into the contruction process.
- Ensure that these systems are NOT dependant on other forms of infrastructure that are prone to failure (i.e. gravity is pretty reliable!)

I think we have to live with the reality that nuclear is something we will have to continue to use until we develop the safer, cleaner alternatives. Sadly, it takes a diaster like this to bring this whole issue out into the public forum for debate.

I wonder if any of our politicians and the other people that can actually make a difference read these forums? Maybe they should; it's a great place to get real "public opinion"?
Thanks

More than ten thousand people have died in the Sendai earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Not one person has died owing to damage sustained by the Fukushima reactors, and it's not vain to hope that the death toll owing to radioactivity will be nil. If there are deaths, they're most likely to occur amongst the brave workers labouring to stabilise and clean up the mess ... just like the thousands still searching through dangerous debris for survivors. Noonan's attempt to co-opt this tragedy to push his agenda isn't just unconvincing. It's unequivocal evidence of sanctimony so extreme that not even ten thousand deaths will distract him from his quest. In the proper time and place, I'd be keen to debate the matter — it's important. For the moment, anyone with a scrap of empathy will agree it's nowhere near so important as sending relief to the survivors and respectfully burying the dead. If Noonan and his mates really think this is the proper time ... I don't know what to say besides: sick, sick, sick.

If one believes the media - twelve people who were close to the plants/reactors died this morning of illness. However, there could have been contributing factors.