Fact is both sides of this discussion will spin the risk factor whichever way suits their position, but most of us are capable of reading the literature and the science and making our own judgements. Those with potential business interests will naturally spin the safety argument - no real surprise there.

The author makes a good point about continual failure to learn from the nuclear lessons.

It is not only natural disasters that need to be taken into account but man-made ones (war, human error, corruption, terrorism).

While Australia has only a low to moderate earthquake risk (some regions are higher), fact is when this debate came up a few years ago the sites chosen were not in the middle of the Australian desert. For example, one was proposed for Jervis Bay on the East Coast of Australia. That side of Australia is more prone to natural disasters including earthquakes eg. Newcastle.

Here were the lists of the other proposed sites from the TAI link below (not exactly out of urban areas):

https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=web_papers/WP96.pdf

"The selected sites are:
· in Queensland – Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg,
Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island;
· in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory – Port Stephens,
Central Coast, Botany Bay, Port Kembla and Jervis Bay/Sussex Inlet;
· in Victoria – South Gippsland, Western Port, Port Phillip and Portland; and
· in South Australia – Mt Gambier/Millicent, Port Adelaide and Port
Augusta/Port Pirie."

QLD and SA in particular are both considered seismically active and disaster prone (QLD).

http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/listQuakes

For me the risk is not worth it when there are other options and strategies.

Interesting stuff, and made even more interesting by the responses.

One point that Jim has not mentioned is the qualifications of Brook and Switkowski to comment as TECHNICAL authorities. First, neither of them is on the spot in Japan to know what is actually going on there. Have Brook and Ziggy got their own personal line into the scene? Secondly, their technical qualifications to comment. Ziggy got a PhD in theoretical astrophysics 40 years ago and then did post doc work in the same stuff and then went became an executive in Kodak, Amcor, Optus and Telstra before becoming the Chair of Ansto and now a University Chancellor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggy_Switkowski) Perhaps lay people think that is OK, but what does he know about the ENGINEERING of reactors that makes him an expert, rather than a well-informed SCIENTIST? Would he know what button needs to be pushed or lever pulled, or relative strength of 40-year-old irradiated stainless steel and so on. This is the same guy, who gave us the marvellous Telstra T1, T2 and T3 privatisations. He sounded like an expert in telcos then, too.

Similarly Barry Brook is "a leading environmental scientist, holding the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, and is also Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute." (http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook). Doesn't sound like nuclear power plant engineering to me.

If these people are Australian experts in nuclear engineering, then heaven help us if we ever have a reactor in Australia that has technical problems and they are called to fix it.

The second interesting point is the responses by rpg, spindoc, atman and Curmudgeon, who have unleashed their well-rehearsed personal vilification routines on the authors. No attempt to provide an alternative view that is substantiated by facts. Just heaps of abuse that the editor seems to think is just part of the rough and tumble of OLO.

Perhaps they are just following the example of their political idols, who similarly avoid mixing facts with their unbridled personal attacks.

It does not take much to bring the anti nuke activists out, and a major disaster like this gets them howling in unison at the moon.

While this is a disaster second only to Chernobyl, there are still several issues that the anti nuke activists have conveniently overlooked.

1 The Plant was one of the first in Japan built in the 70s before the 3rd generation of safety upgrades, and cannot be compared to those being built today, but still has many more safety devices than Chernobyl such as a concrete containment vessel.
2 There was a 9 point earthquake, one of the strongest in the last 100 years anywhere in the world followed by a Tsunami probably the largest in living memory, and the plant could have easily survived one of these catastrophes, but not both.
3 There is no graphite in the core, which means that even in the even of core melt down, the emissions are unlikely to vary from the gaseous short lived isotopes being emitted presently (no long term contamination) and take up by plants is unlikely.
4 Probably 20 000 people have died and entire towns have been obliterated, and the loss of life so far from the nuclear disaster is perhaps 2.

While the words "apocalypse" etc are being thrown around, compared to the tsunami, the nuclear disaster is a drop in the bucket.

At the risk of over-generalisation (which I am about to do) it seems to be that the Japanese way appears to be to "cover-up" first, be evasive second and finally be unaccountable. It worries me that the "truth" about this unfolding disaster is either truly not known, or is known but being withheld. The only difference this time appears to be that the Japanese are at least allowing aid and support in from outside to help with the disaster.
My over-whelming fear is in the longer term fallout (no pun intended) but if the wind patterns are correct, couldn't this fallout find its way accross the ocean to USA/Canada? If that's the case, then this problem could truly become global. It seems that if the wind were blowing our way, we could be copping this too. Now that's scary.
Thanks

jedimastr .. check your facts please ..

your reference .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggy_Switkowski

has this on Ziggy (you need to read your references, not just point at them, it's a common thing among more junior and sloppy researchers)

"He then studied at the University of Melbourne, where he earned a Bachelor of Science and a Doctor of Philosophy in nuclear physics, and went on to complete six years of postdoctoral research. In 1993, he graduated from the Advanced Management Program of the Harvard Business School"

the man is highly qualified and a respected nuclear academic.

that's the second time in 24 hours you have misrepresented Ziggy's qualifications .. is this deliberate or just ignorant?

I note you have no complaints about various paid activists, arts/law persons, climate club members or unqualified journalists giving advice, writing articles and more .. but a highly qualified person you find reason to lambast .. why is that

your bias is showing again ..

get some perspective .. at least Ziggy has authority on his side, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by misrepresenting him.

(the red cross is the one to push, to tell Graham on me, again)

Shadow Minister

I will try to ignore your opening sentence as I have grown accustomed to your reflexive habit of abusing those who do not share your opinions.

Here are some points that you have not mentioned (I don't know if you overlooked them):

1. There are about 40 nuclear power plants world wide that are about 40 years old. There are about 200 more than 30 years old and only about 80 less than 20 years old. (http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm). How many of these fall into your category of "well what do you expect from an old reactor?"

2. Understandably, you use the fatalities figures to claim that nuclear is safe. Most authorities do this. But it's the "morbidity" numbers that are of greater concern. For example, there are about 2,500 road deaths each year in Australia, but 10 times that number of seriously injured and 100 times that traumatised. In the case of the nuclear reactor accidents, we don't know the morbidity numbers (Curmudgeon thinks he does), but the number who are psychologically affected is in the 100s of thousands, not to mention the loss of amenity

3. Japan has just written off about $20 billion worth of power supplies. I don't know of any other power supply that has, or is likely to have that kind of write off. And what about those other 40 geriatric reactors?