anti-green:"I am not complaining about the application of LNTH to regulation. I am very critical of the application of LNTH to predicting the consequences of accidental and unintended radiation exposure."

You mean on an individual basis at very low doses, right?

I'd have thought that if you're 'answering Barry Brook', the best place to do that would be on the forum he hosts (http://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/index.cgi), which has quite a liberal moderation policy. But never mind that.

On energy safety, a summary was recently published in Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/).
Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Sorry about formatting horrors, but hopefully you can still draw your own conclusions.

At first I planned to read this article and comment on it in a normal fashion, but it quickly became apparent that its author knows nothing about nuclear power. As some have already stated in the comments, his confusion about LFTR and IFR systems is bizarre, as if two entirely different technologies are somehow mixed up in a melange in his head. The rest of the piece is so riddled with ignorance on so many levels that, rather than provide constructive commentary on fine points, I can only agree with John Bennetts, the commenter who said, "This author is definitely not sufficiently knowledgeable to be trusted" (an understatement if ever there was one!) and "OnLineOpinion, by publishing this tripe, has displayed a need for better editorial guidance." Kudos to you, John. You managed two extreme understatements in a single post.

Is there any editorial guidance at Online Opinion? Were they on vacation the day this one came in?

The real essence of the issue is addressed by the March edition of The Economist "Nuclear power- the dream that failed" http://www.economist.com/node/21549936.

Nuclear power is too expensive, too dirty, and too reliant on government indeminties and subsidies. Nuclear power is clearly linked with nuclear weapons proliferation- the majority of current nuclear weapons states started with nuclear power only "for peaceful purposes". Using liquid sodium as a coolant is never going to work safely- it explodes with any contact with air and water. Sixty years after we first had nuclear power generation we still have no long term high level waste storages anywhere in the world.

Much of the EU is phasing out reactors by 2030. As renewables get cheaper,and baseload storages improve, nuclear is clearly obsolete technology.

All these negative comments! It's almost like an exercise in shutting up the peasantry if they dare to have an opinion.!
Very few of the points in my article are answered.

Apart from just one comment from pro nuclear Peter Lang, where he acknowledges the expense problem for Australia in getting nuclear power, these negative responses are pretty much a mixture of:
* rubbishing me personally
*dazzling the readers with scientific data, much of which is incomprehensible to the ordinary person
* condemnation of renewable energy
* dubious stuff about radiation not really being all that bad

I note that two writers chastise Online Opinion for publishing such tripe as my article.
Well, I've just sent Online Opinion another one. See what you can do with that one, if they are brave enough to publish another article from a nurse, who is not even a nuclear physicist. Noel Wauchope

Goodonya Noel "jimbonic" Wauchope, you have stirred up a solid and informative debate - though most of it is far too techno for me to appreciate. Still, many others are obviously greatly appreciative of the opportunity to air their knowledge and their pet perspectives.

I like the idea of new generation solar, so I'll stick with that and hope for the best.

Noel, ever thought of changing your name to Noelle? (Just a thought.)