@Ben

I just got done with "The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes" - grueling stuff. Anyone considering the pros and cons of the nuclear issue needs to read it.

If anything it shows how complex the flow of history is. What happened in Hiroshima and Dresden and Iwo Jima and Auswitz make it easy to belive in Satan incarnate. Oppenhiemer quoting from the Bhagavad Gita Shiva "I am become Death the shatterer of worlds".

There is the arithmetic of peace which vanishes into the evil calculus of total war. God help us then.

That said I agree with you. Root causes were competition for resources. If at the close of the 1800s the world's nations had adequate energy / food / minerals to provide a living for the population how much misery might have been averted?

Atoms for Peace is an old idea that needs a relook.

@Mark I believe plentiful and equitable access to energy with minimal or effectively no negative environmental connotation would be a roundly wonderful thing for humanity. In so many ways, but just consider that it will let us meet the coming desalination challenge.

That's why I write stuff like this:http://theconversation.edu.au/safe-zero-carbon-and-proven-is-fourth-generation-nuclear-the-energy-solution-4204

and why Tom Keen and I write stuff like this when people go out of their way to spread FUD http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13746

Can radiation from a single micro/nano particle of Cesium be measured easily?
Can a single particle of Cesium become lodged in a particle of algae eaten by an anchovy eaten by a tuna eaten by a human?
Can a particle of cesium become caught in a human bowel or breast or liver or other body organ or part?

What was ever made public about radioactive water including Cesium leaked into the ocean where seaweed and fish are farmed? What has ever been said about radiation in the ocean food web of the region?

Would it ever be possible to prove increased rates of cancer worldwide may be linked to single particles of cesium?

Should there be concern about cesium in seafood or other food?

Yes JF Aust.Hot particles like caesium which mimic compounds in out bodies are a real danger.The rates of cancer since the inception of the nuclear age have increased while heart disease has fallen.

In Fallujia Iraq,the birth defects were that bad that women were told to stop having babies.Prof Chris Busby has found evidence of radiation that is not from DU.Sperm counts in Israel since the Gulf wars are down by 40%.No studies have been done in nearby Arab countries.

We will not know the full extent of the Fukushima disaster for decades to come.Only a fool would not take heed of hot particles that have half lives from hundreds to millions of years which cannot be removed from our food chain.

@ JF Aus my answers in order.

There is some remarkably sensitive detection equipment. A single particle? Don't know

Sure, possible

Sure, seems conceivable

Plenty of discussion of the amount of radiation that went out with the water and it's dispersion. Section 5 of this report gives you a start http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/reports/special-report-on-the-nuclear-accident-at-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-station/

Loads, by all sorts of people. But what I think you are getting at, food sampling has been extensive and some restrictions are in place , see bottom of this page http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/statusreports/fukushima27_04_12.html which includes these outcomes: "Analytical results for 15554 (over 98%) of the 15792 samples indicated that Cs-134 and Cs-137 or I-131 were either not detected or were below the provisional regulation values or new standard limits for radionuclides (effective from 1 April 2012) set by the Japanese authorities.However, 13 samples were above the provisional regulation values and 225 samples were above the new standard limits for radionuclides Cs-134 and Cs-137"

No, key words being "single particle". No matter how controversial the source, radiation is travelling energy. Your body does not know the difference of where it came from. Whether industrial caesium or natural potasssium, the source cannot overcome two key issues: total dose and dose rate. To have a problem you need a large enough dose, at a high enough rate, to overcome your body's extensive protective mechanism against cell damage from radiation and other sources. Radiation is natural, happening all the time including inside your body. All food is radioactive to some extent. Every second you are alive, there are about 7,000 radioactive decays happening in your body, some of which will cause damage, but we are designed to cope with this. It's normal. The problem comes if one gets too much dose, too quickly.

Yes, at sufficiently high levels there absolutely should be. As noted above, some foods in Japan currently have restrictions which I have no doubt are highly cautious. But there is no global pandemic in the offing. If you have concern about food and cancer, read the work by these guys and follow their recommendations http://www.wcrf.org/index.php

Arjay, you continue to make statements without references, and won't acknowledge any of the errors we have pointed out in your claims.

"In Fallujia Iraq,the birth defects were that bad that women were told to stop having babies"

Really? Told by who? Fear mongerers like Chris Busby? The guy has been caught out selling bogus "medicine", cashing in on what happened at Fukushima http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/21/christopher-busby-radiation-pills-fukushima . How immoral is that? The guy is a complete fraud.

There were no birth defects detected among the children of atomic-bomb survivors in Japan, and they received far higher doses than anyone did from Fukushima (http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html ).

"Only a fool would not take heed of hot particles that have half lives from hundreds to millions of years which cannot be removed from our food chain."

Only a fool would make a statement like that without quantifying the relative risk. Here's what UNSCEAR and WHO have to say about Fukushima health risks: http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686 "Studies indicate minimal health risks from radiation in the aftermath of Japan’s nuclear disaster." Only a fool would ignore the absolute peak bodies on this issue, comprising the world's foremost experts in this field. Frankly, denying this is as bad as claiming the IPCC are completely wrong on climate change.