Thank you for this, Noel Wauchope; it is an excellent, well researched and timely argument for at least great caution, or preferably the banning of Nuclear power generation.
I hope it gets a wider audience than "The forum".

Noel shows us that nuclear energy is not risk free.

What she fails to mention is that neither is solar power, wind power, coal, gas or any generation system.

The statistics are clear. Measured by the number of fatalities per TWhr, nuclear power is the single safest method of generation, even including the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents.

The subtitle of the article asks:

>"Why are we being told to overcome our fear of nuclear radiation?"

The answer should be pretty simple. Nuclear power is about the safest way to generate electricity. This is a summary of the authoritative studies with links to the studies: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

Over 1 million fatalities would be avoided world wide if nuclear was being used instead of coal for electricity generation. Over 2 million fatalities per year would be avoided by 2050.

Applying USA figures, it amounts to 700 fatalities would be avoided per year in NSW. That is mostly from fine particulates and black carbon, plus other chemicals.

So the answer to your question is very simple.

We are prevented from having safer, cleaner electricity because of the nuclear phobia created by fifty years of anti-nuke protesting.

Until the 'Progressives' stop blocking progress, there will be little progress.

Electricity generation is not without risk however the long term effects of radiation exposure and contamination makes nuclear a much riskier proposition in the long term. The Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents are a lesson in those risks and, in the Fukushima example, it was highlighted that the company intentionally took shortcuts to save money. Where money is concerned there is not much room for rational debate, safety standards or government oversight.

The recent climate change report stresses the dependency on coal as one of the greatest factor in global warming. While nuclear may assist in offsetting the risks of coal in that context it does not address the long term effects of contamination. In this debate there is also the issue of alternative energy sources.

Fear can be used as a tool for or against nuclear. It is just about what you believe will be the greatest risk. It may be that in the future we will all need to reduce our use of power considerably and make the switch to alternative energy. If the climate change scientists are right we will be reacting too late rather than being proactive in the present.

My science qualification is not connected to medical science but I have read on many occasions that there is a radiation level up to which cell damage repair is more competently repaired naturally than it would be in a lower radiation environment.

In Taiwan, 8,000 people were exposed to radiation of 400mSv of radiation. The outcome was monitored For the cohort 186 cancers were predicted had the exposure not occurred. It was predicted that this would increase to 242 due to the exposure. The actual outcome was 5 in total. That suggests that as a consequence of exposure 181 cancers were avoided.

There are also areas in the world where populations are subject to much higher levels of radiation than are acceptable in nuclear facilities. Populations in such areas have been studied and there has been no evidence that life expectancy is lower than for comparable low radiation areas.

Chernobyl was a power station design that would not be permitted in any western country and that station is responsible for the only fatal accidents in the history of nuclear power stations.

The US nuclear fuelled fleet has had no significant reactor failure in over 50 years of activity.

Thorium liquid salt reactors have been shown to be fail safe, to have the ability to consume much of the waste products from older style uranium fuelled reactors and to produce only very small quantities of waste needing to be stored underground, preferably in stable natural common salt deposits.

There is a move afoot by China to lead the world in this field and there is some promise that such reactors could produce 100MW of electric power from a reactor about 4m in diameter which could be mass produced at the rate of one per day.

The aim is to produce electric power at a cost cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel, coal. Coal and diesel particulates cause thousands of early deaths per year.

I suggest that the author, and anyone concerned for nuclear safety, read the chapter on safety in, "Thorium, energy cheaper than coal" by mathematician and physicist Robert Hargraves.

In essence this article emphasises the very point the author cannot understand..

Noel rejects material that point to the blindingly obvious, that there were no immediate deaths or adverse health outcomes due to radiation from the Japanese events. Noel doesn't seem to challenge those articles. Instead, the inference is that they cannot be right because they challenge the author's deeply held belief, which is basically a fear of radiation.

Why be so fearful? Because the author, like many others, probably has not the faintest idea what radiation is, or what it does or doesn't do, or anything about the arguments they have over safe limits or of the big variations that occur in natural background levels of radiation. The genetic instability stuff, for example, is complete nonsense, so is the internal radiation stuff. It occurs, sure, but it wasn't mentioned in those reports cited because the effects are too small to be worth worrying about.

Does this fear stop them taking trips in airplanes or being X-rayed at the dentist? Not on your life, because they don't realise they are being subjected to increases in radiation. then the author has the hide to complain that some efforts are being made to overcome this fear gap.

First rule of Advertising. Create a fear, even if none exists.

Remember the Bombs dropped on Nagasaki & Hiroshima. In 10 years they had rebuilt a thriving City on the site. Today millions of people live on the spot where the Bombs were dropped without harm.

Nuclear Power Generation is the way to go. but NOT on fault lines. How bl00dy stupid was that? Duh!

To all those in favour of nuclear power generation, what are you going to do with the highly radioactive waste products?
When the cost of construction is taken into account, Nuclear doesn't stack up.
When the ongoing fuel costs are considered, nuclear is a disaster.
If you are interested in long term solutions to energy provision, the inexhaustible 'fuel' of solar and wind and waves make the finite supplies of uranium an unattractive investment.

ypgirp: what are you going to do with the highly radioactive waste products?

We have large empty spaces in Australia. Make it compulsory to store it here. We could charge the World to store it until we find some way to use the waste & that will happen. Then we can sell it back to them at a profit. It will be away Rouge States who would use the waste for illegitimate purposes. Added bonus.

Ybgirp: If you are interested in long term solutions to energy provision, the inexhaustible 'fuel' of solar and wind and waves.

I agree. The Carbon Tax would supply every house in Australia with a free 3kW Solar Panel kit. Wind is great, pushed by the or years then abandoned when they started to actually build them. Wave techno elegy is great in areas where it would suit but I could see the fisheries & the Greens getting upset again.

The dirty Power Generation Companies know they are in a dying industry (like Whale Oil) & they don't want to let go, so they lobby the Government hard.

Prigby,

What to do with the waste. Do as France does, reprocess the waste, recover the unused fuel, re enrich the rods, and reduce the volume of waste by 99%.

The cost of construction is the single largest cost. The cost of fuel per kWh is about 1/10th of that for coal and 1/20th of that for gas. The total cost of generation incl construction costs is about 2x that of coal and on a par with gas.

There is sufficient uranium for many centuries of generation, and thorium for hundreds of millennia.

There is no reliable renewable power supply that comes anywhere near as cheap as nuclear.

Foyle
interesting stuff on Taiwan but how come they got exposed? Got a reference or some indication where I could look it up?

Have to agree with Foyle and Peter Lang.
Interestingly, the Japanese authorities are apparently cleaning up contaminated soil samples, with a lower rad output than that generated as background by buildings built of granite.
Generations of Scots have lived and worked in these buildings, with no alarming aspects or reported higher cancer incidences.
Thorium is clearly the way to go.
There is no weapons spin-off!
The tiny amount of waste produced, is far less toxic than that produced by oxide reactors; and what waste is produced, is eminently suitable as long life space batteries.
Fear mongering and misinformation by anti industry anti development proponents, is the only reason we aren't already enjoying the benefits of this energy, and the high tech future it could create for us.
It is not nuclear conflagration or the odd nuclear accident that is threatening the planet with mass annihilation, but Carbon pollution!
Turning our collective backs on cheaper carbon free energy, is all but condemning many nations, the poorest and most populous, to remain a captive of the fossil fuel industry.
Even the former Leader of Greenpeace has seen the light, and the need to accept the nuclear alternative.
But then he is unusually bright for a green advocate?
Thorium reactors, at the rate of one a day Foyle?
Wow, the Chinese are about to grab the high tech industries of the world, if we fail to recognise the opportunities, we have, while they still present/exist.
We do have a lot of thorium and enough to power the world for 600 years?
Rhrosty.

Greetings Curmudgeon.

I think that the Foyle reference to an incident in Taiwan is from page 327 of the book he talks about by Hargraves. What happened was that some recycled steel was contaminated with Cobalt-60 and was used in the construction of apartment buildings. Over a period of 20 years 8000 people were exposed to an average of 400mSv of radiation. Observed 5 cancers was far below the 'normal' expectation of 186 and far far below the 242 as predicted by the anti-nukes beloved Linear no Threshold'theory.
Normal humanoids would take that data as being yet another nail in the coffin of anti nuke campaigners. Fat chance.
Book referred to is very well worth getting as is Wade Allison's book 'Radiation and Reason'. I got my copies online and that may still be the only way to get them.
As usual on this subject there is more good relevant science shown on OLO than anywhere else that I come scross inside Oz. Quite heartwarming: there really is intelligent life out there!
Cheers.

I suppose everybody has fire detectors in their house these days. What makes them work? Guess what, it's Plutonium. Run away, run away. We'll all be killed.

My simple understanding of Radioactivity. Radium has a long wave length. It is only dangerous if there is prolonged exposure. The waves will penetrate 6 feet (2 metres) of concrete.

At the other end there is Plutonium. It has an extremely short wavelength. It is extremely dangerous if ingested. The waves will not penetrate a piece of paper. That's why it's safe to use in Fire detectors.

People are still living safely in Hiroshima & Nagasaki 68 years after the Bombs were dropped.

To a certain extent, all these pro nuclear spin comments are irrelevant as far as the world's energy future goes. Health, radiation, environment - all don't matter, when nuclear power is looked at from an economic perspective. Financially, the nuclear industry is undergoing a slow, tortuous death.http://qz.com/94817/the-real-reason-to-fight-nuclear-power-has-nothing-to-do-with-health-risks/

Foyle and Peter, very informative posts as usual.

I seem to remember Noel writing similar articles before from a position of paranoia and being corrected as to the facts, and also in the excellent articles by Ben Heard and Tom Keen:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13746&page=0

And Martin Nicholson:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13028

And John Ridd:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13884

Noel should really stop being so hysterical. This anti-technological attitude which informs AGW and the renewable industry is becoming increasingly weird.