I don't need to read the entire article to recognise that the author is one of the people he describes - i.e. the author is an ignorant, uninformed, anti-nuke activist.

>"Today's environmental and anti nuclear movement , we are told, consists of well-meaning, but ignorant and uninformed people who are denying science.

They are shown to have an irrational fear of ionising radiation. In this they are shown as the same as climate change denialists, denying the scientific consensus. But the scientific consensus, including the World Health Organisation, is that ionising radiation is dangerous to health, even at low levels."

Wrong. Low levels of ionisising radiation is not dangerous to health. You have misunderstood or you are ignorant or your are disingenuous.

Furthermore, nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity - see the summary of many authoritative studies here: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

I agree the Greens and the anti-nuke activists are denialists (as are many climate doomsayers, including many climate scientists).

Hi Noel

A good article.

Nuclear disasters amount to a high variable risk.

Nuclear reactors involve high recurring costs for waste handling and disposal. Reactor industries rely on privatising profits while making taxpayers pay for the cost and risk (poisons, environmental risks, terrorists targets) of nuclear waste disposal.

Claims by the nuclear lobby that advanced reactors may in decades reduce costs and risks are about as useful as carbon capture claims (thin forecasts that technical advances will make coal fired power stations clean).

Regards

Pete

>The assumption is made, no scientifically qualified person is against climate change< Well that does cover a lot of ground doesn't it?
I don't believe Robert would have automatically assumed any such inference?
I mean fully qualified metallurgists, radiologists, geologists or any number of disciplines not immediately connected to the science of climate, wouldn't necessarily agree with that very broad brush assumption.
Which seems fairly typical of extremely recalcitrant Green acolytes and or, the endlessly obfuscating anti nuclear lobby?
That said, and given the recent advances in thermonuclear technology, Pebble reactors, cheaper than coal thorium, the latter more or less producing few if any waste problems! Why are we even having this conversation?
The greens always bang on about climate change, and suggest the only rational response is depopulation and using less.
So how do we depopulate? The Wermark's final solution perhaps?
Would we draw straws, with those getting the short straws exiting stage left?
Reduced to the green preferred agrarian society, this planet would only support around a billion?
What would you do with the rest?
Simply put, Robert is right, we can have (carbon free)nuclear power or climate change!
Just not both!
After all it is not nuclear waste threatening us all with an extinction level event, but man made carbon!
Moreover, the time for talking or debating is now behind us. What we need now is action and an ability to clean the wax out of our ears, and listen to the best science from our most knowledgeable climate scientists!
Those that can't or what help us achieve the transition need to, just get out of the way, preferably before its too late and the frozen tundra starts melting!
Rhrosty.

I expect to have a DVD of the film shortly but I agree with the the claim that the danger of nuclear is over stated.

I have a well worn copy of physicist Dr Robert Hargraves book, "Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal". Harvgraves presents evidence that, for safety, the best fossil fuel has a supply chain performance per unit of generation eight times worse than nuclear and that coal is forty times worse.

The only reactor failure that has resulted in short term deaths is Chernobyl and that was a reactor that went nowhere near meeting design requirements of France, The UK or the USA. The Fukushima event has resulted in about 37 site employees having a lifetime cancer risk increase of about 2%.

The USA submarine fleet has 5,400 reactor years of experience without any significantly dangerous events.

The last comment is quiet amusing, specially the link about the safeness of nuclear power-who decides whats the safest way? Which are the measurements and what is counted in this calculation? See, it's more complicated to see the whole picture then only quote one research. I am a German engineer and know about power plants and climate change, because i studied technical engineering in Germany. The movie is obviously manipulative by telling only one side, and these "facts" are often not even true. So it is a shame to mislead people like this and I hope more people get informed about these issues, read scientific research provided by independent researchers! And then build your own point of view about this movie, but please don"t promote it before you didn"t analyse the whole story around these issues.Thanks

Any risk-return analysis of thorium LFTR, especially if the the risk of continuing with fossil-fuels and AGW is included, is a no-brainer.

The sooner we build "lifters" the better.