You can always be certain that in the case of Fukushima and similar incidents (such as GM "foods") that the powers-that-be WILL BE lying, especially in an era when much/most of the "news" is produced by "publc relations" outfits - the corporate and government Global Spin machine.
So too with all of the technological boosters who wax lyrical about the supposed "benefits" of each and every new technological development without having even begun to think about the inevitable long-range unintended consequences of each and every new technogical development.
In the case of Fukushima I much prefer the perspective given here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-meltdowns-a-global-conspiracy-of-denial/5363827

Meanwhile scientists and their technological boosters ofttimes pretend that they have a superior outlook or understanding of the human situation - a superior humanistic conscience even. But this aint necessarily so.
The Western technological mind is always in confrontation with matter, or Nature, assuming power over natural laws and events, AND masses of human too. It is this Western disposition without any Wisdom or nothing else controlling it, informing it, or modifying its behavior, that is producing our present political and social difficulties - the threat of an apocalypse even.
Whenever Western man has found a way to achieve power, and therefore advantage, over natural forces and masses of human beings too, that is what he has always done.
It is possible to be a proficient scientist with very few positive human qualities in evidence. You can be a totally degenerate, corrupt maniacal personality, absolutely dissociated in your behavior, filled with illusions and negative, cynical views, and still be a scientist. Edward Teller, the "father" of the H-bomb was such a person. He was duly awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by that noted humanitarian George W Bush - our lying rodent was also awarded the same "honor" for services rendered to the coalition of the killing.

On the Destructive Mood and baneful cultural influence of Western Scientism.

On one level such scientism represents a conventional way of knowing that can of course be used for positive purposes, providing useful technologies to enhance the prospects of human survival and flourishing.
Scientism is not inherently good or bad, but is associated with a habit of use that always acts in the direction of power over, and the manipulation of the masses of humankind.
In addition to the threats of a technology capable of totally detroying the Earth as a habitable environment, there exist the continuous destructive influences of technology, which manifests in the degenerative and dehumanizing effects of its common social uses. These influences are magnified by the baneful influence of scientism which grows and grows and accepts NO other kind of Wisdom.
This denial of other kinds of Wisdom is more dehumanizing than the suppressive influence of technology. The rational mind of scientism and the form of "knowledge" created by it, has become the only acceptable kind of "knowledge". It has excluded all other possibilities of human life and effectively destroyed all other forms of humanizing culture that existed prior to the modern era (error). This has been especially so in the past few decades and now into the "21st century".
Where is the Western consciousness, or in the common consciousness of mankind, can be found a higher view informed by Real Wisdom that could prevent such a scenario?
The truth is, a higher Wisdom cannot be found there. The Western mind altogether in itself is just insane, and scientism in and of itself is now an extreme form of that insanity.

Happy New Year Daffy,

Four suggestions for you:

(1)Please state your scientific reasons, with numbers not adjectives, for your belief that Allison is wrong in his analysis that the best way forward for reliable power generation is nuclear. In the absence of such reasoning I am forced to the conclusion that you consider Allison as having no human feelings at all. That would be near libel.

(2)Please re read your two posts and consider whether you really think that they are couched in terms likely to persuade people to your thinking rather than making people worry about you.

(3) You should consider whether the UNSCEAR analysis of the Chernobyl accident and their preliminary analysis of the Fukushima accident show that the UN and its radiation committee are (a)bad, unhuman people and (b) a part of some conspiracy.

(4)Write a new comment getting stuck right up me. That would not hurt me at all, and perhaps you would feel better.

Cheers to all OLO aficionados for the New Year. Cheer up Daffy, the world really is not as bad as you think.

Eyejaw

Bringing Marie Curie in relation to safe nuclear power is a somewhat unfortunate choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie#Death

I would be interested to hear what the good professor has to say about the other forms of nuclear radiation particularly alpha radiation.
Ingesting an alpha source does seem a good idea.
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/radiationtypes.html

I am yet to be convinced that nuclear power is an economic source of power over the full life cycle of the plant. Based on the history of nuclear power so far it has not been.

But Daffy Duck

I'm doing my book review on Edward Teller - he was a really nice guy - peace through megatons of deterrence.

Planta

In this pro nuclear advertorial, the author has wisely chosen to ignore a prime principle of the insurance industry.

That is the risk analysis - the balance between probability and consequences of an adverse event.
In the case of nuclear power - the probability of a major event is very small.
However - the consequences of a major nuclear accident are very large.
The result of this risk analysis is that no insurance company will take on insuring nuclear power plants.

That is why the tax-payer has to take on that risk - resulting in America's Price Anderson Act.
Without the USA's Price Anderson Act passing the liability on to the tax-payer - there would never have been any private investment in nuclear power, and the commercial industry would have died.
The supposed economics of nuclear power are based on tax-payers copping the costs - whether obviously, as in totalitarian States like China, or more surreptitiously as in UK and USA.