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.

The financial & Insurance risk does seem excessive.
Perhaps a halt on uranium reactors while thorium reactors are developed
perhaps is the way to go.
The main problem with uranium reactors is when things go wrong the area
of land that cannot be used for a very long time can be quite large.

That seems to be the real cause of insurance risk.

The financial aspects of thorium nuclear reactors make that enterprise even more commercially unviable than the big reactors.
To have any hope of getting the business of thorium reactors off the ground they would need to be mass manufactured. That couldn't happen until they were mass marketed - orders made to buy them in mass numbers.
The thorium pipe dream is to somehow persuade governments to buy them in mass numbers.

Apart from that unlikely prospect, the big nuclear salesmen - Westinghouse Toshiba etc are not going to let this happen - they have $billions invested in their big designs.

Even if the thorium dreamers achieved their expensive sales - the cost doesn't end there. Apart from the costly business of getting legislation changed, overcoming regulatory hurdles etc, - there will be the costs of perpetual guarding of these reactors, with their essential need for plutonium, enriched uranium (to start the fission process). There will also be the costs of guarding and disposing of the very toxic wastes produced by thorium reactors.

Meanwhile in the 70 year process of organising all this, the ever cheaper and cleaner wind and solar energy will be well established

Noel, how do you know all about the economics of thorium reactors when
they are still under development ?

I think you are confusing two different schemes;

Thorium reactors as base load generators
and
Small uranium reactors, built in modules in a factory, installed where
power is needed, and returned as a whole module for fuel replacement to the factory.

The idea for this came from submarine reactors, small & reliable.
Re solar, wind, tidal etc, please come back when the storage problem is solved.

Hi Bazz

Noting Noel's comment "with their essential need for plutonium, enriched uranium (to start the fission process)."

A problem with Thorium's use in reactors is who wants it and why. Thorium just happens to be advocated by some nuclear weapon countries (such as India) as a dual-use excuse for maintaining large stocks of nuclear explosives in the form of Plutonium and (highly) enriched Uranium (HEU).

The following 2012 article reflects India's interest and just some of the problems of using Thorium reactors http://wmdjunction.com/121031_thorium_reactors.htm :

"This thorium fuel cycle can be carried out in a conventional solid fuel reactor, and indeed India is proposing to do precisely this in its forthcoming advanced heavy water reactors (construction of which will reportedly commence in 2014), intending to employ a fuel that includes thorium in addition to uranium and plutonium.

But the fuel in any solid fuel reactor needs to be removed and reprocessed long before it is truly burnt up and no longer of use, otherwise some of these fissionable byproducts act as "neutron sinks," degrading the "neutron economy"—the efficiency of the reactor—until the nuclear chain reaction grinds to a halt, or becomes difficult or impossible to restart once stopped."

Pete

In reply to Bazz
I am not confusing thorium reactors with small reactors. I'm sure that theoretically large thorium reactors could be built. (But that's unlikely, with the grip that the current uranium nuclear producers have on the market)
However, small thorium nuclear reactors are being touted for Australia - as part of the "small, cleaner, cheaper, safer" propaganda line for thorium. This can also be found in the World Nuclear Association's propaganda - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Small-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/
As for the economics of thorium reactors. Of course I don't know "all about" this - and neither does anyone else. That's part of their problem. The extremely long lead time, many decades, from blueprint to operational is one of the factors which add to the financial uncertainty of thorium reactors. http://www.nuclearpledge.com/reports/thorium_briefing_2012.pd

Thanks Plantagenet, I am not familiar with the whole nuclear possibilities.
There does seem to be a whole range of options.

Noel, you do seem to be very ready to condemn any proposal as "propaganda" a la Herr Goebbels.

Still all that aside, the energy storage problem seems to be bigger
than any nuclear reactor problem and may well take longer to solve.
Until it is solved then we have no option but to continue the use of
oil and coal or arrange the starvation of a lot of people.

The author asks
How can we build public trust in the answer?

One idea would be to let the public hear from those scientist/experts who knew, and told us, publicly, _before_ the Fukushima incident, that these nuclear reactors actually can't be turned off if and when something goes wrong.