The professor is obviously very intelligent but not smart. He is arguing the facts and the science. The opposition is blind, stupid and vicious as they have a religious objection to "Nuclear". By that I mean an irrational and hateful objection.
I remember the CND the Committee for Nuclear Disarmement. The committee of 100. That is 100 self appointed nutters who were against the West and in favour of communism. That turned out well for them, they lost the argument but are still fighting the war against common sense.
Now bring on the nutters with their "Peer reviewed" nonsense and waffle.

Congratulations to the author and to the Editor, Graham Young, for publishing a factual, informative and valuable post. I hope it will be read and digested by those people who are genuinely searching for the facts and sensible balance on the nuclear energy debate, instead of the repetition of the tired, 50 year old, BS, spin, disinformation and anti-nuke propaganda that is expounded by Greenpeace and the rest of the so called environmental NGOs and greenie activists.

I'll add a couple of points.

If nuclear power replaced coal for electricity generation world wide, it would avoid over 1 million fatalities per year:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

If we allowed small nuclear power plants to be cheaper, clean electricity generation could be rolled out more quickly to the 1.2 billion people who don't have electricity. About 3.5 million people per year die as a result of indoor pollution (according to WHO) from burning, dung and rubbish. Getting them connected to electricity would deliver enormous benefits and avoid millions more lives per year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/the-poor-need-cheap-fossil-fuels.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&

Then of course there is always the forever-and-a-day lingering problem of the effects of depleted uranium. Why not google Images For Depleted Uranium Iraq.
And on the topic of the nuclear disarmanent "nutters" why not read section 1-21 to 1-28 available via this reference:
http://www.dabase.org/not2p1.htm

"At present, a culture of total war, a culture of death, is ruling, while the people are engrossed in consumerism." 1.28

It's what I've been saying for yonks. We spent too much time in Harvey Norman and not enough time thinking about where our world run by capitalist Corporations and the Mega-riche was heading!

We've been silly. There is a heavy price to pay.

Thanks for the link, Daffy!

" blind adherence to narrow judgments" That seems to be what this author thinks of people, like myself, who accept the World Health Organisation, the American Academy of Science, and all reputable heath bodies' judgment that there is no safe level of ionising radiation.

This article pontificates, dazzling us with scientific jargon - but in reality is merely trotting out the discredited quack theories of "radiation hormesis" and "adaptive radiation"

Professor Allison makes some good points about radiation risks and the misconceptions which surround it.
It is difficult for lay people to get risks into perspective, I have been involved in negotiations with regulatory authorities and residential groups as to use of industrial chemicals and have struck similar reactions. One tactic I used was to always have an MSDS for petrol with me, amazing how toxic that stuff is wrt many industrial chemicals.
I think the issue of nuclear energy has ramifications beyond those considered by Professor Allison.
The first issue is the longevity of the presence of radioactive waste generally, it will have to be stored for millennia and the probability of accidental or deliberate exposure problems is not trivial. Worse issues are the nuclear sarcophagi enclosing accident sites such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Windscale and presumably soon to include Fukushima.
The second issue is that of the failure of complex systems. It can be convincingly demonstrated that a system or process can be operated safely as Professor Allison has done in the case but the real problem is “will it be operated safely”
Rail freight transport has been in use for well over a hundred years and could be said to operate generally in a very safe way, particularly compared to road transport. The accident at Lac-Mégantic is a classic case of system failure where cost cutting and removal of necessary safety procedures was a direct cause of the disaster. In the long time periods found in nuclear power generation, serious accidents are a certainty.
The problem that humanity faces with energy and resource depletion is just that there are far too many people on earth.

In evaluating the relevance of Wade Allison's article, we should bear in mind where he is coming from. Allison is a nuclear enthusiast who had an unusual response to the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. Allison is a physicist (not a radiation biologist) who advocated not evacuation of Fukushima residents, but instead - to increase the "acceptable" limits on radiation exposure to be increased by as much as a thousandfold. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/british-physicist-wade-allison-calls-for-radical-increase-in-radiation-exposure-limits/story-e6frg6so-1226159573330

I venture that the author is probably of advanced years (three score years and ten?) and living in an Ivory Tower. He'll never be touched by exploding reactors.

He is born, with no chance of mutating in the womb. No chance of an assumed to be one in a thousand year event levelling Oxford like the Tsunami levelled Fukushima.

Its easy to minimise risks to people he'll never meet when the threats they suffer never darken his Keble College dinners.

Pete

I'm betting that if Dr Helen Caldicott were to read this article, she'd easily see the flaws. Personally, as with asbestos, there is no safe level of radiation, and the vicinity around Chernobyl and Fukushima will have to be no-go zones for a very very long time to come.

Likewise, on the economic side, getting a nuclear plant up and running requires massive subsidies from the public, and should anything go wrong, as luck will have it, guess who gets lumbered with the costs?

Also, decommissioning the monsters also costs an arm and a leg, so why not go for the safer, saner alternatives: solar, wind, tidal?

(forget about cold fusion: it's had its day)

Its this simple......dammed if we do and the same as you know. My thoughts is, find a way to defuse as the professor seemed to of not pointed out...and how can he....we are only just working out of how to store the stuff:)....I would like it right off the planet....but dammed if we don't.

Nuclear power....well...Iam still not happy or convinced it wont come back to bite us in future times....That's what Iam thinking.

If we can get it off the planet or defuse it..... Not Problem I see:)

Planet3

Nuclear Fission is the worst. It is the hot particles such as Caesium 137, plutonium, iodine etc that our bodies absorb and the radiation is with us for life causing cancer and birth deformities. No amount of hot particle radiation is safe.

Why has the Japanese Govt passed laws to give journos 10 yrs jail for publishing uncensored material? Why has the IAEA silenced the world Health Organisation on this matter of Fukushima ?

Studies done by 3 Russian scientists show that 1 million people died due to Chernobyl radiation. Fukushima is far worse than Chernobyl and continues to get worse.

It takes 5-10 yrs for the cancers to appear so the cause is difficult to prove.The corporate media is covering this up big time.http://fairewinds.org/ Arnie Gunderson is a highly qualified nuke scientist of 40 yrs experience and he says words to the contrary. He is qualified in both commissioning and de-commissioning of nuke reactors.

A lot of careers and fortunes are dependant upon nuke power and the spin off of nuke weapons. It is destroying life on this planet

A very well written article.

There is no such thing as absolute safety. Nuclear is, however, an order of magnitude safer than coal.

Even better would be thorium powered reactors.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

Fortunately the Chinese, Indians and Norwegians, uninhibited by that motely crew of smug, self-righteous narcissists that call themselves "Green", are investigating the technology.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24638816

Stevenlmeyer they won't use Thorium reactors because they won't have the additional revenue from making nuke weapons.

Nuclear Fission is the splitting of the Uranium atom and in the process produces 100's of new radio active elements that never before existed on this planet. Many have half lives of thousands or millions of years and cannot be cleaned from the environment. So if one hot particle misses this year,it may get you the next.

Arnie Gunderson makes a good analogy on hot particles.Organisations such as the IAEA lump all radiation together and average this over our entire bodies. They do not discern between Gamma, Alpha or Beta rays. It is the Alpha rays of hot particles that our bodies mistake for elements like calcium that are the real danger. You cannot average a molecule of Caesium 137 over an entire body when it is lodged in your bone marrow causing cancer in a few cells.

One millionth of a gram of Plutonium will kill you. It is the deadliest element known to man and we created it.

Why does this insanity exist? We have made money our master when in fact should be our servant.

A very good article outlining the facts about radiation. Unfortunately facts will not convince a large proportion of the population as most people are very bad at making rational assessments about risks they do not understand. Paul Slovic describes this inability to assess and balance risk very well in his article in Science (April 1997). Even when the WHO states it very plainly

“28 FEBRUARY 2013 | GENEVA - A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.”

some people continue to use lies to exploit this human characteristic in an attempt to scare people to their side of the argument. The above “1 million deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima is worse” is a classic case.

Grumbler are you calling Dr Helen Caldicott and Prof Chris Busby liars? They don't not make profit from selling Uranium.

This whole system is controlled by the banking military industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower alluded to in the early 1960's.Karen Hudes is a World Bank whistle blower and she says mathematicians have worked out that 147 corporations have control of this planet. They have shares in all our major banks (40%) plus the private central banks, the media, mining, energy, medicine etc. The 1% is more like 0.001% and they have absolute power.

Our Govts no longer create the money to equal increases in growth or inflation and our Govt must borrow from pivate central banks and tax us to pay for debt that is created from nothing. As George Carlin said," They've got your by the balls."

Why has the Japanese Govt censored its own journalists if nuclear is so safe?

Grumbler

>>Unfortunately facts will not convince a large proportion of the population....>>

In my experience people rarely surrender their cherished beliefs.

"Anti-nuclearism" has become a religion.

Education doesn't help either. The only difference between an educated true believer and an uneducated one is that the former is better at coming up with rationalisations

Great post; the hysteria of the anti-nuclear parade is reminiscent of the hysteria coming now from the global warmists/coolists.

Whenever I read or hear of the eternality of radiation I think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which are both now thriving cities. How do the anti-nukers explain that? The most obvious way is to say the bombs only had pounds of uranium whereas say Chernobyl had tonnes.

Obviously the bombs had a greater reaction efficiency but the question remains was the radiation from the bombs more pernicious and widespread than Chernobyl's meltdown? And if so how do the anti-nukers explain what is happening today in the cities.

It should also ne noted that any claim that 1000's have died from Chernobyl is outrageous scaremongering and that wildlife has now returned to the contaminated areas around Chernobyl.

Stevenlmeyer what a mean thing to say, but oh so true.

Unfortunately many of todays people will go to their grave believing so much garbage.

I expect the next generation will be driving cars with their fuel a small chip of nuclear material, installed on the production. I doubt not there will be some who fight against such advances however.

(1) They've known since Day One how dangerous nuclear energy is:

1956 -->
"Former AEC official, John C. Bugher, declares at an American Public Health Association meeting that an atomic power program would present a much greater health threat than nuclear weapons, due to large quantities of radioactive chemicals emitted into the environment."

(2) 1990 - "Jay M. Gould and Benjamin A. Goldman publish the first edition of a book entitled Deadly Deceit, Low-Level Radiation, High-Level Cover-up. The theme of the book focuses of the dangers of low levels of radiation to human populations"

http://lowdose.energy.gov/timeline.aspx

(3) "Nuclear Radiation: There is No Safe Dose"

"The "small" amount of radiation, claimed to be "safe" by authorities, added to our increasingly fragile environment will cause serious harm to the health of human beings and other living organisms all over the world. Radioactive particles, especially Plutonium, Strontium, and Cesium are bioaccumulative, extremely persistent and highly toxic."
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/insights/04/01/11/nuclear-radiation-there-no-safe-dose

Arjay really? Dr Helen Caldicott? When I have see her on TV she tries to browbeat everyone else. When Faced with Switkowsy she kept glaring at him as he spoke and then furiously writing. This sounds innocuous but see it and be advised this is not a rational person. Personally I think she is borderline Psychopathic.

Arjay wrote

>>Stevenlmeyer they won't use Thorium reactors because they won't have the additional revenue from making nuke weapons.>>

Fortunately the Chinese, Indian and Norwegian governments didn't get your memo and are pressing ahead regardless.

Nikola Tesla was working on a way to use the planet's natural electro magnetic dynamo for free energy.JP Morgan withdrew all finance and scuttled the idea because he could not meter and charge for it. Tesla died a pauper.

Nuclear Fission is dirty and very expensive. Our present nuke technology is out moded and extremely dangerous. Perhaps nuclear fusion is the way but the present industry is neither safe nor honest about the real dangers that can destroy our planet.

Fukushima was built on a fault line with old technology by an industry corrupted to the core. All Blue Fin Tuna caught off the west coast of the USA have double normal radiation counts.I see multiple reports of marine die offs yet the MSM ignores it.50 sailors on the US Ronald Reagan that went to the aid of Japan have cancer and are now sueing TEPCO and the Japanese Govt for damages. We are seeing animal birth deformities both in Japan and the Pacific Ocean. All this goes unreported by the MSM.

Since 1945 male sperm counts on this planet in many countries have fallen by 40%.How long before we become extinct?

Imperial,
@ 8 January 2014 11:21:46 AM

I disagree with your concerns about nuclear waste, ‘failure of complex systems’ and resource depletion.

>” The first issue is the longevity of the presence of radioactive waste generally, it will have to be stored for millennia and the probability of accidental or deliberate exposure problems is not trivial. Worse issues are the nuclear sarcophagi enclosing accident sites […], Chernobyl, […] Fukushima.”

As Professor Wade Allison pointed out, the risks of serious health effects from releases of nuclear waste and of contamination from accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima are overstated by factors of 100 or more. The consequences of leaks and contamination are miniscule, and especially so when put in proper context with the contamination and pollution from the plants they would replace. Nuclear energy would save over 1 million lives per year now and double that by 2050 if it replaced coal fired electricity generation. It is not rational to oppose development and roll out of nuclear power on safety arguments. Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity (see link in previous comment).

>” The second issue is that of the failure of complex systems.”

Yes, complex systems fail. Air travel is a complex systems and it fails frequently. Commercial airline accidents kill about 1000 people per year, or about 1000 more per year than all the world’s nuclear power plants. All other electricity generation technologies kill more people per TWh of electricity supplied than nuclear power. Importantly, just as air travel safety improved the more it was used and the more it was developed, the same happens with nuclear power. We can’t wait for it to become ‘infinitely safe’ because it will never happen. But safety will improve as it is developed and rolled out. We need to stop blocking progress.

>”Resource depletion”

Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited in the Earth’s crust. Resource depletion is not a concern for nuclear energy. And rolling it out will reduce depletion of fossil fuels and the materials required for renewables (renewable require 10 times more materials than nuclear per MWh supplied).

Question: What would be the effect on the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE), for nuclear generation, if the internationally recommended safety limit for ionizing radiation was raised from 0.08 mSv per month to 100 mSv per month?

What would be the effect on the LCOE over the short term and the long term?

Peter Lang

>>Question: What would be the effect on the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE), for nuclear generation, if the internationally recommended safety limit for ionizing radiation was raised from 0.08 mSv per month to 100 mSv per month? >>

I don't think it's necessary to do anything that drastic.

The problem is that the development of reactor technology stalled for 30 years because of anti-nuclear hysteria.

Fortunately Russia, China and India are now dedicating resources to the further development of the technology and I think that will push down prices while boosting safety.

Best of all would be the development of thorium reactors.

See for example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html

The Indians too are developing thorium technology. So, amazingly enough, are the Norwegians.

StevenlMyer,

I am not into picking technology winners - e.g between the many Gen IV concepts, designs and demonstrators some of which will eventual become viable.

But I do think that raising the internationally recommended safety limit for ionizing radiation from 0.08 mSv per month to 100 mSv per month (a factor of 1200) from “As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)” to “As high as Reasonably Safe (AHARS) would greatly reduced the cost of nuclear in both the short term and the long term. Consider these impacts:

1. greatly reduces the costs of accidents - e.g. reduced need or no need to evacuate from Fukushima

2. Immediatly reduces the cost of insurance (which is included in the cost of electricity)

3. Sends a clear message to potential investors that financial risk of nuclear is much lower than experienced to date

4. Sends a clear message to nuclear industry that the cost of nuclear will come down - encourages them to get going again with innovation, proposing their projects and getting them through licencing

5. Sends a message to regulators to back off the stringent restrictions and licencing requirements

I suspect you may be able to think of many more effects on the cost of electricity, and the rate of development and roll out, such a change to the internationally agreed safe threshold would have. And what affect it would have on the industry, the public's nuclear paranoia, the anti-nuke activists basis for their arguments.

It is amusing to read yet again that opposition to nuclear power, and to thorium reactors in particular, comes simply from "hysteria" and "paranoia".
Do the following reasons for scepticism about thorium reactors sound hysterical and paranoid?

1. COST. The mass marketing, mass production, of small thorium reactors is not an economically viable proposition. Regardless of reactor size,the claim that the design of LFTRs tends towards low construction cost and very cheap electricity does not stand up to scrutiny. While some elements of LFTR design may cut costs compared to
conventional reactors, other elements will add cost, notably the continuous fuel reprocessing using high-temperature 'pyro-processing' technologies. Moreover, a costly experimental phase of ~20-40 years duration will be required before any 'production' LFTR reactors can be built.

2. WEAPONS PROLIFERATION. A LFTR could (by
including 238U in the fuel) be adapted to produce plutonium of a high purity well above normal weapons-grade, presenting a major proliferation hazard. Beyond that, the main proliferation hazards arise from:
- the need for fissile material (plutonium or uranium) to initiate the thorium fuel cycle, which could be diverted, and
- the production of fissile uranium 233U.

3.SAFETY. In an LFTR the main danger has been shifted
from the reactor to the on-site continuous fuel reprocessing operation – a high temperature process involving highly hazardous, explosive and intensely radioactive materials.

4. WASTES High-level waste is an unavoidable product of nuclear fission. Spent fuel from any LFTR will be intensely radioactive and constitute high level waste. The reactor itself, at the end of its lifetime, will constitute high level waste. A particular hazard is the production of 232U, with its highly radio-toxic decay chain.The reactor itself eventually becomes a radioactive waste.

5. PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE,INSURANCE and REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.Peter Lang's optimistic claims about these factors are not founded in any facts. As far as I can see, they are sheer fantasy. Particularly as regards regulation, any fool can see that as thorium rectors require plutonium or enriched uranium to get the fission process happening, there will have to be stringent regulation and security.

On the question of increasing the "acceptable" dose of ionising radiation, here's what the Physicians for Social Responsibility have to say:
“A dose of 100 mSv (10,000 millirems) creates a one in 100 risk of getting cancer, but a dose of 10 mSv (1,000 millirems) still gives a one in 1,000 chance of getting cancer, and a dose of 1 mSv (100 millirems) gives a one in 10,000 risk,”

Even if the risk of getting cancer for one individual from a given level of food contamination is low, if thousands or millions of people are exposed, then some of those people will get cancer.

So - increasing the safety limit for radiation might reduce the costs for the nuclear industry, while greatly increasing the costs for public health.

If anyone is still following this thread, they may be interested in this excellent brochure just posted called: "Radiation: The facts"
http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf

It's excellent for forwarding to people and students who want a simple, clear explanation.

In reply to Peter Lang's post urging readers to read an article by Robert Hargraves, about nuclear radiation.

Well, I really do think that Mr lang should have told us who Robert Hargraves is. Unlike the Physician for Social responsibility, Hargraves has no medical or radiation expertise.
Hargraves' specialities are physics and mathematics.

Robert Hargraves is an active promoter of nuclear power, especially of Thorium nuclear reactors, in fact is an advisor to a firm to develop the liquid fluoride thorium reactor.

Noel.Wauchope,

Your comment is simply and ad hominem falasy. Do you know what that means?

Is that all you can offer?

I'd encourage other readers to ignore such silly comments, read the brochure (it is good, IMO) and Read up on Robert Hargraves if you want to, or even better read his book "Thorium: Energy cheaper than coal"

He also has many excellent presentations available that are well worth watching - of course this suggestion applies to only those who are actually interested in learning!

Here's a youtube of one presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgKfS74hVvQ&feature=channel

I stand by my comment on Robert Hargraves, That information can be found at http://www.linkedin.com/in/roberthargraves

In matters nuclear, and climate change, a guiding principle for assessing opinions is that good old question "What's In It For Whom?"

"Radiation: The facts" contains some useful information for educating those who know little about the subject. http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/RadiationSafety26SixPage.pdf Here is an excerpt from the last two sections:

"RADIATION POLITICS

Exposure limits that were set by LNT theory
ignore observed low-level radiation effects.
Public radiation safety limits have become
more restrictive, from 150 mSv/y (1948) to
5 mSv/y (1957) to 1 mSv/y (1991).

These rules are political and inconsistent.
Nuclear workers are allowed 50 mSv/y, and
astronauts 500 mSv/y. EPA’s limit for indoor
radon is 8 mSv/y, but 0.04 mSv/y for tritium in
drinking water. EPA limits Yucca Mountain
exposure to < 0.1 mSv/y for 10,000 years.

The LNT fallacy that any radiation can kill you
led to the ALARA principle (as low as
reasonably achievable). But achievability is
based on ever-changing technology capability,
not health effects. LNT and ALARA ratchet
limits lower and increase costs and fear.

RADIATION IS SAFE WITHIN LIMITS

An evidence-based radiation safety limit would
be 100 mSv/y. Ending LNT and ALARA rules
will enable the full environmental and
economic benefits of green nuclear power."

To Peter Lang -
"the environmental and economic and benefits of green nuclear power"!!

Oh - pull the other leg, Mr Lang. Even you know that nuclear power, (even the new gee whiz ones still on the drawing board) leaves long lasting radioactive wastes.

Even you know that nuclear power is prohibitively expensive, whereas truly green energy, solar and wind,and energy storage are getting ever cheaper.

Even you know that the World Health Organisation and the National Academy of Sciences, and all of the world's most authoritative health bodies use the Linear No Threshold model as the guiding principle for safety in radiation exposure.

As the Director General of the World Health Organisation, Dr Margaret Chan said only recently:
"There is no safe level of ionising radiation"

Noel,

Your assertions suggest you are the classic example of a 'denier'. Totally opposed to all reason and all scientific evidence. A closed mind. I suspect you didn't read the brochure, certainly not carefully with an open mind and wanting to try to understand, did you?

I suspect you have ignored (or closed your mind to) all the evidence from over 30 years of study showing that nuclear is about the safest way to generate electricity, everything considered. Summary or recent authoritative studies here: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html Your in-depth critique of the underlying studies would be interesting, however, you have demonstrated you are not capable of that so instead you resort to obfuscation and ad hominem fallacious arguments, right?

Fatalities per TWh:

Coal electricity – world avg 60 (62% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – USA 15
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Hydro (Europe) 0.10 (2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.09 (5.9% of world energy)