(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?