Yes here is an interesting video re the very widespread fallout of the Fukushima disaster: http://www.fairewinds.org/wave

"Attacking environmentalists might be good theatre but it doesn't solve the problems."

Well I think you have an argument that's valid, but not sound.

It's valid to point out that nuclear power programs have been the basis for nuclear weapons programs.

It's not sound in that this, of itself, only tells us that there are downsides to nuclear power. But so are there to everything else.

There are serious downsides to going back to burning dung which is where we'll be if the greens have their way.

The question is not whether there are downsides per se, it's what best to do and how to know.

The idea that the solution is for government (as usual, what else?) to pour billions of confiscated dollars into loss-making programs such as wind farms and solar farms fails the most basic test. If it runs at a loss, it's using more resources, not less.

Hey Jim

I'm really concerned mate.

All your articles about nuclear dangers are likely to give Uranium exports a bad name.

Pete

Yes Jim, I have discussed with Geoff other aspects of his article:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16780&page=5

We didn't even get onto actual Fukushima deaths statistics or nuclear non-proliferation, so I'm glad you have.

It was the debate on these issues many years ago (starting in 1969 I think and going through to the '90's) that led to the prohibition of nuclear power in Australia.

Yes JKJ and hear hear.
Uranium is becoming safer by the day, with things like, almost guaranteed melt down free pebble reactors, able to be mass produced and then trucked on site.
The coolant, helium, means they no longer need to be located near a water source, just where it may be convenient.
And FBR means we may be able to reduce the half life of the waste to just 300 years!?
Surely we are smart enough to be able to safely store this stuff for 300 odd years!?
One wonders about so called greens/their real if hidden agenda, and their so called climate change concerns; and their lists of conveniently ignored facts?
Surely if they were both genuine and sincere, they'd be first in the queue, looking for affordable non carbon options; rather than the most expensive and least reliable ones?
Yes nuclear power plants once needed a twenty year start up time.
Now thanks to things like mass produced and trucked onsite pebble reactors, that time can be reduced to just weeks along with a similarly downsized cost factor.
That said, my preference would be cheaper than coal thorium, and available at around half the cost of coal fired power, as mass produced modules connected to micro grids; also able to be trucked onsite and powering up in just weeks; and more modules bolted on with any additional need!
Recent discoveries and the isotope thorium 230, means they no longer need an oxide kick start, but can be endlessly self sustaining.
Moreover, in inverse proportion to oxide reactors, they consume around 95% of their fuel, and the vastly less toxic waste is eminently suitable as very long life space batteries!
Even so, the anti development greens, find all manner of reasons to also reject them, and even cheaper home made Biogas, powering our homes via ceramic fuel cells, the least costly (80% energy coefficient) carbon negative option of all, with endless free hot water into the bargain!
Rhrosty.

Jardine, you've taken us right off topic but I feel I have to address your misconceptions. Your statement that Government's "pouring billions of confiscated dollars into loss-making programs such as wind farms and solar farms fails the most basic test. If it runs at a loss, it's using more resources, not less" is not only hyperbole, it is false.

Wind and solar farms run at a profit, not a loss, the main reason being that they don't have to pay for fuel. They are also immune from fuel price volatility such as the predicted trebling of gas prices we are about to see.

Confiscated dollars?? Many writers and even the Government's own modelers have shown that the RET scheme has actually brought power prices down even when the cost of the RECs is taken into account. That means the RET subsidy has put dollars into the pockets of electricity consumers. The reason is the 'merit order effect' - wind and solar will tend to bid lower than coal or gas because they don't have to pay for fuel. This forces the market price down. Bad news for fossil corporations but good news for consumers.

You should read more widely.Go to Business Spectator (hardly a greenie site; it is actually owned by News Corp) and look up RET Warburton Review.