Bazz,

Thanks again. I am still trying to urge that those who are concerned, avoid getting drawn into arguing about the many side-track issues that can be raised and instead focus strictly on the pragmatic solutions. The solutions that are pragmatic and achievable given the real world constraints, are the only ones we should focus on. We’ve spent 25 years advocating for policies that in reality never had much likelihood of success. What can succeed are policies that offer:

• Cheaper energy
• Improved Health and Safety
• Increased energy security (for all countries not just those endowed with energy resources)
• Sustainable energy forever.

Nuclear can deliver all these, but only if the impediments that have driven up its costs are removed. And it will take decades for the cost reductions to wash through, so subsidies are justified to offset the lingering impediments, previous governments imposed, until they are fully removed. The faster they are removed the faster the rollout rate will increase which in turn will cause competition and innovation to increase and costs to reduce faster.

But it all depends on removing the impediments. And that needs advocacy focused on it, not on tangential issues.

Did you see this article by Matt Ridley yesterday: http://www.wsj.com/articles/fossil-fuels-will-save-the-world-really-1426282420 ? It includes this paragraph:

“Nuclear’s problem is cost. In meeting the safety concerns of environmentalists, politicians and regulators added requirements for extra concrete, steel and pipework, and even more for extra lawyers, paperwork and time. The effect was to make nuclear plants into huge and lengthy boondoggles with no competition or experimentation to drive down costs. Nuclear is now able to compete with fossil fuels only when it is subsidized.”

I’d urge advocacy focus on getting the message across about removing the impediments to nuclear power and the short and long term benefits of doing so. I’d suggest focusing on convincing those who have influence. Surely there must be some rational people amongst: Tristan Edis, Giles Parkinson, Matthew Wright, Mark Diesendorf, Ian Lowe, and the policy setters in ACF, Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, etc. What about James Hansen?

Peter, I think you underestimate the ability of the general population to understand and therefore accept low levels of nuclear radiation. There are just too many crackpots out there feeding them with misinformation and they are the ones who unfortunately are the ones most likely to be believed. As you have said previously, the limits have been set too low. Most people don't even realize that there is an easily measurable level of background radiation with which we have been living quite without consequence for ever.

Something needs to be taught in schools in science classes to give people a more realistic sense of what it is all about. That in itself may pose some problems if the rabid opposers are allowed to interfere with the truth. Most people equate nuclear energy with making bombs still, hence the problem between Israel and Iran.

David

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224258678_Is_Nuclear_Power_Globally_Scalable_Point_of_View

David,

>“Peter, I think you underestimate the ability of the general population to understand and therefore accept low levels of nuclear radiation. “

The general population don’t have to understand radiation and its effect (at least not until they are considering whether they want to grab the opportunity to have a power station in their neighbourhood - and gain the benefits of the enormous opportunities they offer: stable employment in a high tech industry, jobs for life, excellent education and research facilities and education, and much more).

What the majority of voters are interested in are the points I made above: cheaper energy, improved health and safety, more secure and reliable energy supply, good jobs with a bright future.

The allowable radiation limits are not something the voting public would vote on. The IAEA would reconsider the evidence for the LNP hypothesis and, if supported by the evidence, begin raising the limits progressively over time. In January the USA started the process (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Radiation-and-Health/Nuclear-Radiation-and-Health-Effects/). Just the fact of increasing the allowable radiation limits will provide an opportunity and a catalyst to represent and re-examine the benefits of nuclear power - a new opportunity to revive the public debate of the evidence. It can be a catalyst to get the population to reconsider whether they've been hearing 50 years of baseless scaremongering. That’s where the population would be involved, not in deciding what the radiation limits should be. If that was done objectively, no other electricity generation technology could pass the requirements set for the nuclear industry.

I agree with your comment about science classes. The deterioration of education in the west is a whole other issue. However, a well-informed and persuasive US President can make an enormous difference. He can lead the US citizens to understand the benefits for the US of making cheap nuclear power available to the developing nations (there are many and enormous benefits. And he can influence the leaders of the other nuclear countries to support a thorough re-investigation of the evidence for the LNP hypothesis. And lead to get the NRC’s purpose and culture changed.

"The nuclear fuel cycle does not give rise to significant radiation exposure for members of the public, and even in two major nuclear accidents – Three Mile Island and Fukushima – exposure to radiation has caused no harm to the public."

Peter, the above quote from your previous reference.
Unfortunately it isn't true. It has recently come to light that in the Fukishima area there is a significant increase in the number of children who are suffering from one of the radiation induced thyroid problems. I suggest you read
http://www.naturalnews.com/038185_Fukushima_children_thyroid_disorders.html

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q22013/us-babies-suffering-radiation-poisoning-from-fukushima/
There was a reference to the first one on the ABC a couple of days ago.

I am not anti nuclear, but I believe we need to be careful how we handle the truth. Blatantly denying that there are problems does not give the public confidence and it is the public who will vote for the anti-nuclear politicians.

David

David,

I agree it is important to not exaggerate or overstate. However, it's also important to provide appropriate context.

The reference you linked is a news article and all the references in that article are to non authoritative sites. I'd urge we avoid posting links to junk sites. Thorough studies have been conducted by authoritative organisations, such as WHO, and my understanding is very few if any fatalites are expected from radiation induced illnesses resulting from the Fukushima accident. Of the thousands of thyroid cancers diagnosed and attributed to the Chernobyl accident all but about 30 were treated effectively. There have been about 30 deaths attributed to thyroid cancer resulting from the Chernobyl accident. Few if any are expected from Fukushima. And thousands less polution caused fatalities per TWh of electricity supplied by Fukushima than if that power had been supplied by coalor gas over the past 40 years.

I strongly agree with you that we must not overstate the case. I believe Wade Allison's video and his articles in OnLine Opinion are excellent, balanced and informative. Such articles are needed to correct the 50 years of dishonest scaremongering we've had from organisations like Greenpeace and anti-nuke advocates like Mark Diesendorf. It's important to get this information out to the public. So I'd urge to not rely on that news source. Instead of defending and propagating such articles, let's include context and perspective. Let's try to get the balance right. The big picture is that nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity (see references in first comment on this thread). We save lives by rolling out nuclear. Even if some thyroid cancers are identified AND attributed to leaks of radioactive material, we need to provide context. Otherwise it is just scaremongering – e.g. how man fatalities if fossil fuels had supplied the electricity instead.