This article is nuclear alarmism. The only deaths that can be unequivocally attributed to Chernobyl are the 50 or so directly affected which the author mentions. The rest is just estimates, and the Russian disorganisation of the time meant no proper records were kept, even of the people directly exposed in the aftermath.

There were certainly additional deaths but - although the lowest estimate sounds like a very large number - no statistical blip was detected against the backdrop of deaths from all causes in any area with reliable records. The only other, unequivocal affect is a heap of thyroid cancers in children which, fortunately, were mostly cured.

All that said the Chernobyl accident was an example of Russian disorganisation and failure to take basic steps such as ensure reactors have a containment shield, or to ensure that lunatics are not in charge of reactors. It doesn't say much about the nuclear industry

What about the tens of millions of tonnes of CO2 that Australian uranium keeps out of the atmosphere each year? That's for coal free power that works at night and in all weathers. Some of the countries that use our uranium actually have decreasing emissions unlike us.

"Dave Sweeney is nuclear free campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation. "

A reliable source of information on nuclear matters. You've got to be joking.

Here's a question for Dave: What is the safest way to generate electricity?

Hint: nuclear power.

Got that yet? Here it is again: nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity.

Just one accident caused fatalities in 60 years. Only 60 fatalities are attributed to the Chernobyl accident and radioactive contamination since the accident. The projections by Greenpeace of hundreds or thousands or millions of fatalities, ACF etc. are rubbish. Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents killed no one and no future fatalities from the leaks are likely.

Dave should read up on the authoritative studies and not distort them.

If the anti-nukes hadn't been blocking progress for the past 50 years, nuclear deployment would have continued at the accelerating rate experienced up to about 1980. At this rate, the equivalent of all coal generating capacity would have been replaced by nuclear by around 2000 and the cost of nuclear would be less than 1/10th of what it is now. Even if the deployment rate had not accelerated but had continued at the rate achieved in the mid 1980s, nuclear would have generated an additional 85,000 TWh of electricity by now, avoiding around 85 Gt CO2 and saving 5 million fatalities.

The anti-nukes and the so called environmental NGO's like ACF, Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, etc. are responsible for these additional 5 million fatalities. The moral values of these people and groups are repugnant.

Peter Lang makes a very valid point.
From Table 6.1 Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy. A 2006 Commonwealth Publication:
Direct fatalities for a number of modes of electricity generation are quoted. Units are “Direct fatalities per GWe / year.
Coal 0.876
Oil 0.436
Coal (China Excluded) 0.690
Natural Gas 0.093
LPG 3.536
Hydro 4.265
Hydro (Shimantan dam
Accident excluded) 0.561

Nuclear Reactor 0.006

These figures to be found in an Australian Government publication are about 10 years old. None-the-less they are in the correct ballpark. More up to date data if available would be appreciated.
The overall safety of nuclear power generation is apparent.

I wonder if all those proponents of nuclear power will be so keen when at some time in the next few years the nuclear crap being spewed into the sea at Fukushima, makes it's way around the Pacific and reaches Australian shores?

This is such a dishonest piece. Chernobyl was one of the first or second generation nuclear plants, and Russian besides, and was in the process - thirty years ago - of being shut down. Since then, we have been educated, by omission, by the boring lack of news about French or Finnish nuclear-powered electricity generators over the last thirty, or forty, or fifty years.

What are we up to now - the sixth or seventh or eighth generation reactors ? Are they also boringly safe ? Seems so.

Joe

Loudmouth, did you actually read the article? It's not about building new nuclear reactors, it's about selling uranium to Ukraine, where safety standards are lower.

Some of their operational nuclear plants in Ukraine were built before the one that blew up at Chernobyl, though none of them are of the dangerous design that those of Chernobyl were.

Well first and foremost I advocate for cheap priced energy to help make our country more competitive and give consumers some reprieve from todays cost of electricity.

(The truth be told the pollies are probably glad our electricity is so expensive for us because we move over to alternative domestic energy creation on our own and the government looks good for decreasing the reliance on coal, when really WE only did it because the government screwed us and the cost of domestic electricity is so high that we as consumers had to look for alternatives.)

I'd much rather more alternative means than to go nuclear, but if this is the best way forward for our nation then I'd go along with it.
I'm sure that nuclear power plants are much safer than they were nearly 50yrs ago, when Chernobyl was being constructed.

What annoys me most of all is that Julie Bishop thinks its a good idea to give Ukraine Uranium, and advertises it like she thinks your all to stupid to know better.
- So Ukraine was taken over by a military coup and is firing ballistic missiles against E. Ukraine and Julie thinks we should send 'em some Uranium.

http://www.rt.com/news/176484-cnn-ballistic-missiles-ukraine/

Most stories can be twisted to sound good and people these days who really should know better at this point in time are too trusting and gullible to pay any attention, and too dumb to know any better.
We should change our national animals from Emu and Kangaroo to Koala and Emu.
The Koala is more representative of Aussies because its asleep 90% of the time.
The Emu is fitting as it represents something that sticks its head in the sand.

To Robert LePage
The seas surrounding Australia are terribly radioactive already, so any contribution from Fukushima would be negligible.
From memory there are:
• The primordial radioactive material such as U-238, Ra-226, Th-232, Pu-239, K-40 and their respective decay products.
• The radioactive nuclides produced from cosmic ray bombardment such as H-3 and C-14.
• As a result of atomic bomb testing Cs-137, Sr-90 and Pu-239.

I strongly advise that you avoid sea bathing, sailing and all water sports.

Robert LePage - all that stuff would be in negligable amounts only.. the Fukushima is known to have dissipated once it reached the ocean. Sure you can still detect it, but your detection equipment would have to be sophisticated..

David Sweeny,
you've written another anti-science article about as contemptible as something a climate denier would have written: it's all fear, no numbers, no science.

HOW radioactive is the Chernobyl exclusion zone? What numbers are you using? Greys, Millisieverts, what? HOW radioactive are the other top 5 most radioactive places on the planet? Is 'natural' radiation any different to Chernobyl radiation?

HOW radioactive is the Fukushima zone? How radioactive is the ocean near it? The fish? In what units?

See? You're a hack, a spin-artist playing on FUD. Run away and do some homework and tell us what the REAL numbers are. For instance, the Charles Sturt University’s “Radiation Safety Committee” says that around the world some rare places have 50 milli-Sieverts (50 mSv) a year of natural radiation, with no discernible health impacts.
http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/committees/radiation/radiation_life/how_much_ionising_radiation.htm

You did know, didn't you, that about half the Fukushima zone is being resettled because it's only around 20 mSv a year? Even the hottest places are around 50mSv.

Meanwhile, at least the world's most famous climatologist Dr James Hansen is talking up the 1.8 MILLION LIVES nuclear power has SAVED by displacing that much coal!