“The federal government is trying to persuade regional communities in South Australia to host a national radioactive waste facility - an underground burial repository for lower-level radioactive wastes and an above-ground 'interim' store for long-lived intermediate-level waste.”

And it is to be hoped that the regional sluggards take notice and do it. Jobs have nothing to do with with the storage of nuclear waste; that's just the 'magic word’ backward politicians, lacking in skills of persuasion, still think people will go for. The people, however, know that there will be fewer jobs available in the future, and the only cure for lack of employment is fewer people, and very little immigration.

A piece of patently political propaganda, written by a dimwitted greenie with the typical green antinuclear disposition written into every line. We don't need a waste facility! No ifs, buts or maybes What we need is to ignore an extremely vociferous minority, of know nothing, demented fools.

As always ignore the science or any dissenting view and just spew out the same verbal diarrhoea, with every similar article? Who gives a french flying Frankfurt what they do anywhere else. It's what we do here that matters!

We should solve this problem by burning this waste, ours and theirs. And earn annul billions for providing the service. And using MSR thorium technology. And that's where the promised jobs are!

And if we are allowed/enabled, also burn weapons-grade plutonium, as opposed to as this writer seems to advocate in his many pieces, leaving it in the nuclear IBM's?

If we as we could/should burn this waste in WALK AWAY SAFE MSR technology. we can after we've extracted a thousand year worth of free to us, power from it, reduce the half-life to just 300 years.

And as a far less toxic material eminently suitable for long life space batteries that completely burn up with reentry.

I expect Mr Green and his like-minded, cult member acolytes, to rave on about how deadly Chernobyl was and how unsafe Fukushima was etc-etc. Almost as if that were the only nuclear technology available!

And for them absolutely true, given they know SFA about the latest advances in this area and how to do in perfect safety even in my backyard.

Simply put, these folk don't fear nuclear technology, but the development and prosperity they could bring to an economically challenged nation. Along with a completely resuscitated manufacturing sector.

These folk spout their dribble daily, wax lyrical about the threat of carbon and yet add to it jetting around the world and when offered a free motor vehicle?

Chose, in one notable example, a gas guzzling V8!
Alan B.

Jim green,

If not for the anti-nuclear protest movement, and activists like yourself spreading baseless scaremongering, nuclear power could now be around 10% of current costs. It could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation since 1985, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

That's an example of the damage you and your ilk have caused.

Some of nuclear power’s advantages are, it:

- is the safest way to generate electricity and always has been since the first power reactor began supplying power to the grid in 1954 (Appendix B, Note VIII)

- is sustainable – nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited

- provides reliable, dispatchable electricity

- provides countries with a high level of energy security – many years of fuel supply can be stored in a small space at low cost so countries are not vulnerable to disruption of fuel supply during periods of trade or military conflicts

- is highly flexible in small modular reactors – consider the flexibility of nuclear powered submarines and ships, as has been demonstrated over the past 60 years; also see Irwin (2017) submission to the Australian Energy Security Board on SMR technologies.

- almost unlimited potential for cost reductions over time, if the impediments to progress are removed.

Other economic benefits and policy implications are presented in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the above link.

The likely-root cause of the disruption, and the cost escalations and stalled deployment rate since about 1967 was, and still is, the activities of the anti-nuclear power protest movement (Appendix B, Note IX ).

Having a nuclear waste dump (whatever the economics) is an essential component and precursor for nuclear reactor electricity - produced for the benefit of all Australians.

How do you create a revolution? Well, first an foremost you need a comparatively large cohort of poverty-stricken individuals and have them governed by a disinterested minority obsessed with their own acquisition of wealth and power as In the early USSR?

And avoided in western Europe by the onset of the industrial revolution that lifted almost everyone's standard of living!

We have a way to go yet before those extreme comparisons exist here? But not much?

Technology an automation threaten complete career choices and occupations! Leaving a bewildered minority, wondering where the next meal is coming from etc-etc.

And compounded by an indolent, born to rule, ruling class, totally preoccupied with self-serving self-interest and their personal ambitions! And virtually everywhere you look in any of the established or wannabe parties?

Conversely, the patently disingenuous greens seize on any opportunity to inculcate disaffection for the major parties and their policy paradigms. And sow the seeds of dissent in almost everything they touch.

Albeit, seek only maximised power by doing dirty deals in the dead of night even with the devil. Who they ridicule/oppose in the light of day.

And oppose nuclear power as that may well reverse a downward spiral toward an impoverished nation ripe for a revolution, that will install them in permanent power. Their ultimate if hidden agenda!?

And talk about a sovietized economy and freebies that they know will appeal to their base. The young, idealistic, ignorant and insane!?
Alan B.

People will be standing around not doing much because of nuclear fear mongering. I'd be more alarmed if troublemakers put dead sheep in the city reservoir instead they can have a reign of terror threatening to release a hospital glove from a steel drum.

The reality may be is that the intermediate level site is a dummy run for a future high level site. I understand the canisters of vitrified material held at Lucas Heights will go to the intermediate site. Then there's the prospect of nuclear power for Australia. After reprocessing of light water reactor fuel there will be some leftovers. The SA govt says their 2016 production of uranium created 22 gigawatt years of clean electricity overseas. That's 193 Twh whereas SA itself uses just 16 Twh a year.

Can never happen? We've had 17 years of subsidised renewables in which power sector emissions were supposed to plummet. Instead they increased somewhat. If the SA facility smooths the way for nuclear power in Australia bring it on.

Reading Alan B's comment, I am struck by the language he uses, in his attempt to counter the facts provided by Jim Green in this article. Alan B begins:

"A piece of patently political propaganda, written by a dimwitted greenie"....." just spew out the same verbal diarrhoea"......"Mr Green and his like-minded, cult member acolytes"......." they know SFA about the latest advances in this area"....."These folk spout their dribble daily".

Alan B goes on to advocate burning of nuclear wastes, and nuclear molten salt reactor technology - without any attempt to substantiate his argument with facts.

Anyway, I was quite fascinated, as only today, by coincidence, I happened to learn the meaning of the phrase "ad hominem attacks". And here, with Alan B's comment, I find a perfect example of that phrase! Thanks, Alan B

Regarding Peter Lang's comment - I do feel quite flattered. As an anti-nuclear activist, I had no idea that I was part of a group that has succeeded in delaying, and nearly shutting down the nuclear industry.

I really had thought that that the nuclear power industry had become so costly, and other forms of energy, gas, wind solar, etc had become so much cheaper, that this was the cause of the nuclear industry's economic woes.

I didn't know that the nuclear industry is "the safest way to generate electricity and always has been" as Lang asserts. How come that no insurance company will insure against major accidents? Is that because, while the RISK of major accident is very small, the CONSEQUENCES of major accidents are very big? (Ural Mountains 1957, Windscale UK 1957,Chalk River 1952-58, Three Mile Island 1979, Chernobyl 1986, Fukushima 2011 - to name just a few)

There are also the longterm health effects on workers in the uranium and nuclear industries- with costly compensation schemes now paying out thousands of workers and their families.

It's hard to believe that we activists are the cause of the nuclear industry's decline.

ChristinaMac call me cycnical but I have a suspicion that outback indigenous groups are being co-ordinated by non-indigenous people in the city. Recall a couple of years ago that Muckaty NT was a shortlisted site. They went on TV and talked about 'sickness country'. Now there is a seemingly unrelated indigenous group near Hawker SA over 1000 km away also talking about 'sickness country'. Someone is writing the script.

Nuclear opponents should work on how we will reduce emissions at least as much as political promises and how to reliably charge millions of electric cars, desal plants and air cons in a carbon constrained future. By manipulating indigenous groups nuclear opponents have lost the argument.

ChristinaMac1,

Most people who are alarmists and activists and share your beliefs are ignorant of the facts. They stay in their silos and read only what supports their beliefs. If this is not the case for you, then you might like to read and comment on these:

'Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone' https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm . Be sure to also read the Notes in Appendix B.

'Origins, Goals, and Tactics of the U.S. Anti-Nuclear Protest Movement' https://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/N2192.html

'Costs of nuclear power plants - what went wrong' http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

There is much more to read after you've read these.

CM1. you've never bothered to even listen to engineer Jam Petersen, his short talk on Thorium as waste-burning technology. Or Kirk Sorensen, NASA scientist and nuclear technologist. Or prize-winning investigative journalist and science writer, Richard Martin, his book, Super Fuel, subtitled, green energy.

Your stubborn refusal to look at the facts have effectively prevented large-scale production of miracle cancer cure bismuth 213, a byproduct of MSR thorium.

You IGNORE confirmed science or latest advances!

But mindless fearmongering typical of cults. Those preventable deaths number over 60,000 a year in the USA and at least double the annual road toll here.

Every nuclear accident has been caused by the pressure the oxide reactors operate at. The fact that they use solid fuel.

Those problems disappear when you change to completely unpressurised MSR and Fluoride, which only boils at temperatures of around 1400C. The hottest ever needed to operate MSR thorium is 1200C.

Built-in passive safety automatically shuts down the reaction with any power failures. That's why the technology is WALK AWAY SAFE! Can't meltdown, because it's already molten and specifically designed to VERY SAFELY, operate as MSR!

Radiation is safely contained inside a NON PRESSURISED water jacket and simple concrete walls!

Let's be clear, the longer the half-life? The less radioactive the material. Uranium with a half-life of around 5 billion years is not particularly radioactive or especially dangerous. And four times more abundant and much-much cheaper thorium has a half-life of around 15 billion years even less so, making it less radioactive than a banana.

Yes, of course, we'd need to treat toxic radioactive waste with respect and handle it with all due care and appropriate safety controls, by properly trained personnel whose pay grades would reflect their responsibility.

And as Peter has noted have been doing so in nuclear-powered vessels for nigh on sixty years.

We need a nuclear industry the world will have no choice but to emulate if we are to prevent and reverse GW, climate change, which ultimately will destroy all you claim to want to protect!
Alan B.

Christinamac1.

You are totally wrong that the consequences of nuclear power station accidents are "very big". The opposite is the case. They are negligible. In the 17,000 reactor-years of operation, the only major accident that has killed people is Chernobyl. 28 clean up workers dies with a month of the accident from acute radiation sickness (about the same as in many coal mine accidents, oil and coal industry accidents). On a life cycle analysis basis nuclear is by far the safest way to generate electricity and has been from the start. Read Appendix B, Note VIII here:
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm .

The LCA analyses include mining, processing, manufacturing, fabricating, construction, operation and maintenance, decommissioning, waste disposal, and transport between all stages. Deaths for pollution are included - these are the major component for most technologies.

Peter Lang, I suspect you are completely wasting your time asking a cult member like CM1 to read anything, given he/she seems to have all the human empathy of a Nazi SS Sturm trooper? Or the intellectual genius of a Forrest Gump?

Typically the green movement are totally oblivious to the fifty million plus now eking out a miserable existence in real refugee camps and a world away for far superior conditions in our offshore detention now described by green advocates as hellholes.

As they ignore the fact that these same illegal arrivals chose to destroy their own personal ID's needed to get the visas to interim countries where they then paid as much as a year's salary for the short hop to Chrismas Island. As illegal border hopping arrivals.

To say that they were still persecuted or in immediate danger of political reprisal in transit countries is just more of the same from routinely disingenuous greens.

Who also ignore the fact that two-thirds of the world's households, have no washing machine and all the laundry needs to be done by hand by women living in hell holes and under slave-like conditions.

Their empathy is like their facts, very selective and as always aimed solely at political outcomes that suit their purely selfish self-centred hidden agenda?

And as you can see from CM's post, their unsubstantiated opinion is treated as proven fact!?

The only way to mitigate against or reverse much of the aforementioned is with truly affordable energy. Namely MSR (molten salt reactors) and thorium. And use that to desalinate copious water and revegetate arid wasteland.

Light homes, pump water and power affordable washing machines, manufactured with affordable power from affordable steel. All courtesy of power even the most impoverished nations on earth can actually afford!
Alan B.

My first reaction was that Jim Green had done something useful (at last) - reviewed published costs of creating and managing nuclear waste facilities and hence aiding the development of key performance indicators for the ones that Australia will inevitably require if it wants to cut its energy emissions by at least 90% (as climate scientists say is needed). My second reaction was to remind myself to read it more thoroughly, just in case. My third was to leave that to others.

//I didn't know that the nuclear industry is "the safest way to generate electricity and always has been" as Lang asserts.//

Yeah, it is. You should have a look at the numbers, they don't lie.

//How come that no insurance company will insure against major accidents? Is that because, while the RISK of major accident is very small, the CONSEQUENCES of major accidents are very big?//

Sorry, are we talking about nuclear or hydro-electricity here? Because that's a pretty accurate description of hydro-electric dam collapses: quite unlikely, but really devastating. The 1975 Banqiao Reservoir Dam collapse in China killed 26,000 people alone, over five times the death toll from all your nuclear accidents combined. But for some reason we never hear about the dreadful consequences of major hydro accidents... certainly not from hippies, at any rate.

//There are also the longterm health effects on workers in the uranium and nuclear industries//

The maximum annual dosage that workers in the nuclear industries are allowed to be exposed to is fraction the lowest dose that has been proven to be harmful. I know that hippies like to assume the LNT hypothesis, but it's never been proven and I doubt it ever will be: too much noise.

I lean towards the threshold model, and I believe that the mental health impact of low-dose radiation exposure may well be more dire than the physical effects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model#Mental_health_effects

The last sentence there is particularly noteworthy:

"It is "only nuclear radiation that bears a huge psychological burden — for it carries a unique historical legacy"."

An astute observation: clearly hydro-electricity doesn't carry so weighty a psychological burden if 26,000 dead people can be quietly swept under the rug. The unique legacy that is being referred to is, of course, the Bomb. But nuclear bombs and nuclear power stations are two completely different things. I'm quite happy to march alongside the hippies if it's a nuclear disarmament rally - remember, you can't hug your kids with nuclear arms. But nuclear power stations are fine.

I strongly oppose the building of Chernobyl-type nuclear plants. Just look what happened 32 years ago, with that 30+ year-old plant. No, we shouldn't blindly adopt 65-year-old technology. Hmmm, are their more advanced models for nuclear plants than 65-year-old Soviet ones ?

I'm against setting up a nuclear plant like Fukushima, 50 metres from the beach in a tsunami-prone area, near earthquake fault lines. Wherever possible, Australia should build away from the coast, and not on fault lines. Hmmmm, so where else can we build such plants ? Is there anywhere in Australia which is away from tsunami-prone coasts, and notorious earthquake zones ?

So many tough decisions !

Reflecting on Alan B's latest pro nuclear comment.

I Learn that I am a "cult member" and that I have "all the human empathy of a Nazi SS Sturm trooper? Or the intellectual genius of a Forrest Gump "

I learn that he thinks that the green movement doesn't care about the plight of refugees.

My opinions are "unsubstantiated"? (What? -Ural Mountains 1957, Windscale UK 1957,Chalk River 1952-58, Three Mile Island 1979, Chernobyl 1986, Fukushima 2011 - just didn't happen? or weren't serious if they did?" )

I learn that he thinks that molten salt technology is the only way to go, to beat climate change? (bad timing Mr B, as the first much-touted MSR firm Transatomic just tanked only yesterday)

Anyway, I don't know, or care, what "cult" he thinks that I'm in. Nor do I care that he thinks that I'm like a Nazi storm trooper, and that I'm stupid. I suppose that he thinks that this is witty.

My point here is simply that all this personal abuse to me is no argument at all for nuclear power.

ChristinaMac1/JimGreen

The single biggest problem with the anti-nuke campaigners is that in scientific circles their credibility is virtually non-existent.

The reality is that most of the claims from these activists have been vastly overblown or misrepresented. The number fatalities due to nuclear power generation /kwhr is a fraction of any other source incl renewables.

The radioactivity of waste material from reactors drops by a factor of 1/100 in the first 40 years and a further 1/1000 or so in the next 1000 years so the while the material might be radioactive it is far less of a long-term risk than the activists would have you believe. And of course, if the material is reprocessed, the waste material issue is further reduced, and many isotopes are removed for medical treatments that save far more lives.

Similarly fast breeder reactors can use U238 and thorium and provide an almost limitless supply of energy for 1000s of years.

1.5 million deaths estimated from Chernobyl nuclear disaster
Death toll estimate from Chernobyl now around 1.5 Million -Expert (VIDEO) http://enenews.com/expert-death-toll-estimate-chernobyl-around-15-million-people-video
Title: Pr A.Yablokov and Pr C.Busby on Fukushima victim estimations .

Chernobyl area’s increasing illness and death rates
Chernobyl Children Fukushima Children 1995 “At a press conference on Tuesday, April 25, acting Health Minister Andriy Serdiuk told reporters that the total number of deaths among victims of the Chornobyl accident in the period between 1988 and 1994 is more than 125,000.” The ministry also released the sobering results of research it had conducted among 1 million residents in the three regions most affected by Chornobyl’s fallout.

ChristinaMac1,

You are clearly reading and believing junk science without critical thinking. You cherry pick factoids (most of them totally wrong) from junk science and do not provide fair comparisons between technologies published by authoritative sources. You have not quoted from authoritative studies on the deaths per TWh of electricity supplied, nor the fatalities from accidents from all electricity generation technologies. I'd urge you to begin by reading the three links I gave in my previous comment, then:

Thomas, 2017, 'Quantitative guidance on how best to respond to a big nuclear accident' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017302410

Deaths per TWh by energy source
Coal – world avg 60
Coal – China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36
Natural Gas 4
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44
Wind 0.15
Hydro – world including Banqiao) 1.4
Nuclear – world including Chernobyl and Fukushima 0.09

If each technology was required to pay insurance or compensation for the deaths caused by that technology, the amounts they would have to pay per MWh are:

Coal 141
Natural gas 38
Hydro 13
Solar 4.1
Wind 1.4
Nuclear 0.8

Suggestion: challenge your beliefs.

In reply to Peter Lang

Well -you're cherry-picking, too.
I would take the article that you quote with a big grain of salt - it's funded by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council - prestigious body no doubt - but hardly impartial.

Christinamac1,

Clearly you lack expertise in objective research. I've quoted a number of papers. All peer reviewed in high quality, high impact academic journals. Whereas you refer to videos and junk science reports. You are clearly unable to tell the difference. And, the fact you believe totally bogus numbers of projected deaths from Chernobyl, shows you, haven't checked the basis of them, nor the much more recent updates on the Chernobyl Project, nor the authoritative estimates of future deaths from radioactive contamination from Fukushima - i.e. approximately zero!

Why don't you read then papers and consider them instead of using the classic ad hominem - who funded it. Do you ever ask who funds all the anti-nuclear scaremongering. Do you ever consider the deaths the the anti-nuclear protest movement has caused - e.g. approximately 9.5 million in 30 years:
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

//1.5 million deaths estimated from Chernobyl nuclear disaster//

Oy vey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSvJaYxRoB4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI

I don't employ the triple facepalm lightly. But 1.5 million? Come off it, dude... I mean, even the bastion of scientific ignorance that is Greenpeace only claim 200K (a bollocks estimate, they've assumed LNT like hippies do), and you're asking us to accept another order of magnitude on top of what is already nonsense on stilts?

Reasonable estimates are about 5-10K. If you've had claimed 50K I'd have accused you of over-egging the pudding; if you'd have gone with Greenpeace's fanciful claims I'd have accused you of drinking the kool-aid... as it was, I had to literally pick myself up off the floor after I'd laughed myself out of my chair, and now put you firmly in the 'flat-earthers, young-earth creationists, and 1.5 million dead from Chernobyl' category.

Good job, keep it up.

responding to Peter Lang again

I am getting a little tired of the personal attacks on me.

But no matter. The truth is - due to the complexity of the issue of cancer causes, no-one really knows about the number of deaths from the Chernobyl.

The nuclear lobby focuses on deaths from high level radiation,immediately after the accident, and excludes those much later deaths from internal emitters, and from persistent low level radiation. They have very unethically done a fine job of falsely discrediting the comprehensive work of Alexey Yablokov, and later, of Chris Busby.

The World Health Organisation is subservient to the IAEA, due to its 1959 agreement with the IAEA. However, even the WHO does accept the reality of radiation caused cancers and deaths.

I quote here from a WHO report. "The international experts have estimated that radiation could cause up to about 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, i.e., emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia deaths and a statistical prediction, based on estimates of the radiation doses received by these populations." http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

//I am getting a little tired of the personal attacks on me.//

We're getting tired of the unremitting stream of bollocks. I mean, there's only so much bollocks that a fella can take before he's had enough.

//I quote here from a WHO report. "The international experts have estimated that radiation could cause up to about 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, i.e., emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia deaths and a statistical prediction, based on estimates of the radiation doses received by these populations.//

Well that's a sudden revision downwards... 1.5 million to 4K. Quite a drop.

Here's a video I think you'll like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0u9NzDCjIw

CMac,

The problem with the bogus science that you quote, it that it is completely unsubstantiated. The theory of the linear effects of radiation is not based on any empirical evidence and was proposed primarily as a "precautionary" principle.

This theory falls in a heap when compared against the statistics on cancers from the areas surrounding Chernobyl. Other than thyroid cancers from the Iodine which were rapidly detected and treated, the occurrence of cancers was statistically no different before and after the disaster.

This is a typical example of activist pseudo science bollocks.

ChristinaMac1 ,

Exactly; projected 4,000 deaths, not 1.5 million. But you did not admit you were wrong? See ‘10 signs of intellectual dishonesty’:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

The 4,000 deaths is projected by the LNP hypothesis. It is for 70 years or more from 1986. And from about 86,000 TWh of nuclear power generation since 1954 – i.e. about 0.47 deaths/TWh.

For a valid comparison, compare deaths per TWh for all technologies. Oh wait, I already posted that in a previous comment and you either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it.

You didn’t mention these two important points from the WHO report?

• “Relocation proved a “deeply traumatic experience” for some 350,000 people moved out of the affected areas.

• Persistent myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation have resulted in “paralyzing fatalism” among residents of affected areas.”
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

Both are a result of the fear of nuclear power as a consequence of 60 years of scaremongering by the anti-nuclear power protest movement.

Since you like videos, you might learn a lot from Wade Allison, Professor of Physics, Oxford:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ6aL3wv4v0

Do tell us about the Brazilian children that painted themselves and the family kitchen with glowing radioactive waste, and what were the long term health consequences of that?

Re bias: In one of your ad hominems, you did not read the authoritative paper I linked but instead just looked for who funded it and insinuated that highly authoritative body is biased. Yet you continually refer to rubbish junk science and videos. You should reflect on your own bias, and the bias of the groups who fund and produce the junk science you refer to, and believe.

Also read and consider the information in the links I gave in my previous comments

Christina, typical activist, runs off with tail between her legs, without acknowledging she was wrong and without participating in a rational discussion about the the evidence presented on the relative safety of nuclear power compared with other electricity generating technologies. And without acknowledging the enormous damage the anti-nuclear power protest movement has done to human well being over the past 60 years - see
'Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone'
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

Oh dear! The argument in this page has gone on into how "wrong" I have been, and my not admitting that. Well, all I've pointed out, really, is that there are different estimates of the number of deaths from Chernobyl radiation release, including the WHO one, which would be a conservative estimate. I'm amazed that WHO was brave enough to quote even 4000 deaths, in view of their 1959 agreement with IAEA, by which they are bound not to damage thde nuclear industry.

But anyway, all this is not the point. The original article is about the number of jobs that would be provided by the proposed South Australian nuclear waste dump.

As so often happens, in this forum, the pro nuclear voices completely ignore the subject of the original article.

Christina,

You do not know what you are talking about on the relative safety of nuclear power compared with other technologies. You have not read the references I gave you. You are now trying to divert from acknowledging you are wrong about the point you raised that nuclear power is more dangerous than other technologies (which is dead wrong!). This is one of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty, You are displaying several of the signs of intellectual dishonesty.

You assert, with no evidence, that WHO's estimate is conservative. True. It's a high estimate. The projected 4000 deaths is based on the LNT hypothesis. This is a high estimate of deaths from low level radiation, which is what was received by all except the clean up workers. Actual deaths attributed to radiation and radioactive contamination from Chernobyl are around 100 so far (after 30 years). No measurable increase in leukemia (peaks at about 10 years) and hard cancers peaks (at about 30 years).

The radiation and radioactive contamination from the Fukushima accident killed no one and is unlikely to ever. However, the evacuation caused over 1000 deaths and high level of psychological disorders (like Chernobyl). This is the real health effect of the accident. This is a consequence of the 60 years of anti-nuclear scare-mongering by ignorant activists like you.

As I said, you believe junk science and wont read the authoritative studies. Instead of reading the paper and discussing the content, you look for the funding source and try to infer they are biased, ignoring the bias of the junk you prefer. If the authoritative papers and reports don't support your alarmist beliefs, you prefer to accept the junk science.

You have not discussed the life cycle analysis deaths per TWh from the different electricity generation technologies. The authoritative studies have been showing similar rankings of the technologies for at least 40 years.

I now dismiss you as simply an activist, not interested in the facts, intellectually dishonest.

As I said before - the pro nuclear voices on this forum make no attempt to address the subject of the article .

//As I said before - the pro nuclear voices on this forum make no attempt to address the subject of the article .//

Well, no, but to be fair neither have you.

There's not really too much to disagree with in the article. Jim is bothered because he thinks the proposed facility won't employ as many as the Government is claiming. For once, I agree with him: I don't like Governments dishonestly inflating their figures, and I'm in agreement that we should have more people employed in the nuclear industry. A lot more.

Christina,

You made false assertions about the safety of nuclear power. Evidence has been provided demonstrating you are wrong. But do not admit it. When clearly wrong you do not admit but instead try to diver the discussion. These are signs of intellectually dishonest, and they show you are incapable of rational discussion:

Two of the '10 signs of intellectual dishonesty' are:
"4. Avoiding/Ignoring the question or “ . . . and let’s not forget about . . .” Anybody who refuses to admit that their argument is weak in an area and, worse still, avoids answering difficult questions in that area is being intellectually dishonest. If they don’t ignore the question, these people are easily recognised from their efforts to change the subject.

5. Never admitting error or “I am/We are right – regardless of your evidence”. These are the people who will never admit that they are wrong – ever – regardless of clear evidence that demonstrates their error. See Sign #1"

"A flowchart to help you determine if you’re having a rational discussion"
https://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion/
You need to be willing to publicly answer "yes" to the first three boxes and obey rules 1 to 4.

To Toni Lavis

No, I did not address the subject matter of the article. What I initially addressed was the emotive and derogatory language of one of the pro nuclear commentators.

I then went on, rather wasting my time, to a defence of attacks on me.

However - to return to the article. I don't see anywhere where Dr Jim Green is advocating for more people employed in the nuclear industry. Still, I think there is room for much employment in the nuclear industry. The total shutdown of that industry will eventually come. In the process, and forever afterwards, there will be employment, and need for expertise in the protection of the environment and the human species from the toxic man-made radionuclides that it has produced.

Christina,

Before trying to change topics, in accordance with the rules of objective discussion, you need to first acknowledge that:

1. You were wrong about the safety of nuclear power
2. You were wrong about the projected deaths caused by Chernobyl
3. Nuclear power is actually the safest way to generate electricity, and has been since the first nuclear power reactor began supplying electricity to the grid, some 64 years ago.

You should also state that you will never again make the false assertions and scaremongering that nuclear power is less safe than other electricity generation technologies.

If you do not acknowledge these you have clearly demonstrated you are not intellectually honest and you cannot be trusted to participate in rational discussion.

//What I initially addressed was the emotive and derogatory language of one of the pro nuclear commentators.//

Yeah, I noticed. Still not sure why; surely you noticed that Alan B is a few quarks short of a proton?

//I don't see anywhere where Dr Jim Green is advocating for more people employed in the nuclear industry.//

Yeah, but he's obviously concerned the Government won't be employing enough people, or else why would he bother writing the article? And the logical corollary of him being concerned that they're not employing sufficient numbers is that he'd like to see more employed. I concur.

Whadda we want? More jobs in the nuclear industry! When do we want 'em? Now!

//The total shutdown of that industry will eventually come.//

Yeah, one day we'll have cold fusion and Dyson spheres and warp drive and over-unity engines.

Until then, let's try and be practical: renewables are terrific, especially hydro, since it's the only that can generate baseload power. And there's your problem right there... it's the only renewable that can generate baseload, and it's very dependent on geography. But we live in Oz, and it's dry and flat as a pancake - not much potential for hydro. Fossil fuels can generate baseload, but they're full of carbon. With current technology, the only practical solution for CO2-free, baseload power in Australia is fission.

//In the process, and forever afterwards...//

Umm.... wow.

OK, we're back in flat earth territory now. Tell me, Noll, in your adventures in nuclear activism have you ever come across the terms 'radioactive decay'?

Radioisotopes are unstable. They decay into other isotopes... otherwise they wouldn't be radioactive. Radioactive samples decrease in activity over time as they decay.

I'm more worried about isotopes that are stable and toxic by virtue of their chemistry. Sure, too many bananas and brazil nuts might push up my radiation dose a bit... but I'd be a damn sight more concerned by high levels of Pb or Hg than a bit of extra K-40, even if they were stable isotopes of Pb & Hg.

Peter,

There's another diversion tactic which gets a lot of play these days: 'the Proof from the Future'. It involves truly-truly scary assertions about what might inevitably follow if something horrible happens like using Chernobyl-type technology (or doesn't happen, in the case of action against global warming).

Watching a bit of "The Orville" last night on SBS, I was struck (of course it's meant to be ironic, satirical, etc.) by how dated their technology was for the year 2456 - perhaps even by 2025. I'm a technological troglodyte, and getting further behind the play every year, but at least I'm aware of this whooshing sound as technology 'advances', in every field.

So the processing of nuclear waste holds no fears for me, nor the capture and return of CO2 to the world's plant life and oceans. I note that France and Finland don't seem to have trouble with their nuclear power generation. And given that a multitude of advances are constantly being made in that crucial area of technology, each decade should see safer and safer, and more productive, nuclear technology.

As an aside, concerning global warming, someone has probably calculated how much land across the northern hemisphere can be opened up to grain production, etc., for every degree rise in temperatures there. The southern hemisphere is mostly covered by water, but the northern hemisphere seems to be mainly land. Global warming may be far more beneficial in the north than the south. I wonder how global warming can be speeded up by a degree or two.

Joe