Les,

Not sure I agree with the article.
Australia have good management skills in energy processing, management and handling of energy sources. Whether its coal, Oil, Nuclear or Solar is not really relevant. Nuclear and Solar are the energy sources of tomorrow so we might as well start testing our processes and methodologies now so we can improve and lead.

Peace,

I find it difficult to accept that Australia is incapable of running a nuclear power industry successfully and the author’s examples of a few minor problems with the Australian Navy or an oil plant has not convinced me that we have been incompetent in the past. How about presenting some figures on the comparative safety of Australian industry compared with elsewhere. I would like to bet we are at the very top of the league. If anything, Australia has gone completely safety crazy in the last decade. You can't do anything nowadays without a safety induction.

Have the leaks from Lucas heights been anything else but trivial?

How many people have died mining Uranium in Australia?

QANTAS is the only major airline in the world that has an unblemished safety record spanning decades. If we can run extremely unforgiving machines such as aircraft surely we can run relatively safe machines such as reactors.

France operates about 60 reactors and has done so without incident. I find it incomprehensible that Australia could not be as safe as the French. It is not like the French are safety conscious as a short drive on their roads will quickly demonstrate.

Peter Ridd
Physics JCU

Accidents be buggered. It's the deliberate use that is the problem. Accidents will happen and they may be devastating on their own but directed use of this power is what we should focus on.

The US has used maximum power before and whoever has it will do so, in time.

Re Leigh. The great unwashed? You mean the Coalition supporters I assume as you surely wouldn't refer to those you don't know in this manner, right?

You are certainly off the topic, Chris. You, like most of the dills on OLO are interested in only trying to make yourself look better by trying to put down people whose opinions you dont' like.

Even when you are given the opportunity to come together with an unlikely ally on an important topic, you have to keep up the childish put downs.

Go and jump in the lake, mate. I don't know why I bother: when the bad stuff really hits the fan, I'll have popped my clogs. I can enjoy the rest of my life just as it is now.

There is no reason why I should care about you and those like you and, believe me, I shall not in the future.

Grow up!

I assume Dr. Coleman is selectively quoting from UIC Briefing Paper 14.
In the civil electric power generation industry there has only been two major accidents. AT THREE MILE ISLAND there was no loss of life and insignificant escape of radioactivity into the environment. About half the core of this reactor melted. In the CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT some 56 died and there was environmental radioactive release. The Chernobyl accident has been discussed in detail elsewhere; refer to UNSCEAR 2000, and/or the Chernobyl Forum for detailed information. No more RKMB designs are going to be produced and all the existing (about 14) have since been appropriately modified. The Chernobyl reactor did not have a containment structure.

Two major accidents only have been reported in 12,000 years of civil operation over 32 countries. There have been 10 other core melt accidents in military or experimental reactors. Windscale 1957, a military reactor designed to make plutonium. There as a graphite fire, iodine-131 release and widespread contamination. The highest child’s thyroid dose was 160mGy and highest adult dose about 60% as much. (In Jacob Shapiro, Radiation Protection 2002: chap 6:483-485).
[I would be interested to learn of updated accounts of adverse radiological consequences, if any from the Windscale accident].

Other accidents had minimal or no release of radioactivity to the environment.

Compare with the following immediate fatality rate from other power generating industries nuclear looks very good indeed. Data refers to years 1970-1992 from Briefing paper 14.
Coal 6400 deaths; 342 per TWy of electricity generation.
Natural gas 1200 deaths; 85 per TWy of electricity generation
Hydro 4000 deaths; 883 per TWy of electricity generation (Members of public due to dam failure.
Nuclear 31 deaths; 8 per TWy of electricity generation.

Wind power. http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/ for details. 349 accidents recorded since 1970’s with 41 deaths.

Wm Robert Johnston has listed almost all nuclear accidents including medical, weapon testing, criminal acts , lost sources etc since 1896. The total excluding combat 128 incidents, 197 fatalities, 1,130 injuries.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/index.html

Many more have been killed and injured on the roads.

Anti-green,

In the light of a study on people exposed to ionising rationed released by Massey University earlier this week, it would appear that Johnston may need to update his figures.

Dispite what governments say, radiation does cause genetic and chromosomal damage as can be viewed at http://masseynews.massey.ac.nz/2007/Press_Releases/05-15-07.htm