KAEP, you are right – welfare should be extended to poor nations but not in a form of exporting technologies/nuke stations but ENERGY itself used to local projects (understandably, not affecting competitiveness of the western producers at the world markets and well-being of the ruling top of local privileged).

Surely, local night-bars and gambling venues to be among the most respectable consumers of imported nuke-related power.

ATOM1 – Strontium in Chernobyl was from by-products of experiments and producing of a military-linked stuff.

> Strontium 90 contamination from Chernobyl came

Come on. Chernobyl?

Is a "Chernobyl" type explosion, typical of the way nuclear reactors have operated these past few decades? Are France, Japan, Canada, Britain, India, Germany, Korea or the US contaminated with Strontium ?

Do reactors routinely emit radiation much above the background levels?

Compare the radioisotope emissions of a properly designed nuclear reactor with a coal fired power plant...

Probably, participants should pay more attention to each other posts on a page. If it was in not-so-perfect English written especially.

The official explanation is a”Strontium-90 fraction leached from the fuel particles into soil”.

And more:
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopaedia/?hdoc&nd=857100061

Dear Anti Green
I will try not to allow my argument become personal but on reading all of your quotes, arguments and irrational reasoning you do come accross basically like Pauline Hanson. All of your replies do not keep to the issue you ignore the facts and to call yourself anti green highlights how blinkered you are.
I have lived close to a Nuclear Power Station and as part of a deputation with the local Resident Association we were shown round the whole of the complex. Since then that particular Nuclear Power Station has been decommissioned because the workers and Residents have lost many family and friends to various cancers. Please do not talk to me about Nuclear Reactors being safe almost every body that lived down our street had one of their family pass away from myloid, Breast Cancers, Bowel Cancers Non Hodgkin disease and the list goes on and on. Children in the Primary Schools were dying of brain tumours and other horrific related Cancers. In Great Ormond Street the number of birth defects were actually coming from the localities close to the Nuclear Power Stations. Many Europeans are escaping from Europe to be safe here in Australia. We are safe here in Australia until those who want to make profit from a commodity finally get their own way through mass propaganda within the Conservative Press and brain wash the impressioanable such as yourself and then it will be too late. Anti Green I will grnat you that you are persistant and I beg you please listen to Tricky Dickie as he does speak a lot of sense and we really do need you with your dogged persistance placing the argument for the benefit of our children and not the greedy multinationals. Peace be with you Anti Green.

Bronco Lane

The fact that some nuclear power stations caused a problem does not lead logically to a conclusion that all do irrespective of their design. X-ray machines caused untold disasters when first introduced, but many of us would not be here today if we had stopped the technology because of initial mistakes.

The biggest killer today is the motor car, but there are few wanting to stop that machine of mass killing, it is difficult to even interest the majority of purchasers to spend an extra thousand dollars on safety. Those big four wheel drives have been shown to be more dangerous than power plants, where are the mass demonstrations against them?

Atom1

Yes gas when available and used with a combined cycle plant is a way of lowering CO2 emissions but it goes only so far. There are developments to make this technique also usable with coal. My doubts were about the possibility of using wind and solar for base load.

Nulear power is now a mature technology.

.

Atom1 the Agni3 missile range was mentioned only to retort to Mark.elisita comment about India being Islamic (?) and being able to hit the U.S.A.

I've looked into the sites you suggested , one about a grid reorganization for 0% CO2 by 2050 the other one " on the fallacy of base load "

for the first one ,twelve propositions are put forward
staring with legislating an end to CO2 production
and the twelfth proposing to set up an U.N committee !
anything in between is the usual mix of wishful,hopeful thinking
advocating government subsidies or stipend to solve a physical problem , in particular the imposition of a 40 billions carbon taxe called emission allowances
his vision is of a solar , wind , hydro ,biomass generation mix
including Co2 sequestration and batteries cars ,
he seems to confuse the combined cycle plant as an energy source , it is in fact only an energy use
his graph nbr 3 show coal , gas and nuclear going from ~ 3700Gwh to 0
solar, wind, hot rocks and biomass going from 100Gwh to 4000

the next graph is bizarre by 2050 it show efficiencies generating more electricity that all other sources combined ?!

the point is not of the nuclear being a political or military risk ,
anybody with enough brain to acquire and use fissile material is wasting his time making a bomb
it's much cheaper , safer and faster to splice the gens of golden staphylococci and make a truly terrifying weapon
it's not about nuclear energy being THE solution , but it is a proven , safe and efficient way of generating base load electrical power , lot of countries are using it from Canada to Germany and Sweden
the Californian nuclear plants saved the grid when the gas companies were gouging their customers ,
Australia will not have a nuclear plant for a long time ,people have been made too scared , I don't feel the same righteous outrage toward the coal fired plants so the climate change must be small beer .

.