I think you'll find that it will be near impossible to do without nuclear electricity and there will be a mad scramble to build new reactors. Other key nuclear needs are medical isotopes and cheap smoke alarms. Maybe the genie is out of the bottle with nuclear weapons but hopefully Australia can continue to use its influence to discourage further weapons proliferation. Having already said no to India and Russia it should be clear that future buyers of unenriched uranium must stick scrupulously to civilian applications or face embargoes.

My view on long term waste storage is that the material comes out of holes in the ground in the outback and that is where it should return. Even though the material may be 'hotter' thankfully the volumes are quite small. It would be nice if people were as equally concerned about pollution including radioactivity from burning coal.

Whilst I suspect the geni may well and truly be out of the bottle it does beggar belief that the myth that nuclear will be the solution to our energy needs is continuing to be perpetuated. It makes little economic sense to invest in nuclear power plants when those plants will probably have a working life of about a decade. The reason? Known world reserves of uranium will last the world at current rate of consumption about 40 years.
How can we stop the nuclear industry in its tracks? Perhaps if each company involved in the industry was required to indemnify workers and the community from any adverse health effects.
True the nuclear industry is putting in more and more safeguards but until it can demonstrate it is Homer Simpson proof we are better off without it.

To me, the worst aspect of the "nuclear debate" is simply the lying that goes on.
So many lies - which are the worst?
The most dangerous lie is probably the lie that nuclear weapons are a "defense".
In fact, if some country, or some terrorist unleashes nuclear weapons on another country - the result will be a "nuclear winter" which will affect both countries. To respond with a nuclear bombing will not repair the damage, simply increase it.
Similar lies surround the use of "depleted uranium" weapons. They harm not only the "enemy" but also civilians, and the soldiers who use them.
There are well-known lies, e.g. nuclear power as a solution to global warming, nuclear energy as "clean', "effective" - and, biggest laugh of all, - "cheap".
The biggest lie is perpetrated by every country that seeks nuclear power - that it is for "peaceful purposes". That claim is rubbish, and we all know this. Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

The drive to outlaw nuclear weaponry and nuclear development is only part of the problem. We need to eliminate war. The problem has become more difficult since non-national entities by use of nuclear weaponry can also make war. Perhaps nuclear weaponry will be the salvation of the earth. If nuclear weaponry destroys the human race but does not destroy all life the rest of the planet can recover as it did 65,000,000 years ago when the dinosaurs were eliminated. The planet will recover from our rape. Perhaps no life form with the capability of making nuclear weapons or the intolerance promoted by the belief that a group has a truth denied to other groups of the same species will evolve. There is always hope.

Interesting that the author studied in the US, then spent years working for the US Government including Congress http://www.vallianatos.com/?page_id=3 and he remains there. Denial of his American nationality flows through to what he writes. This "Greek" bites the country that feeds him with an extrordinary passion born of guilt.

1. He starts with Hiroshima-Nagasaki - which of course any Japanese knows was the only thing that happened in WWII. Denial - written out of Japanese text books - that Japan started the Asian War in 1931 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Manchuria and murdered more than 30 million Asian people up to August 1945.

After adding 40 million killed by the Gemans, my point is its surprising how efficiently people can kill people WITHOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

2. The author is aware that the US and Germans had nuclear progams. What the Mayor of Hiroshima didn't tell him is that JAPAN ALSO HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.

In October 1940, Lt. General Takeo Yasuda of the Japanese army decided that a nuclear weapon was feasible and practical, and the Japanese program started in July 1941.

The Japanese atomic program financed by the military was actually undertaken by Dr. Yoshio Nishina, a leading nuclear physicist at the Japan’s Institute for Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN) Laboritory in the Komagome district of Tokyo.

The Japanese built cyclotrons and five improved gaseous diffusion separators for uranium enrichment. The program's major source of uranium ore was Korea, but other sources included Burma and shipments by U-boat from France in 1944. Most famous of these was the failed voyage of U-234. U-234 was sent to Japan in April 1945 to deliver 560 kg of unprocessed Uranium oxide and several other advanced weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterseeboot_234

Taswegian

I think the sale of uranium to India and Russia has only been held up temporarily to please the Labor Left. The financial meltdown will strengthen the hand of the uranium trade lobby.

Peter Coates
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

The reasons why nations go to war are many and varied. Historians may argue for centuries over the causes of a particular conflict. Both sides attempt to justify themselves on grounds of morality. This is not the forum to present the arguments for a “just war” or the “realist’s case” to protect the “national interest”.

I agree with Evaggelos Vallianatos all war is terrible. Recall the slaughter on the battle fields of the First World War. Wikipedia provides a list, all be it incomplete, of deaths attributed to armed conflict the numbers are incomprehensibly large.

I am not aware of any sane person that advocates war; nobody but a fool would do so. Yet it is clear that abhorrence of war is one thing; eliminating war (atomic or otherwise) from human conflict is well neigh impossible. One can only hope that international bodies such as Red Cross, UN, and International Court will mitigate against its worse effects.

As I understand it the author wants to stop the teaching of atomic theory in schools. Where will he start: with Greek philosophers such as Democritus, ancient Hindu texts, 11th century Islamic thinkers that tried to synthesis Hindu and Greek thinking? Perhaps the starting point will be 18th and 19th century chemists such as John Dalton? Then what will he do about electromagnetism and optical physics? Or will he stop with Madam Curie, Rutherford and Becquerel etc?

Vallianatos seems oblivious to the great contribution of nuclear methods to human health and welfare. No sensible person can argue that any of the following applications of radio isotope technology are bad: treatment and diagnosis of disease, laboratory assay, environmental science, and applications in civil industry, electricity generation and much more.

Then the author raises the canard of nuclear waste. The World Nuclear Association tells us how this can be managed, in fact gives list of countries that are taking practical action in this field. Vallianatos is entitled to his opinion. He is however obligated to provide factual and objectively documented reference to articles in professional scientific journals, to support his views

There's another way to look at it.

It was the prospect of nuclear annihilation that succeeded in keeping the peace during 40 years of the Cold War. Contrary to the author's statement, neither America nor the USSR were ready to destroy themselves and the planet which is why they did everything they could to avoid direct military engagement with each other.

It sounds scary and counter-intuitive, but the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has actually enabled us to live in a more peaceful world than we would have done without nuclear weapons.

And whatever we may wish for, they can't be uninvented.

The concept of mutual destruction is just that, and no way during the "cold war" was that going to happen.

Check out Sellafield Uk, where cancer incidents amongst young children, was way above the norm for other kids in the rest of the country.

Cancer clusters are frequently reported. Although the public imagines that scientific investigation of cluster will lead to discovery of a clear cut cause -radiation, chemical exposure, infection etc. - this is rarely the case. Health authorities always consider these events seriously. Disease clusters are often similar to the "Texan Sharp Shooter" problem. Find a cluster draw a tight, but arbitrary boundary around it in both space and time- A Bulls Eye. Recall the cluster at the Brisbane ABC studio of 11 women with carcinoma breast. No cause has yet been identified [ Coory M. Int Med J 2008; 288-291].

The Sellafield saga started with a Yorkshire TV program “ Windscale: the nuclear laundry.” There was an extensive investigation by a committee chaired by Sir Douglas Black. The Black committee found that any radiation emissions from the plant were far too small and could not establish a cause.

Martin Gardner [BMJ 1990; 300:423-9] raised the question that the cause was due to paternal occupational exposure at the British Nuclear Fuels establishment prior to conception.

Doll R.et al Nature 1994; 367:678-680 argues against Gardner on grounds of radio biology and genetics. In a subsequent editorial Brit J Cancer 1999; 81:3-5 Doll gives his support to Kinlen’s hypothesis* namely that a likely cause is a viral infection due to mixing of populations. As yet the putative virus has not been identified. Dickinson and Parker [Brit J Cancer 1999; 81:141-151] provided statistical support showing that the incidence acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and non Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Sellafield was highest in children born in areas with high levels of population mixing and if both parents were born outside Cumbria.

The cause of clusters even if statistical significant compared to the general population will always be difficult and often impossible to explain. I am of the view that weight should be given to the Kinlen hypothesis.

* Kinlen LJ, Brit J Cancer 1995; 71:1-5.

I think that Evaggelos Vallianatos needs to understand the difference between nuclear bombs and power stations. Before I burn my text books on physics I suggest that he learns the difference.

Nuclear physics studies rhe elemental properties of matter. Yes bombs are possible, so are cures for various cancers, and a relatively non-polluting source of large amounts of energy. By the way the uranium needed for bombs is a different isotope than that required for power stations.

Once again an unsupported polemic by someone who has no real concept of what he is proposing.

The premise that all teaching of neuclear physics could be stopped is moronic and would involve the destroying of all maths physics and engineering texts since the 1920s and the need to stop anyone with a decent IQ from ever thinking again.

The bomb was designed based on physics from the late 1930s. The reason that it has taken so long is the collection of the U235 isotope for weapons as opposed to the U238 for power generation. Once you have the uranium or plutonium, the construction is relatively easy.

Many more lives have been saved with nuclear technology via medicine etc than have ever been lost from weapons, accidents etc.

The very foundation of modern microchips use the same theory.

Vallianatos may wish to revert to the stone age, but I doubt that many would care to join him.

One of the effects of radiation is that it alters the genes in the bone marrow where the red blood cells are produced. These altered blood cells are not recognised by the immune system, and are destroyed. Gradually, the person becomes anaemic. Depending on the dose of radiation, (or whether any radio-active material has been ingested) a person can die in years or weeks, or even days.

There are other forms of altered cell structures due to radiation which can cause various cancerous growths. Of course, in the right dose delivered accurately, radiation can also destroy cancerous cells.

There are lots of very dangerous chemicals and small organism we have to deal with. Nuclear radiation may be feared more because it can not be seen. Yet with the right instruments it can be detected as any other dangerous material.

The worry is that not everybody who has access to nuclear material, now or in the future, are aware of the dangers of its misuse.

What's this preoccupation with evil scientists? Boffins are no more interested in dropping bombs than politicians are in the fact E=mc2. The manhattan project took place largely during wartime when pretty much the entire country was geared towards killing the other guy and surviving for another day. Not a radical idea at the time.

Do we halt the development of computer engineering because computers control the warhead and guidance systems?

Nuclear technology has peaceful applications in medicine, astrophysics and the study of atmomic structure, apart from the general desire for scientific understanding.

Once again science has been identified as the culprit, the agent of change, that which drives political debate. "If the teachers abandon the bomb perhaps politicians will follow."

Other way around, buddy!

Istvan,

Your post only makes sense if you consider dose and dose rate in units of Gray or Gray per hour*.

You can not eliminate radiation exposure to human population. For instance we are all subject to both external and internal radiation from cosmic rays, and/or natural occurring radio nuclides. We also have exposure as a result of fall out from atom bomb testing etc. These are small exposures of the order of 1-2mGy per year.

The effects you are talking about cut in at dose of about 700-1000 mGy or much higher.

Following Mettler FA in New Eng J Med 2002; acute whole body exposure below 0.5Gy no effect.

• 1Gy nausea and vomiting in about 10% of exposed persons.

• Clinical non lethal bone marrow set about a 2Gy exposure.

• 4Gy exposure severe symptoms and 50% mortality with out medical treatment.

• 6Gy 100% mortality from bone marrow failure with out expert medical treatment.

• 10Gy approximate level that a few may survive with the help of expert treatment.

Of course in civil practice acute high dose is a very rare occurrence. At lower exposure and exposure rates the effect is stochastic or if you like is derived from probability theory. For several decades public health authorities have based their regulations following ICRP on a linear non threshold hypothesis (LNTH) for dose response in respect of malignant disease.

“THE GREENS” like to misuse LNTH to tell us that even the most microscopic exposure dose is harmful. However, there are also many authorities that are doubtful that epidemiological studies can consistently detect an adverse effect below an exposure of 50-100 mGy.

On other thing predications made on the base of LNTH, say after Chernobyl have proved to be grossly unhelpful and widely inaccurate,

* Gy the SI unit for absorbed dose; 1Gy = 1000mGy = 1Joule/kg