Even if Spindoc's arithmetic were correct, his French challenge is a blind, partly because the data are not available, and partly because, as we already saw on this blog, a large proportion of the external costs are borne far away from the nuclear power stations themselves. In addition, radioepidemiology has to overcome the problem that there is a global cancer epidemic and no uncontaminated controls. The Spindoc approach to policy would put the burden of proof on the exposed public but fortunately the precautionary principle is beginning to be applied. This recognises that experience of, for example, German NPPs and the doubled risk of childhood leukaemia nearby (discovered by a study carefully designed to overcome the problems I have outlined in this post) is transferable to NPPs anywhere. (I refer to the KiKK study of course, which was where we started). There are many similar findings that should trigger the precautionary principle in the case of nuclear power and Spindoc has addressed none of them.
In the same vein Shadow Minister ignores the evidence, slanders those he disagrees with and repeats risk comparisons which depend on wrong input values, for example "only 56 dead from Chenobyl" (in the cited http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2006aug19_n.html). There is no point in continuing dialogue with people like these.
Ultimately, so long as electricity production remains in the private sector, the market will decide; nuclear power cannot operate without pollution and investors know that the courts will hold them liable if they deliberately contaminate people despite the evidence of harm.

Richard Bramhall you said there was a "Global Cancer Epidemic"? Get a grip for goodness sake! Cancer comes with age, we are all living far far longer than other animals and we do a lot of things that other animals don't do. That's why there is a lot more cancer than previously, although for much the same reasons pets also suffer cancers.
Cheer up Richard all this doom and gloom is not good for you in fact it's very bad for you. Or is your glum visage so that you think you look "serious" or you look "inteligent"? Sorry people avoid you because you are just miserable.
Have a nice cup of tea and a lie down and think positive and happy thoughts, you really will feel better, I promise.

Once upon a time there was a small village called Dread. The Dreads were a small community, but very vocal. They were intelligent people, articulate and very good at research.

Due to their total lack of ability to quantify threats, their main focus in life was to research all things they feared, to find like minded people in other villages with whom they could not only share fears but could also obtain explanations and justifications for their own fears. These fears were traded in huge volumes by Dreads.

One day the Reality Inspector made his routine visit to solve any fear problems in the village.

We fear the Coal Dragons, said one. They give us the Power we need, but they “give off” nasty Carbons and we want rid of them, they damage us and everything.

OK said the Inspector, how many Powers do you need?

100 replied one of the Dreads.

Can you use other types of Power Dragons, asked the Inspector?

Oh yes, they replied, we could use Renewables Dragons.

So, said the Inspector, how many powers can you get from them?

Oh, heaps, said one. I heard 20 said another. Rubbish said the one with Green hair, more like 30 I’d say.

At best that still leaves you with 70 powers from the Coal Dragons, can’t you use the Reactor Dragons?

Reactor Dragons! No exclaimed the Dreads, far too fearful.

How big is this fear, asked the Inspector?

Look at this research explained one Dread; this fear has big, beady eyes.

I can prove said another that this fear can bite through carbon fiber laminated tungsten steel like butter.

But how “big” is the fear, insisted the Inspector?

It can read your mind, it eats children, it can fly, it can make itself invisible, claw its way through mountains and can live under water for a year without breathing.

It’s no use Inspector, said one Dread, you don’t understand, you ask the wrong questions.

We all know this fear is real because we have proof from other Dreads, and we can “feel” its vile presence.

Sleep easy.

Richard,

The only person I deliberately insult is Protagoras who has a long history of issuing insults.

As for the LLRC, I cannot find the name of a single member on the website, and some pages have not been updated since 2005.

One of the main sites quoted by LLRC is Greenaudit, whose statistical analysis has been shown by experts to be seriously flawed, and my comments simply reflect those of the experts. Although my 3rd year statistics is relatively rudimentry, some flaws are glaringly obvious.

As for the number of fatalities from Chernobyl, the actual death toll differs from original estimates, which were extrapolated from Hiroshima, for a number of reasons:

1 In 1945 the short term and long term effects of the radiation were not fully understood, for this reason no precautions were taken and no clean up undertaken.
2 There were little to no treatment for the survivors or surrounding inhabitants.

The majority of the casualties of Chernobyl died from the accident and clean up, and only 9 additional deaths due to contamination can be attributed above the expected mortality. (though admittedly the line is blurred)

This however, is largely due to:
a: the precautions taken by the population to avoid ingesting contaminants,
b: Strict monitoring of the population for adverse signs such as thyroid cancer,
c: Rapid treatment of those cancers that arose. For example, there were about 4000 cases of thyroid cancer as a result, but with early detection and treatment in stage 1 the fatalities were a fraction of a percent.

As the most radioactively toxic isotopes from a reactor have a very short half life, the original death estimate cannot be extended indefinitely.

The figure of 56 is likely to be on the low side, but figures in the tens of thousands would simple mean that every death from cancer was solely due to radiation.

If you really have reputable information to the contrary, then this is the place to show it. Considering that no one has yet to do so, I can only base my judgement on what is available.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/06/energy.ukraine

Shadow Minister, your Guardian link simply recycles opinion about the Chernobyl Forum report which has already been discussed here. The relevant volume ("Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes: Report of the UN Special Expert Group "Health"") says many diseases have increased since the disaster in 1986. Attributing this health breakdown to radioactive fallout is anathema to pro-nuclear bodies because it demonstrates a massive error in officially-sanctioned risk estimates. Doses, as conventionally assessed, were low - in the region of 2 milliSieverts. At this level no increase in disease should be noticeable against the background of spontaneous incidence IF ICRP WERE CORRECT. It is therefore vital to nuclear interests to deny the effects or to ascribe them to some other factor. The favourite is "radiophobia".
Here is what the Chernobyl Forum report actually says about "radiophobia". According to a small number of studies, populations classified as "Chernobyl exposed", compared with "unexposed", had higher rates of mental health symptoms, medically unexplained physical symptoms and subjective ill-health. The mental health symptoms were "mostly subclinical and did not reach the level of criteria for a psychiatric disorder", but they had "important consequences for health behaviour, specifically medical care utilisation and adherence to safety advisories." So these people were the "worried well". Their subjective and subclinical problems are no basis for dismissing the increases in clinical diagnoses of the objective conditions - cancers, congenital malformation and so on - which many workers have described and published in for example http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobylinformation.htm and http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/russianrefs.htm, and Yablokov's new book, cited earlier.
SM, until you substantiate your criticism of Green Audit I shall doubt you can. I note that you have ignored our very specific analyses of mistakes made by the Welsh cancer registry and the Dumfries and Galloway Health Board (my post 29 September 8:34 pm.).
A contact in France looked at this blog and sent me two messages. They are too long to post here but see http://www.llrc.org/einfrance.htm. I expect you will view them though your own filters.

Thanks for the link, Richard B. It leads to

http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index.php?menu=english&page=index

"An alliance of 841 French organisations"

"Why phase out nuclear power ?


A nuclear accident provokes countless victims and leaves vast tracts of land uninhabitable for thousands of years. Is such risk morally permissible ?

There exists no possibility of rendering nuclear waste harmless. It remains a hazard for tens of thousands of years and more.

The real cost of nuclear power is very high if all the expenses are honestly taken into account : public scientific research, decommissioning of nuclear power facilities, endless management of nuclear waste …

Part of the radioactive material produced in nuclear reactors has the potential and is used for hostile military use and for atomic bombs.
It may be that nuclear power contributes only small amount of greenhouse gases, but its waste contaminates the earth for millions of years. There is no choosing the lesser of two evils. The goal of a responsible, sustainable energy policy should be : no to nuclear, no to greenhouse gases.

The large component of nuclear energy in French power generation is an exception : we are the only country in the world to make such a confident bet on nuclear power. Neighbouring countries such as Italy, Germany, Belgium have already chosen to phase out nuclear power.

Therefore it is also possible to do so in France.