Right, thanks a lot for that Q&A. I thought you and spindoc may be interested in reading the serious stuff in the following link. As a bonus, the depiction of little Johnny in “I had a dream,” I found hilarious:

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/opeds/nuclear.costs.new.matilda.pdf

Foxy’s link to the Chelyabinsk disaster is a timely reminder that millions of people have been and are being exposed to the radioactive waste dumped around the planet.

The Chernobyl fallout continues to contaminate livestock in Wales where in certain areas, all sheep must be tested for radiation - unfit for human consumption and slaughtered, or returned to a “clean” paddock before sale.

Cancers are emerging in children in Iraq from the military’s depleted uranium. The oceans are contaminated with hundreds of drums of HL waste from Russia and Britain. Submerged Russian nuclear subs languish on the ocean’s seabed. Belarus’ children continue to be afflicted with thyroid cancers and leukemia. In fact children’s cancers around the world have drastically increased. Radioactive emissions know no geographical boundaries.

Efforts to clean up RA waste have been abysmal, even non-existent and astonishingly, nations think only about a nuclear future rather than cleaning up a nuclear past and the trashing of Planet Earth will continue.

All nuclear agencies advising and controlling this industry remain silent about this waste. Enlightened citizens will not place their trust in this industry or colluding governments. The world’s gone mad methinks and the foxes remain in charge of the chickens!

Too easy! Get the wast off the planet! Stop thinking of how much it costs! In my way of thinking, would you sh@t in your own backyard?, I don't think so. GET IT OUT AND INTO A DISTANT SUN! Economics of the future will be some-what different.

Have a think.

EVO

I'm impressed that contibutors to this thread are so well informed, clearly people are doing lots of homework on the subject. I guess my issues are more to do with what alternatives do we have? Like you I can refer to thousands of articles and opinion pieces on the subject, both for and against.

It seems that the objections have not changed since the 60's and 70's, perhaps because it is widely perceived that these remain unaddressed. If refereences to "opinion" on the thread are wanted I can't help, there are just too many.

This link http//world nuclear.org is based upon actual industry performance. It will not address emotive objections and it will never resolve issues raised in opinion pieces. It does however, lay to rest many of the "myths" about nuclear energy.

There is clearly much to do to resolve genuine concerns about nuclear energy, the question remains, if we are causing global warming and are short of energy, what do we need to do?

Is it worth sorting out the issues relating to nuclear energy? or to stick with trying to mandate through an ETS, the reduction of carbon fuel use?

The debate seems to be where it was 40 years ago, emotive and circular with nobody able to break the nexus.