I'm not entirely sure you are keeping this in perspective, thinker 2.

>>Nuclear power is too dangerous for words<<

No question, there are deep-seated emotional reasons to fear nuclear... anything, really.

I would have thought, though, that of all the countries in the world, Japan and its population would have greater historical cause to fear it, and to shun it, than any other.

The fact that they have overcome these fears should tell you a great deal about their rationality, and their concerns about the cost to them of the only alternative, which is to be entirely dependent upon massive imports of carbon-based energy sources.

The fact that they have entertained nuclear power generation, even despite their country sitting on the fault line between the Amur and Okhotsk plates, should be significant, I would have thought. Such decisions would not have been taken lightly, especially in the land of consensus management.

If we were to be entirely idealistic, we would naturally choose that power generation be the result of non-polluting, totally safe processes. But the technology to achieve that has yet to be created. Anywhere.

And along the way, argument-by-hyperbole - "Nuclear power is too dangerous for words" - is not going to make the situation any clearer, or any easier to resolve.

The anti-nuclear lobby will have an unjustified field day over the Japan reactor problems. The Japan problems will probably prove to be like Three Mile Island, a “debacle” with no associated death toll.

What design could survive without some problems from a close-by 8.9 offshore earthquake? It appears that, to ensure cooling water supplies, the reactors were built too near the ocean in an earthquake prone area without adequate cooling back up.

The containment buildings appear to be intact and the structural design appears to have been adequate. Water supplies and stand-by pumping facilities appear to be the problem. Maybe the diesel generators and/or pumps and a tunnel fed emergency supply dam, were not provided with an adequate (surrounding) tsunami proof bund wall?

Distribution of iodine tablets are a sensible precaution as these prevent potential thyroid cancers if there is serious venting of radioactive material.

Thinking in hindsight about suitable sites, any reactor should preferably be downstream of a large freshwater reservoir on a site at least 20m above sea level.

The Chernobyl disaster was a steam explosion which destroyed the reactor core in a cheapskate reactor without a containment building and had a short term death toll of about fifty, mainly among emergency crews. I believe that the death toll and cancer rate to date in the surrounding area is not abnormal.

One estimate I saw was that there were 50,000 extra abortions throughout Europe caused by newspaper stirred concerns.

Why all this discussion without waiting until the nuclear plant is closed permanently because of the destruction of the reactor core by sea water or a melt down until the melt down ends.

Foyle, yes the Russians were warned at a conference in Vienna in 1956
that their design had a design fault which was exactly what happened
at Chernobyl. It was to do with the carbon moderators storing energy
which could be released suddenly in certain circumstances.

Hasbeen asked why not just burn coal in power stations.
Well, like in most of these scenarios there is a catch 22.

Global Peak Coal will occur from around 2020 to 2025. Big price rises
in coal are expected as the coal seams get more expensive to mine and
as well the quality of the coal is deteriorating.
Further pressure on coal prices will be caused by oil depletion and
the resultant switch to coal & electricity from oil.

Ultimately there is no choice but to go nuclear.
There is no way that alternatives can be ramped up to a level that
will spply sufficient electricity 24 hours a day.
One exception of course is geothermal. Unfortunately, err well in one
respect, we don't live on the ring of fire so the cheap geothermal
is not for us.

To sum up we should not be exporting our coal, we should retain it for
electricity generation.
Remember what the Chinese Premier said;
"We will burn all our coal & then we will burn all yours"

I have to state One Under God that you are correct, one of my uncles chain smoked rollies [tobacco in a packet] all of his life, never developed emphysema and died of cirrhosis of the liver due to beer/alcohol consumption caused by stresses fighting in WWII for a five year period when young.

The chemicals in cigarettes and tobacco differ greatly - from cigarette to cigarette, tobacco to tobacco.

General stats Fester? Unless an autopsy was conducted on each of those 100,000 Japanese people annually Fester, no one can prove that 100,000 Japanese people die as a direct result of 'smoking'despite health statistics.

There are many other factors known to cause cancers.

Over population with thousands of congested vehicles polluting the atmosphere should be taken into consideration, likewise, Emphysema and other cancers caused by many environmental factors, some of which are asbestos, viruses (airborne) weakening lungs, many years prior to developing cancer, suffering from weak lungs genetically, fires in homes whereby as a child significant smoke inhalation has occurred, wood smoke inhaled as a child or adult, the list goes on.

I wonder how many wood fire places are used over in Japan during their long winter months.

Probably not many wood fires burning I just realised, as the Japanese are low on resources given a high population and limited farming land.

There are lessons for all of us as these devastations unfold one of them being 'use a variety of alternative power fuels other than nuclear".