I think it is fair to say Pericles, that the projected outcomes of both sides of the nuclear debate regarding the actual outcomes of accidents is biased,
in effect just words, but playing with forces beyond our control is akin to letting the genie out of the bottle to a certain degree.
Once you have done it, you cant go back.

And the consequences go beyond that of things beyond our control such as natural disasters.
The question for me is, "can we leave it"?, (nuclear power), and if we can, then why don't we ?.
We are having major problems getting rid of other waste without adding nuclear waste to the mix of pollutants threatening our existence. And even if we do use nuclear power, it is a short term solution that when no longer possible, will leave a pile of toxic waste for a future generations to deal with.

Thinker,
You need to catch up with the science. Carbon in fossil fuels is an essential raw material for the production of plastics, metals and fertilisers for as long as the human race wants to live at a reasonable living standard. We need to make the carbon sources last, not burn them for their thermal value, a sensible approach that has been obvious to many for generations.

Thorium fuelled reactors could supply all the world's power need for thousands of years. Compared to uranium fuelled reactors they are inherently safer, produce relatively miniscule amounts of waste and are not a source of weapons grade materials. For that later reason thorium reactors were not popular nor further developed during the cold war.

Solar and wind are at best supplementary contributors to any sensible energy plan as the Christmas period cold snap in the UK showed. During that cold snap wind farms in total generated less than one percent of their nameplate capacity so were useless.

Oops! - there goes the outer shell of reactor No 3...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/14/3163383.htm

Human beings rarely learn from history or take lessons from the now.

You will still see people pushing a nuclear agenda despite the experience of Russia, Three Mile Island and now Japan. The risks are not worth any of the purported benefits of nuclear and the risk of natural and man made disasters should not be minimised or ignored in the nuclear debate.

This is what the anti-nuclear debate is all about. It is illogical to even contemplate going down this path. Even ANSTO has recently come under scrutiny due to negative reports about safety and security within the Lucas Heights facility.

One is tempted to do a Homer Simpson and say DUH.....(no brainer).

Yes I too hate the idea of nuclear power.
Having taken care of aged soldiers that were involved in the clean-up of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the Atomic bombs were dropped in the 2nd world war, believe me, you don't want to be anywhere near too much radiation!

I can't believe that the Japanese, of all people, would agree to build large nuclear power stations in such an earthquake prone country.
Just wait and see the medical results in years to come in those poor people who were unlucky enough to be near the power station that blew up the other day in Japan.

Dear Thinker 2,

I totally agree with you. A nuclear meltdown would be worse than an earthquake and a tsunami. With an earthquake and a tsunami - there's still hope of survival. With a nuclear meltdown - our worst illusion is that we might return to the state of primitive man. But he did not have polluted soil, poisoned streams, irradiated game and vegetable foods. I feel so sorry for the people of Japan. They had taken every precaution - so it seemed. But as a reporter said - This could be Japan's biggest crisis since WWII. Another earthquake has been predicted within the next couple of days - and another reactor has blown its outer covering. Let's hope that they will get things under control (somehow) and soon. The problem with nuclear reactors seems to be that any major catastrope, whether it be an earthquake, a tsunami, a fire, or leakage, or even terrorist attacks, all can cause a disaster. All technology, ages and wears out with time and no matter how carefully nuclear plants are monitored accidents have happened and will continue to happen. Should Australia take the risk when it doesn't have to and has alternative energy sources? That's something that we need to seriously think about.

There's a poem called "One Wooly Wombat," that teaches children to count, and presents a nursery rhyme about cute Australian animals:

"One woolly wombat sunning by the sea
Two cuddly koalas sipping gumnut tea..." And so on.

Philip Neilsen took this firm favourite of children's rhymes and using the same rhythm and language, presented us with a slightly different version. He called it, "Bush Lullaby," But the sleep will not be sweet:

"One cackling kookaburra swept from the trees
Two uneasy emus brought to their knees
Three bustling bandicoots burnt underground
Five writhing ringtails sliced into meat
Six crisp koalas toasted by the heat
Seven tangled taipans dissected on the grass
Eight playful platypuses melted smooth as glass
Nine crippled kangaroos, mutant crow and currawong
Ten million jolly swagmen floating in the billabong."