SM
I have already stated the options including fossil fuel being better than nuclear overall (ie. best of a bad bunch). Please try and read posts before typing. An emphasis on renewables (particularly but not limited to domestic use), back up from fossil fuels with a reducing dependence, addressing the issues of poverty, education and overpopulation. Prosperity reduces population growth and thus the pressure on energy sources and thus pollution. It is a slow process but long term it is worth approaching from that POV including reducing inequity through economic and foreign policies.

As you know I oppose the Carbon Tax because it will do nothing to reduce emissions, it is just another economic control mechanism that will shift money around from one place to another with only minimal impact on pollution as has been the European experience. Better to attack climate change and pollution from the grassroots as in the first para.

It is too easy to jump to the nuclear option as a fear response without really researching the risk factors. It is all very well to say there is always a risk in anything, but sometimes the risk is too great and better to heed them than just fob it off to some corporate/government risk assessment team which may not always act in our interests. I am sure the people of Fukishima would would rather there governments had this mindset rather than anti-nuclear message being written off as loony environmentalists by those with vested interests

SM,

Thank You for the link you gave us. I can see why you
liked it. The author's opinion matches yours.

Here's a more balanced link.

It provides the pros and cons of
the issue - "Nuclear versus Renewable Sources."

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=15

I read your link also SM. I thought it interesting that the link you provided to add weight too your opinion is merely another opinion.

A very assumptive and unscientific opinion it was at that.

It was also interesting that the poster thought air pollution more a threat to life, than nuclear contamination. This of course entirely depends on levels of contamination.

Too propose that high levels of air pollution (caused by fossil fuel usage) in Japan justifies the comparative risk associated with nuclear power generation, (and too use the Japanese experience as an example in case) is preposterous SM.

I mean tell that to the Japanese.

They would tell you that renewables would have been preferable in both instances.

Had we not (as a world), quashed a flourishing industry in electric methods of transport way back in the 1920's or so, and instead chose to gas guzzle , maybe even nuclear weapons never would have been considered reasonable or allowed to proliferate, let alone nuclear energy today considered as the answer to the worlds ecological problems.

We digress to go forward in your view I think SM, never learning from past mistakes.

Thinker2 and Lexi,

The thought that living next to the contaminated reactor is less of a hazard than living in the smog of Tokyo seems to have struck a nerve. It might seem preposterous to you, but statistically can be proved. This topic of risk vs. perception has been debated over many completely different areas with legislation focused more on risk perceived by voters than actual risk, with many millions spent reducing risk in politically sensitive areas where the same money spent in other areas could save 1000x as many lives.

How many people have died from radiation from Fukushima? The answer is zero. The contamination has caused huge financial losses, but almost no deaths compared to the about 30000 that perished in the Tsunami.

Can anyone remember the Bhopal disaster in 1984? A chemical leak from a Union Carbide plant killed an estimated 3,000 died within weeks and another 8,000 have since died from gas-related diseases. the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries. A death toll about 80x that of Chernobyl. After Chernobyl everyone forgot, even though as far as human suffering was concerned Chernobyl was a minnow.

As far as waste is concerned, the amount of high level waste from 40 years of nuclear generation in the USA could be stored in the area of a rugby field, and if reprocessed, on an area 1/10th of this. Compared to the amount of really nasty chemical by products from other processes being stored, this is a drop in the ocean.

SM,

I appreciate what you've written and according to your
summation there is no hazard from nuclear reactors.

Please advise us of the area in which you live so we
can make the recommendation to the government to build
the first nuclear facility in your area and please don't
object there will be no hazard to you. And if you don't like
the site of a nuclear reactor - you won't object to us
burying the nucelar waste underground in your area.

BTW: Regarding your statistics concerning Fukushima's deaths -
it takes years for the radiation to take the ultimate effect.
As it did with Chernobyl and Kyshtym - Google them. It also
results in birth defects and makes surrounding areas uninhabitable
as well as poisoning food sources in the broader surrounds.

Lexi,

A typical specious NIMBY argument. Nuclear power has risks, but far lower than most people realize. It would be safer to live next to a nuclear plant than a chemical plant such as Orica or even a furniture factory. However, most people given a choice would prefer not to live in an industrial area.

The proposal to bury nuclear waste in my area is pathetic, as would be a dump for house hold refuse, and not worthy of anyone with an IQ greater than that of a squirrel.