>>Despite consistent assurances from
the industry that nuclear reactors are safe, opinion polls
show that the public is unconvinced<<

What those polls show, Foxy, is the appallingly low levels of scientific literacy in this country. One can not critically evaluate arguments about nuclear power generation without a reasonable grasp of nuclear physics: a grasp that a lot of people lack because they don't take the opportunity to study physics or chemistry past junior high school. Despite their ignorance these people think that they are just as well qualified to assess the risks of nuclear power as somebody with a PhD in the field. Very much like all the armchair climate skeptics who rubbish the work of qualified climatologists.

Because most people lack the scientific knowledge required to evaluate the scientific and technical arguments they can only really decide between the two opposing sides on the strength of rhetoric.

And if there is anything we have learnt from the climate change debate it is that political groups, think-tanks and other vested interests who can spin a nice line in rhetoric can have a greater sway on public opinion than scientists and other technical professionals who are more at home with logic than rhetoric. Similar to climate change, the opposition doesn't come from the ranks of professionals trained in the field (if you don't believe me ask a nuclear physicist - just email any Uni with a decent physics faculty); it comes from political lobby groups and a small handful of dissenting scientists in the pocket of aforesaid lobby groups.

And from all the non-scientists who throw their hands up in confusion at all the numbers and the Greek letters and say 'phuck it, it's all too confusing for me but Greenpeace present a more emotionally persuasive case than some boring cardigan-wearing greybeard reeling off a bunch of boring numbers so I'll believe Greenpeace instead of the greybeards' (like they do with climate change, although in that case they believe Alan Jones instead of the greybeards).

>>The location of such a site is a ticklish political
problem<<

It sure is. But it shouldn't be.

>>for the obvious reason that people are generally
unenthused about the prospect of having a radioactive dump in
their own neighbourhood<<

Because they grew up watching The Simpsons: a great show but it has a lot to answer for when it comes to nuclear paranoia. People who are generally unenthused about the prospect of having a radioactive dump in their own neighborhood are unenthused because they think that they're going to start catching three-eyed fish and glowing in the dark.

They're not. Radiation won't make you phosphorescent; the three-eyed fish is closer to the mark but highly unlikely. There's laws about this sort of thing: a nuclear waste dump that is hazardous to the environment breaches all sorts of laws, laws that even the Government is not above. And you can be sure that there'll be A LOT of people checking that they're compliant.

>>The disposal problem seems to be one
that has no technological fix.<<

I disagree. The most intractable problems of waste disposal are neither physical nor technical: they are legal, political and sociological. The legal can be fixed by act of parliament if it is statutory law; things get more complicated in the common law. The political and sociological problems are a little harder to fix.

But a little more respect for the wisdom of the greybeards and a little less for lobby groups might be a good place to start.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Tony,

Thank You for your posts on this subject.
You have raised some valid points.
However, may I also suggest that you do
Google, "Kyshtym disaster" in Russia.
For your own information.

My family were part of an organisation that brought
out some children from Chernobyl
a few years ago to Australia for a holiday.
They stayed with us for a time.

Also, a relative who is a scientist worked for
many years at the nuclear facility of Lucas Heights.
He later went on and got his doctorate and now
teaches at Sydney University.

Family discussions on this subject abound at our place.
And will continue to do so well into the future, I
dare say.

All nations with relative ability should help Japan.

I saw a nuclear scientist warning of the danger of cesium and how one tiny particle trapped in flesh can cause cancer.

For a long time I have researched world fish depletion including the 1920 commercial collapse of the Hokkaido herring fishery off northern Japan.

Hokkaido herring are dependent on seagrass that is dependent on coastal alongshore currents that flow with tides into estuary and bay seagrass food web nurseries, including those northwards from Fukushima.

Herring feed on coastal and offshore plankton. Migratory tuna feed on herring.

I do not presently see how some herring and tuna would avoid contact with at least one particle of deadly cesium.

Folks I know this might hurt but I believe we should be concentrating on this disaster rather than climate change and.or boat people. This crap will kill us all.

The single biggest problem for these anti nuke activists, is that in spite of the high profile of nuclear accidents, the safety record of nuclear is the safest of any generation system with injuries and fatalities per kWhr generated at less than half of any other technique incl renewables.