"...political leaders need to confront public fears."

Yes, Foxy, and reason must prevail. That is why we must educate ourselves, and why I linked to the publication I did. Everyone must be exposed to the arguments and, since you referred to Ian Lowe, I thought you'd be interested. The argument between he and Barry Brooks covers the necessary ground for a public education and carries on from the book into an ongoing online discourse.

Here is Brooks last entry (yesterday) https://www.panterapress.com.au/shop/media/download/1631/Barry%20Brook%20Rebuttal.pdf

Foxy,

LF has provided cogent arguments, the problem with ascribing the politicians the responsibility of convincing the voters of the facts is that a large contingent make a lot of political capital from scaremongering.

When an aeroplane crashes it is a disaster far worse than a car crash, but the statistical reality is that flying by air is many times safer than driving. Similarly Chernobyl and Fukashima scare people, but in spite of these accidents, nuclear power is far safer than any other method. The problem is compounded by the plethora of activist sites that publish and republish information that is patently false such as several of the sites to which you have linked.

The reality is that by the time the law of diminishing returns kicks in and it eventually dawns on the general populace the massive cost to the economy of trying to eliminate CO2 without nuclear, it will still take decades to get nuclear power up and running while all manufacturing jobs migrate overseas.

I heed what both Luciferase and Shadow Minister are
saying.

However, my concerns remain because when catastrophic
events happen the consequences if radio nuclear
material is involved are much more serious than if its
coal, gas, solar or wind. Also the nuclear waste problem
has still not been solved over half a century into the
nuclear power experiment.

"Also the nuclear waste problem
has still not been solved over half a century into the
nuclear power experiment."

This is Ian Lowe's own statement.

Just what is not solved, exactly? It is that the producers of waste store it in their own back yards with noisy Green birds squarking loudly about the fact. The same birds squark even more loudly whenever long-term storage is mooted.

Any long-term storage facility is bitterly opposed, such as in SA, or the Yucca mountains in Nevada, Onkalo in Finland, etc, on the basis that any level of radioactivity, whatsoever, is lethal now and into the future.

The footprint of this waste is absolutely miniscule. Some of the materials being contained and buried are less radioactive than those naturally occurring.

Putting aside the probability that, in time, the material left in spent fuel rods will be usable in breeder reactors, the amount of material evolving from power production over the next half-century would be similarly of no great issue as it was in the last.

It is a non-issue driven by ideological scaremongers who believe pixie-dust will save us from CAGW.

Dear Luciferase,

Pixie dust?

At least pixie dust is not hazardous for tens of thousands
of years and there is no potential terrorist threat
associated with it if it could leak or be dispersed as a
result of terrorist action. It will do no harm.
I'll take pixie dust any time over radioactive nuclear
waste.

cont'd ...

"All the world is made of faith, and trust, and
pixie dust."
(J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan).

"I believe in everything until it's disproved.
So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons..."
(John Lennon).