Thanks Arnie for putting on this really rational discussion of the issues regarding the power plants. I saw James Lovelock (author of the Gaia philosophy books) speaking the other night at our Launceston town hall and he insisted that nuclear poses no risk - he feels it is the solution to global warming in the short term, and that wind power doesn't work. I asked him how many particles of plutonium it was OK to inhale in the event of a fukushima type of accident and his reply was focussed on the principle that dilution would reduce the dose of nucleotides to (as he put it) 'homeopathic levels'. He insisted that low doeses of radiation could actually 'be good for you' when I asked about the level for no observable effect. His professor colleague (who has worked on ITER and the ignition project - laser fusion) - came across as 'scientists know best sonny' and I think this is the root of the problem - there is not enough listening to common sense. Here in the UK there is currently (no pun intended) a big push for nuclear in order to cut carbon emissions and we are told 'the uk reactors couldn't possible have an accident like Fukushima as we use intrinsically safe reactors' (AGR etc). However we're not geared up to cope with a Carrington Event (solar flare causing grid breakdown) and Hinkley point, our reactors on the Bristol Channel, has suffered a 5 or 6 metre tsunami or at least a mega tidal event in 1607. ...Have a look at the Burnham-on-Sea community website where there is a good description. Could have been caused by a marine landslide or an earthquake under the Irish sea. I've no problem with nuke power per se but only if safety is put before profit or political convenience. Anyway I'm not sure there is enough uranium to serve the world's power needs in the long term and it is a risk in weapon proliferation in unstable countries. Just as easy to make a bomb with a thorium basis (India is keen to develop this source of nuke power, I understand)...
Thanks
Rob.