The coal burning plants that produce electricity are still a viable option. They have the technology to properly scrub the air in the stacks to the point that it is perfectly safe to breathe, they just don't want to absorb that kind of expenditure. They need to admit that it's a global problem and their petty greed isn't enough of an excuse any longer to NOT do this, and to DO IT!

Another problem connected to these reactors, which are designed by the American company Westinghouse over forty years ago, is that, since at least 1972 there have been concerns that they are afflicted with fundamental design faults.

The biggest is undoubtedly the bizarre decision to store the used fuel rods in great tanks of water situated, wait for it... above the reactor core, inside the same building.

I suppose it's unecessary to mention that in the event of a meltdown, or an explosion inside the reactor building these rods, in their hundreds, are positioned in precisely the wrong place.

That the Japanese have almost thrown in the towel, is perhaps indicated by the worrying decision to evacuate the plant, withdrawing 800 workers and leaving only skeleton crew behind, 60 people to deal with six reactors.

This thing, unless some miracle happans, is going to be Chernobyl on steroids.

I'm 64, and I remember ecologists warning us very loudly in the 1960s that nuclear was not a sane option. However, as a Canadian, I have since learned that environmental damage is not a factor, nor is life and death. What really matters is how much money we can make. I'm sure our present Canadian government will back me up in this.

The UK needs coal like never before.
Arab oil no longer an option. Nuclear is dangerous and expensive. wild-power only works when the wind blows.

The World Nuclear Association's predictions are overly cautious and unable to explain situations in which you have very HIGH levels of natural background radiation, such as in Ramsar, Iran, with no attendant decrease in longevity or increase in cancer rates. In fact, longevity in Ramsar appears to be better than elsewhere.

Right now the media is being very irresponsible in its portrayal of the potential threats of nuclear contamination, likening this to a possible Chernobyl, even though Chernobyl was a different type of reactor entirely and that a meltdown in these reactions (light water reactors) does not cause a violently explosive Chernobyl-style catastrophe. (Credit to your article for mentioning this, it needs to be reinforced, as networks such as CNN are being absolutely responsible in this respect).

We also forget that Chernobyl killed far less people than is commonly assumed. In fact, the psychological stress has proven to be far more deadly than the actual radiation dosages most people (aside from the plant technicians on-duty at the time) received.

The biggest danger right now is the threat of internal radiation exposure, especially with the reactors constantly exploding and being vented. This, more than anything, caused the majority of damage in Chernobyl when people drank contaminated milk and water, as it does damage to the thyroid. This is the point of handing out iodine tablets--a very good move on the part of the Japanese government.

400 msv is certainly serious--but if you look closely at the reports, they are reading 400 msv NEAR the reactors. Definitely dangerous for those in the vicinity, but saying simply that contamination has been recorded at 400 msv, misportrays this, leading readers to assume that such high levels of contamination are spreading beyond the reactor, which seems unsubstantiated.

Further extending this to the idea that all nuclear reactors and nuclear projects in the developed world should be shut down is just irresponsible. Not only is it wrong to compare nuclear technology today to that used in reactors more than half a century ago, it is explicit misinformation.

USA Radioactive Plume Maps

I am working on a new site nuclearpowerdanger.com I have created some radioactive plume maps based solely on wind. Working on

more specific map methodology.

http://www.nuclearpowerdanger.com/plume-maps/sitemap-nuclear-power-plant...

These are existing plumes of radiation caused by "normal" releases.

My methodology is outlined here

http://www.nuclearpowerdanger.com/plume-maps/methodology.php

I welcome feedback.

Jorn

Where do people get their information from about the nuclear industry? They don't actually believe the expensively produced propaganda coming from the industry itself do they? Why would anybody do that?

And as if the propaganda from the industry wasn't enough, the state then piles on another layer of propaganda, usually containing the words "new" and "generation" and often "renaissance."

Nuclear is extremely expensive - not only in the enormous construction costs of building nuclear power stations, and their subsequent de-commissioning, but also in the prohibitive (and potentially unlimited) costs of dealing with nuclear waste.
In the meantime, money spent on the nuclear option means less money to be spent on safer, renewable forms of energy which are not going to leave a legacy of radioactive waste which will have to be stored safely for thousands of years. As an island, Britain is particularly well placed to make use of tidal power. Surely this would be a better investment than nuclear power?

If this disaster in Japan goes really wrong, and turns into a nuclear catastrophe, who picks up the tab? Certainly not the privately run industry, because it will be pushed into bankruptcy. That just leaves the Japanese state.

George Eaton has forgotten the cooling pools that contain huge amounts of highly radioactive waste. If they are damaged and catch fire, they make Chernobyl look like a picnic.

And what about the cost of the cleanup? That'll be close to a 1000 million, and that's just at the plant. Who pays for that?

This is assuming that Tokyo isn't contaminated by a radioacitve cloud, which could happen, if things go really wrong. How on earth does one calculate that kind of cost? Do it, and then tell me that nuclear power makes "economic" sense.

The thing is, in human and planetary terms, ANY nuclear risk is too much risk, because of the unthinkable implications for generations to come. Nuclear is alone in that.