Boris goes nuclear.

Back to safety. From Wikipedia:

It was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[11] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines. Despite this, there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome. Given the uncertain health effects of low-dose radiation, cancer deaths cannot be ruled out.[12] However, studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected.[13] Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near ****ushima have ranged[14] in the academic literature from none[15] to hundreds.[12]Many deaths are attributed to the evacuation and subsequent long-term displacement following emergency mass evacuation.[16][17] For evacuation, the estimated number of deaths during and immediately after transit range from 34 to "greater than 50".[13][18][19] The victims include hospital inpatients and elderly people at nursing facilities who died from causes such as hypothermia, deterioration of underlying medical problems, and dehydration.


So the worst possible natural disaster causing a massive reactor problem.......... and nothing really happened. Given that, and how stable Australia is, the greenies really have their work cut out for them don't they? But the fearmongering of the past still has effect.

More than one abandoned town in the world.

I'd actually guess there are more abandoned towns in the last 50,000 years of human evolution than there are inhabited ones today.


68 years of nuclear power, adding up to somewhere around 10% of all the worlds electricity generated.

Just 2 of the 450+ have caused abandoned towns.

One was a dodgy Russian design that wouldn't get built anywhere else, the other hit by something nothing would be designed against.


Farming, mining, natural climate change, war, pestilence, flood, population movement, manufactured economic housing markets and many other things have cause far more.

Here is one, nothing nuclear about this.

^^^^^ Yes agreed they are sad pics above, but,
so that means its ok to destroy more. You think some would learn from these mistakes, not say, yeah its cool, its happened before in other areas so dosent matter if it does again.
I think 1 town and land destroyed forever from "safe" nuclear power is enough????
What if it was your house and land you had to leave and 10 years later could still not return.??
but I guess you think a certain number of thousands of KM's of uninhabitable land is more than acceptable??
How many 1000 square KM's of unusable land, means its worth saving $50 off you power bill, to you ?
as long as its not yours I guess.

^^^ Oh agreed. But the anti nuke lobby need to realise that 1960's USSR tech and a stupid foreman running recklessly ahead is not really the same as modern Australian experience / tech/ regulation.

And that thorium is very different. And our stability in many areas is rather better than typhoon/tsunami prone Japan coastline. And and and.

Even IF the new ideas in renewables became reality right now they still could not supply all we need...... a considered opinion surmises that nuclear is the go.

They only count the people that died 3 months after Chernobyl. Lots more died months and years later of cancer and other problems. Birth defects etc. But of course this can't be linked directly. There was a special name for the clean up crews I cant remember it. There were lots of them and I am pretty sure that most of them died within 10 years. Yes some of them would have died anyhow but lots of young healthy men died of cancer. But of course that can't be linked to Chernobyl.
Yes coal mining has killed a lot more people than nuclear. But that was back in the good old days when dying on the job was considered OK.

Not at all what I am trying to say. Saying only 30 or so people died from Chernobyl is just not right in my opinion.

The link posted that you refer to is Enginering.com - and they quoted the International Atomic Energy Agency as saying 31 ppl died from acute radiation sickness in the three mths after Chernobyl.
They then say we invite comments and debate below.

That's a million times better than the normal frothing youtube videos made by a fat american in his lounge room that are posted here.

Perhaps many more did die later. But again, even if 1000 did, that is in no way an argument against modern nuclear. It was old tech run by fools. Its like saying boats are a crap idea, look at the Titanic.
However I doubt very much that is the case if many reports / studies claim low death rate. Why would a western researcher have any interest in covering up the true cost of an eastern bloc country's fk-up 20 or 30yrs prior? Then why would many of them do the same...? Makes more sense to believe the studies, yeah?

France pushed pretty hard for nuclear and is still mainly nuclear powered. France , America and large Asian companies designed small plants so any disasters like Chernobyl would be much smaller or actually never happen . Its like comparing a 1990's computer with a computer 10 years later. There was too much public pressure after Chernobyl so new technology and modern reactors never really got a chance. Govts and big companies turned away from it.
Unfortunately governments and big companies have recently once again made a complete mess of some nuclear power plants and given it a bad name.
There was a race on to be the first to figure out what to do with nuclear waste in France. That would make you very rich. Now no big companies will touch it. Nuclear power or the waste problem.
France gave out electric heaters after building a few nuclear power plants because they had too much electricity!
How much waste is created from nuclear power and where does it go? How bad is it really?
How much mining goes on for new materials to make batteries or solar panels that will end up in land fill in a few years time?

They were going to build one at Geraldton,
but they thought it would just get stolen.