After 3 decades in the antinuclear movement I have little patience with any who publish errors on this important subject.  I insert a few comments on this IPS item (written by someone not fully in command of English).
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Nuclear Power No Panacea, Critics Say
Haider Rizvi


Both Dean and Beranek warned of "far more serious nuclear accidents" and "real risks" posed by earthquakes and industrial disasters, as well as possible terrorist attacks in the future.

        I'm glad this is prominently stated.  This topic came up some months ago on this list, and I lodged the fact that knowledgeable scientists have looked into the scope for sabotage of nuclear power plants and concluded it's all too easily done.  (Michael Balter challenged me to prove it, and refused to ackn the validity of refusal to publish such instructions.)
        Notice the latest terrorist bombing in the near E. is stated on TV news to have made a crater 10 m deep.

In April 2006, there was a radioactive spill of 40 litres of liquid containing plutonium in the brand new reprocessing plant in Rokkasho-Mura, the group said, adding that in August 2004, a pipe was ruptured in the Mihama plant, which resulted in the death of five workers.

        Was this covered up at the time?  I've not heard of it before. Will it spell the end of the misleading slogan "no-one has been killed by an accident in a Western civilian nuclear power station"?   If the Japanese are willing to be non-Western, the slogan may ride on  ...

More famously, nuclear meltdowns occurred at Three Mile Island in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania in 1979 and in 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the former Soviet Union.  A recent Greenpeace report estimated that 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancers were caused by that disaster.

        Does GreenpeaceŽ actually say those cancers have already emerged?  Is any explanation offered for the fatal cancers being only a minority, 1/3, when in the overdeveloped world generally the ratio is commonly staed in the form that 1/3 humans get indentified cancer and 1/4 die of it, i.e it's still usually fatal (treatments for some cancers notwithstanding).
        Since the cancers caused by Chernobyl are not tagged by that cause, but merely a small percentage added to the already rife cancers in Europe, how could Greepneace know they'd been only 1/3 fatal?
        No deaths have been retrospectively attributed to TMI, AFAIK.  The fuel was only a couple month old and by that great good luck the radiodecay heating was much smaller than in your average reactor.
        A genuine authority, John Gofman, pubd predictions, on simple clear assumptions, of larger totals in the exposed generations.  IAEA countered with 'a few dozen'.  WHO is not a reliable authority on such matters  -  their head of non-infectious diseases lived a few doors from me for her first decade in Auckland, and I can assure you she is not straight.  She operates pursuant to the name or style 'Bonita'  -  not her real name.

Former environment ministers from European countries, including Russia, sent a letter to the former U.N. chief Kofi Annan urging him to reform the mandate of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"Nuclear power is no longer necessary," they said in the letter.

        It never was necessary.  It was always stupendously expensive, hugely subsidised (one of Lovins' main points), unrealiable, and mainly to make plutonium which is bad stuff.

Greenpeace's Beranek echoed the same message Monday.  "Nuclear power undermines real solutions to climate change, by diverting resources away from the massive development of clean energy sources the world urgently needs," he said.
"Energy conservation and wind and solar power are cleaner and safer than nuclear power," said Dean. "They are a better way to fight global warming."

        That fact has been clear for 3 decades.  Now how are we to get govts to act on it?