From: Mark Imisides

Comment: Jason Shell continues to completely misunderstand nuclear energy. We know this because he keeps advancing Chernobyl as the reason behind his fears. I'll try to explain it again, and this time I'll use smaller words.

There are many types of vehicles on the road - cars, buses, trucks, vans, utes and so on. Despite the fact that they come in all shapes, sizes and designs, and with vastly different levels of performance, sophistication and SAFETY, they are all based on the same technology - the internal combustion engine. In the same way, nuclear reactors come in all shapes, sizes and DESIGNS, with vastly different levels of performance, sophistication and SAFETY, but all based on the same technology.

When the Soviets designed the RBMK reactors, it was done with only performance in mind and with no considerations of safety whatever. This was because it was the height of the cold war, and all they were interested in demonstrating was they could mix it with the evil capitalists in the west in terms of technology. When they presented their design at an international Nuclear Energy Conference in 1970, the West were horrified at the monstrosity they had produced. In the same way that a motoring writer would condemn a car maker who presented at a motor show a car with a 12 litre V8, cable-operated drum brakes, suspension out of a 1965 Holden and no seat belts, the Nuclear industry were quick to condemn the RBMK reactor. It was, they said, dangerous and flawed and should never be built.

The British AEC, who had rejected an RBMK-type design in the 1950s on safety grounds alone, came up with a list of seven specific flaws in the design. Since Jason and his ilk understand nothing about nuclear reactors, it's pointless detailing them, but suffice it to say that when Chernobyl blew up in 1986 the only people who weren't surprised were western nuclear experts.

In summary 1. The Chernobyl accident cannot happen to a Western Nuclear Power plant anymore than an aircooled VW can run out of coolant. To use it as an anti-nuke argument is to make a complete fool of yourself. 2. In about 50 years of operation there has not been one single fatality as the result of a nuclear accident at a Western power plant. Not one blade of grass, or bunny rabbit or mosquito - nothing. No other technology can boast a record such as this. 3. Nuclear power is not unsafe because the twin towers were destroyed or the Titanic sank.

I hope Jason understood most of this and doesn't embarrass himself again. If he does, I guess I'll have to use pictures next time. I don't get it Andrew. Every "argument" I've ever heard against nuclear energy is either utter speculation ("as surely as night follows day") or entirely, embarrassingly, ridiculously irrelevant (like Jason's Titanic argument). You've been dealing with these people longer than I have. Are they just really stupid, or am I being a bit harsh?


Andrew replies: You are dealing with a religious belief here, Mark, which is why reason doesn't work.