Don't know if anybody else has been following it but there has been a series of excellent articles on this issue in the Guardian (both for and against). The comments are also worth reading (if you have time!!).

This latest blog entry is perhaps a good place to start.  Unsure about nuclear power? Five questions.

Japan's government has been accused of allowing an incestuous relationship to develop with power giant Tepco to the detriment of safety standards. Senior government figures have become accustomed to lucrative posts in the energy sector on retiring from public life and criticism of companies like Tepco has consequently been muted.

Mitsuhiko Tanaka, a retired nuclear engineer who had worked on the Fukushima reactors, said the "nuclear village" in which public officials, academics and power company employees avoided criticising each other had created a dangerous consensus which had made the industry less accountable.

Influential nuclear critic and MP, Taro Kono, went further, suggesting the power lobby's influence on the media, where it is among the country's leading advertisers, had insulated it from proper inspection. "The power industry is one of the largest spenders so media can't criticise it," he said.

This all sounds very similar to the situation in Canada, especially in the province of Ontario.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 

 beamends wrote: 
Most definitely. Australia is a lot denser than that.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I think it should be noted that some of these figures, particularly for Australia, are open to debate.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

Great, here come the Canadians....
And heavy water breeder reactors using thorium are a fantastic energy source.  Politics is the only reason we don't have them running everywhere.

 beamends wrote: 

Estimated world thorium resources¹ 

(Reasonably assured and inferred resources recoverable at
up to $80/kg Th)

Country	Tonnes	% of total
Australia	489,000	19
USA	400,000	15
Turkey	344,000	13
India	319,000	12
Venezuela	300,000	12
Brazil	302,000	12
Norway	132,000	5
Egypt	100,000	4
Russia	75,000	3
Greenland	54,000	2
Canada	44,000	2
South Africa	18,000	1
Other countries	33,000	1
World total	2,610,000

 bokey wrote: 
I almost mentioned that. It definitely scored points with me.

 miamizsun wrote: 
What's with the '70's porn music background? I keep waiting for the plumber to show up so the housewife with the huge, unshaved bush on her crotch can open the door with her negligee all askew.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Thorium looks like a less problematic solution, though I don't doubt it will have it's own problems. Inevitably there's only one way to find out

In answer to the question : Saviour - with reservations.

 miamizsun wrote: 
ok, i stayed up late and got up early reading and watching some info on what may be is a very viable alternative to this situation.

In a word, Thorium. (It's cheap, plentiful, way more efficient and you can't make bombs/weapons with it, which is why I believe the powers that be have worked to squelch it.)

Here's some easy to understand vids from howstuffworks.com






the political angle



please feel free to comment.

If it wasn't for all the money involved I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to threaten the public health like nuclear power has potential, not to mention what kinds of disasters it can cause. But when it comes to comfort, convenience, and money, everything else seems expendable.

I say it's a scourge. 

"The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? I just want you to think big, Henry, for chrissakes. The only place where you and I disagree is with regard to the bombing. You’re so goddamned concerned about civilians, and I don’t give a damn. I don’t care." ~ Nixon to Kissinger April 25, 1972

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
There are some pretty decent reviews on Blees book on Amazon as well.

I don't know enough about this subject and I'd like to read his book, however my reading list is six books on my desk right now.

Regards

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 

Yes, I read the article in the Guardian today.

My only comment is about the title of the thread- why does it have to be "saviour or scourge?"- this isn't the X factor.  It's a useful tool but not without some significant drawbacks.

Georges Monbiot has really put the cat among the pigeons today with his article favoring nuclear power.

Before everyone starts ditching the idea of nuclear power, take a look at this design and I'd appreciate if anyone could tell me what the drawbacks are..

(I know there must be some but the concept looks damn good to me. The danger in this is that I am neither an engineer nor a physicist so I'm not really qualified to judge)

 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

snerk.

 islander wrote: 
huge manatees all over the place?

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
one word: Balloons.