Nuclear energy is the only safe and cheap way for us to go for our industrial power.

BUT---NUCLEAR ENERGY THREATENS OIL, COAL AND GAS

For the very survival of the oil and fossil fuel industries and brokers, the wide spread adoption of nuclear power had to be forestalled. The ridiculous concept of an anti-nuclear movement had to be somehow made plausible.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" - Abraham Lincoln

Big oil and their friends don't always win. For power generation, France is 100% nuclear plus about 6% hydro, 6% coal plus about 6% of a variety of other systems. It exports the excess power to other EU countries and makes a good profit doing so. These EU countries complain bitterly that French nuclear power is just too competitive. France has 49 nuclear power stations. And no nuclear accidents what so ever. Sure they have the normal accidents one expects in any industrial plant, like slipping on a banana skin. Watch carefully and you'll see that they are all reported, and all over the world, as "accident at nuclear power facility". They never give the details. Spoils the story.

If France also switched to biofuels, like Brazil, it would be the first Western affluent country on the planet with zero anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Then we all do the same and global warming with its dangerous and chaotic weather effects would stop for ever.

HOW THEY SELL THE IDEA THAT NUCLEAR IS DANGERIOUS, AND SOME OF THE FICTIONS THE SPIN DOCTORS DREAM UP

# Nuclear energy power stations lead to nuclear weapons. Never happened. It's always the other way round.

# Plutonium is the most dangerous substance known to man. Absolutely stupid. Radiation from plutonium won't go through a toilet tissue. Botox is about 5,000 times more poisonous than plutonium. Plutonium is around about as poisonous as lead. So it's okay for sinkers for fishing but don't eat it.

# Waste disposal is a huge problem. Ridiculous. All the world's even slightly dangerous nuclear waste wouldn't fill the hull of the Titanic. It wouldn't fill the Great Pyramid of Giza and that structure was built 4,500 years ago. It took years to find the entrance with everybody looking. So it's not silly to say, pyramids would make good disposal sites. The drill holes to pipe carbon dioxide from coal plants into some underground geological system, just the drill holes, would hold all the waste we don't want to keep. But the absolute best is to dump it into deep ocean subduction zones. There're like slow moving upside down volcanoes. They suck the material down into the molten interior of the Earth. The atoms in the waste might re-emerge in a quarter of a billion years or so. At the quickest maybe a few million years.

# Chernobyl killed thousands. Rubbish. Every day, that's right every day, more people die in the world from coal mining than died at Chernobyl. Just 48 people died at Chernobyl. They claim thousands will die from cancer from the radiation. Again just rubbish. Two things. Radiation is used to cure people with cancer. Most likely nobody will die. Most likely more people will live longer. And second the radiation levels around Chernobyl are around three or four times the world average. They're are around 7 or 8 mSv (mille Sieverts) and that's is supposed to be a real hazard. More rubbish. In Brazil there is a beach resort city called Guarapari, population 70,000. It's a health resort. People sunbake on the black beach sand. The nuclear radiation level is over 800 mSv. That's well over 100 times that around Chernobyl.

# Even the smallest level of radiation can kill. This one is absolute rubbish. Radiation levels, well over those at Chernobyl have now been determined to be a health benefit. There are statistics gathered from nuclear processing plants that compare workers operating in radiation areas and those not exposed at all. The irradiated workers are always healthier. Exposure to nuclear radiation at levels several times higher than the world average is a significant health benefit. When humans evolved, radiations levels were higher than they are now. It's like sunshine - it's always been there. And just like sunshine, stupidly excessive levels can be dangerous; for nuclear, that's is up around dosages of a few thousand milli Sieverts. It's detailed and referenced in my book. Go to Chapter 10: THE SABOTAGING OF NUCLEAR ENERGY.

# Nuclear energy is not sustainable. More rubbish. The claim is that nuclear power cannot be classed as sustainable because we supposedly will run out of uranium in a thousand years or so. It's a word game, it is not factual. We only use a tiny quantity of the uranium that goes in the reactor and if we kept that up and don't reprocess the fuel, then yes we could possible run out in a few thousand years. Using breeder reactors, we use it all so we have enough, easily mined uranium to last us for 7000 years. And then we have thorium in huge quantities that will last us many thousands of years more. So nuclear energy is totally and utterly sustainable energy.

What we do now is store the 97% we don't use because it's so extremely valuable, and that's because it's all usable. It requires a slightly different type reactor and the process is slightly more expensive. So for now we don't bother. We store it. The antinuclear campaign has been very astute in managing to have everybody calling it "waste". Some materials do have to be buried because we really don't have a use for it. That's where the subduction zones would be best, and there are hundreds of them around the oceans of the world. That's why so much effort was put into banning "ocean disposal of nuclear waste". Greenpeace was active in the banning.

# Nuclear power stations are vulnerable to terrorists. A big red herring. Maybe terrorists could get into one, but it wouldn't do them any good. A terrorist could cause more mischief and kill more people if he got loose in a major city oil and gas terminal than he could ever do by grabbing a nuclear power station. Sure he could damage the nuclear plant and it could be expensive to fix, but that's it.

# There is a lot of nuclear waste to dispose of. Another whopper. Power your whole life on coal and you would have a billion litres of carbon dioxide to get rid of. Power your life on nuclear energy and the waste would be about one egg cup full. You could nearly bury it in the back yard and not have a problem.

# Nuclear energy is expensive. Coal, and gas, and oil, are not really that hazardous and are cheaper. More marketing fiction. The realities are-- If the CO2 from coal fired power stations is allowed to be dumped freely into the air, (as it is now and as it will be for the foreseeable future)  then a coal fired power station, conveniently close to an open cut coal mine, can in fact produce the cheapest electricity. Compared to that situation, nuclear electricity is only marginally dearer, and that's with everything they can think of is included, waste disposal, decommissioning, mining, the lot.  Only hydro can be cheaper, but most of the good and inexpensive sites are already utilized. So now new hydro plant electricity is way above nuclear costs. Electricity from gas and oil is two or three times coal and nuclear prices. Wind energy and solar energy are four to over ten times the price of coal and nuclear. Wave and tidal power prices are worse still and on a world scale have insignificant serious generating potential.

     All dangers are relative, so even in a hugely biased and bigoted comparison with coal and gas energy, nuclear energy comes out as absolutely ridiculously safe. Like it or not, to end global warming we have to go nuclear. Otherwise climate change is going to kill millions. The few thousand global warming and climate change deaths to date is just the tip of a fast melting iceberg.