Absolutely HS, the gentlemans way...
Not a big fan of coal and refuse to work in the industry but realise it's uses particularly coking coal. (Another argument however and enough said.)
My issue is with the instability of Fukushima R4 building and the spent fuel pool. If/when the structure fails (and it's rated a zero currently in terms of it's capacity to withstand another earthquake.), the spent fuel pool will drain removing the zirconium sheilding and fuel rods from the coolant and thus creating another meltdown directly exposed to atmosphere. Already, Fukushima is considered many times worse than Chenobyl/Pripyat in terms of the long term Cesium particle release/ water/ food contaminations measured to date.
Essentially, our real issue lies with the way we have as providers of Nuclear energy, relied on designs intended for small scale Naval reactors and upscaled those reactors to city sized reactors. Just do a search on the
GE three (which I've linked). We are currently using too many out dated reactors and have a major shortfall in our ability to deal with the extremely serious problems which Three Mile Island, Chenobyl, and Fukushima have hilighted, not to mention the manifold issues which have failed to make it to the public realm.
Until I see generational design change in Nuclear power generation I will be opposed to the haphazard Risk Analysis applied to it's ongoing use.
Kind regards and an apology for going off topic...
Scuba
No apology needed Scuba, not to me anyway. You aren't the first I have heard of making decision of personal conscience, as is everyones right.
However in the case of nuclear power I believe the risks are overstated and look at all available information.
For instance I, you I feel sure, and many others still drive a car, when road fatalities account for the majority of deaths and permanent disabiilities world wide. Why do we not ban motor transport, instead of simply making cars faster and more powerful without any additional significant risk mitigation measures? Air bags are merely an after thought not a prevention. This doesn't stop investors/traders in transport, cars and all associated with this industry.
Coal I have already mentioned and is simply undisputably the most hazardous form of energy production when placed in context. This doesn't stop investors in coal.
Bhopal is on record as the worst chemical process plant disaster ever, shadowing all three nuclear accidents by a long shot.
From Wiki:
"The official immediate death toll was 2,259 and the government of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release. Others estimate 3,000 died within weeks and another 8,000 have since died from gas-related diseases. A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries."
Radiation/uranium as I am sure you are aware is naturally occurring and abundant on earth, we need do nothing it is still there. Nuclear plant accidents of note can be counted with 3 fingers, combined they account for a negigable number of fatalities and permanent disabilities in comparison to coal, cars and chemical plant incidents.
This chap places into context rather well IMO:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/03/12/3451294.htm
"The "Fukushima disaster" clouds the merits of nuclear power, argues Martin Freer"
"The dramatic events that unfolded at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant after last year's tsunami are commonly referred to as "the Fukushima disaster." We need look no further than this description to begin to understand the significant misconceptions that surround nuclear energy.
It was the tsunami, caused by the largest earthquake ever to strike Japan, which killed more than 16,000 people, destroyed or damaged roughly 125,000 buildings, and left the country facing what its prime minister described as its biggest crisis since World War II. Yet it is Fukushima that is habitually accorded the "disaster" label."
How many were killed due to radiation and the accident at the Fukushima? None
How many were killed due to radiation and the accident at the 3 Mile Island? None
The 3 Mile event did result in a lot of fear due to ignorance and media hype, as did Fukushima.
Wiki again stating this:
"Public reaction to the event was probably influenced by The China Syndrome, a movie which had recently been released and which depicts an accident at a nuclear reactor."
Chernobyl admittedly resulted in many unfortunate fatalities.
"56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths "
Placed in context of all accidents that occurred in the same period of the above it makes nuclear look a lot safer than even driving to the shops.
I do agree old now outdated plant design and safety concerns should be addressed for both new nad old plants. There is ample evidence that new generation plant design is doing just that. Ironically, the Fukushima plant accident could have been avoided by simply raising the emergency power backup to the top of the plant instead of just above sea level. A design flaw and failure to identify and control risk I agree, but not an operational nuclear design flaw.
Fukushima was devastated by an earthquake and a Tsunami, literally a 1:1000 year event. Will it stop people living on the coast and going on coastal holidays? No
Will I continue to invest in uranium companies supplying fuel for Nuclear Power, most definitely.
But differing points of view is what makes the world go around and does aid in "keeping the bastards honest". Placing pressure on companies of all industries, not just nuclear, to improve safety standards should be applauded. Your personal stance is one means of doing so Scuba and I respect you for that.
I think this topic is relevant to almost any stock in industries where decisions of conscience are made, it is definitely not isolated to nuclear energy. Oil and Gas, transport, medical/drugs, property, chemical manufacture and on it goes.
Further reading:
NOAA Looks at the Waters Near Fukushima Daiichi
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2012/04/noaa-looks-at-waters-near-fukushima.html
Fukushima-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/26/1120794109.full.pdf+html
Three Mile Island
An accident at a Pennsylvania reactor transfixed the nation and hobbled America's nuclear energy industry. Is it poised for a comeback?
"In the end, the mishap at Three Mile Island did not end in a catastrophe or any serious injury, but a nation already wary of nuclear power turned against it with a vengeance. And a deadly explosion less than a decade later at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in what was then the Soviet Union convinced many nuclear-energy opponents that their fears were warranted. It's only now, 30 years after Three Mile Island, amid concerns about global warming and America's dependence on fossil fuels, that nuclear energy could be getting a second look. "
http://teacher.scholastic.com/schol...features/index.asp?article=f031609_Three_Mile