Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I appreciate that most of us have a basic fear of radiation, but like it or not, we are all subject to a daily dose of (environmental) radiation which I understand adds up to around 4 to 5 chest X-rays worth a year. Moreover, some civil airline flight crew are exposed to higher annual doses than the safe levels set for Nuclear Power station staff.

Does that make it any better? No. But it would be wrong to believe that we all currently live in a radiation free zone. We don't, it's all around us and it's a part of everyday life. You just don't see it, feel it, or smell it.

Alternative energy sources are of course welcome, but I think we are some way off from being able to fully rely on them and exclude nuclear as yet. Hence in the short term and until they are proven to provide all the power we need I think they must be considered as supplementary to nuclear.

The situation in Japan is an interesting one since it appears that neither the earthquake nor the tsunami damaged and exposed the inner cores that contain the reactors and the high levels of radiation. So credit should be given to the fundamental engineering construction. Rather, it appears that the earthquake or tsunami knocked out the services required (essentially electricity and subsequently the pumps) to cool the reactors. This then has had the knock on effect of overheating and a build up of pressure which has resulted in a series of explosions and much greater damage than first caused. No doubt there will be a full investigation and what we learn we will apply to future plants.

What to eventually do with the spent fuel rods? Well if I had to choose between storing them somewhere or getting rid of them, then I'd consider launching them out into space. It's already a hostile place and it's also already full of radiation.