The Economist on post-Japan Nukes.

The Economist offers two depressingly bracing insights on the nuclear industry post-Japan. One, it ain't goin' away. All the solar and wind and leftover fossil fuels are just not enough to satisfy our seemingly insatiable demand for energy. And the other, the countries most likely to double down on nukes are those least likely to be able to handle it--the ones without the institutional structure to minimize the likelihood of catastrophe, and to respond to it poorly when it happens. Link.

Background on Radiation Damage

My cousin Dave directs mus to a crisp and succinct briefer on the how and why of radiation damage,   The main takeway is that the Japanese do seem to be making the best of a bad thing, unlike those charged with cleaning up over what is still the worst modern civilian nuclear disaster.Here's a taste:

[S]ome of the emergency workers at Chernobyl received several sieverts of radiation, and many were working "basically naked" due to the heat, allowing contaminated powder to be absorbed through their skin. In comparison, the Japanese workers are most likely very well-equipped and protected at least from direct skin doses.

Also:

The thousands of children who became sick in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster were not harmed from direct radiation or even from inhalation of radioactive particles, but from drinking milk contaminated with cesium 137. The isotope, released by the Chernobyl explosion, had contaminated the grass on which cows fed, and the radioactive substance accumulated in cows' milk. Parents, unaware of the danger, served contaminated milk to their children. "Certainly this will not happen in Japan," [a commenter] says.

Who'll Pay for Japan?

Anupam, watching Fox, is intrigued by a report on General Electric's potential liability for the Japan meltdown.  The number is: zero, nada, bubkas, zilch--apparently there is some sort of "channeling agreement," designed to ditch the cost onto Japanese taxpayers.  The market doesn't seem to be impressed.  Hard to know what an honest paranoid is supposed to think about this.  Is it new evidence of (political/economic) power in the  corporate megalith?  Or is it Fox trying to spin the stock out of the doldrums?

Meanwhile,Ritholtz has an instructive piece up on reinsurers, how much and what?  Weirdly, the news may not be all bad: catastrophic losses may mean they won't have to lower their premiums.