The most recent issue of The Economist features an article describing the finding of the Chernobyl Forum, “a group of several hundred scientists, economists and health experts supported by the three governments involved�those of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.”Broadly speaking, these experts conclude that the long-term effects of the disaster are significantly less severe than was initially feared: “…although tens of thousands of deaths have not materialised, it does predict that 4,000 people will eventually die from cancer attributable to exposure from radiation leaked from the plant. But while that sounds a lot, it would represent an increase of only about 3% in the number of cancer-related deaths among the 600,000 emergency workers, evacuees and residents of contaminated areas originally identified as being at risk. That is because about a quarter of these people would be expected to die from cancer even had they not been exposed to Chernobyl’s radiation.”In fact, the real damage to health is apparently more psychological than physical:”Perhaps the true tragedy of Chernobyl is that the biggest observable health impact so far has been on the mental health of the millions who have been told they are at risk. Many of these people received radiation doses no larger than they would get on a holiday in a place such as Denver, where the altitude increases exposure to cosmic rays, yet they have spent their lives anticipating illness and incapacity, and this has translated into such undesirable behaviours as drug abuse and long-term dependency on the state.”I wonder whether it’s entirely fortuitous that a report telling us that Chernobyl was not as bad as we thought it would be is being given prominence just now. After all, the accident in 1986 virtually killed off the nuclear industry in the West–for example, part of the platform for the German Greens, who joined government in the late 90s, was to end the use of nuclear energy as a power source.Now, with the gloomy prophecies of “peak oil” pundits entering the mainstream media thanks to crude oil prices hovering in the $60-70 region, people are once again mentioning the once-taboo “N” word in polite conversation.This time things will be different is the promise. One of the great hopes for the nuclear industry–aside from the holy grail of achieving waste-free nuclear fusion–lies in the adoption of the here-and-now technology of pebble-bed reactors. This time last year, Wired magazine ran a very good (if typically starry-eyed) piece on how China is embracing this supposedly meltdown-proof reactor technology. (What’s the Chinese ideogram for hubris?) But the twin prongs of high prices and climate change are even driving talk of a nuclear renaissance in Europe. For example, Finland has just commissioned the first nuclear reactor in the western world since the disaster. (According to this Australian site, “At 1,600 megawatts, it will have the biggest electrical output of any reactor � enough to power Tasmania.”)There’s even been some speculation that Ireland will eventually have to consider taking the nuclear option. David McWilliams in his column in last Sunday’s Sunday Business Post argues that “In 2020, there is every possibility that we will be a nuclear state and, if not, we will definitely be importing nuclear energy from elsewhere.”I have to say that McWilliams seems very optimistic with his time scale. Given that it has taken over 30 years to finish a pretty crappy ring road around the capital, the planning quagmire that a proposed nuke reactor would prompt would probably drag on for at least a decade.More painfully, in a country where a light-rail system, the LUAS, which is marginally longer than the monorail in Disneyworld, comes in at $1 billion, can you imagine the hideous economics of going nuclear?