Coincidentally Standard & Poors (S&P), the American rating agency, recently announced its support of nuclear power as a means to combat climate change.  

For many, S&P is the indicator of good business.  Later in the press release, it mentions that the Russian state is very supportive of the development of nuclear power for its country, mentioning its low cost.  It turns out this is attributable in large part to the fact that nuclear liabilities had only been recorded since 2011 by the Russian state.  Nuclear liabilities in the UK have reached a record £124 billion, although the actual cost is probably closer to £232 billion³.

Russia may have a conflict of interest with its huge reserves of fossil fuels.  It says that nuclear emits no greenhouse gases, a perfect counterfoil to its fossil fuel driven economy.  We know that the carbon footprint of the concrete required for nuclear power offsets the benefit of any carbon saving from the power plant.  A more sinister fact is that nuclear power plants emit other far more dangerous gases than carbon dioxide or methane.  Nuclear plants emit radioactive isotopes that cause serious harm.  This is being felt now in the area in the south of the Belarussian Republic, where radioactive chemicals fell from the seeded clouds created to keep the radioactive plume from Chernobyl from reaching Moscow.  Thirty children there have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, a highly unusual disease in children, 1 in 1 million odds.