First, I am pro-nuclear power. I believe that it will be a very safe and clean source of energy in the future. In the past, this has not been the case. I also think that if you're not a environmentalist, then you are suicidal. "environmentalists" is not a derogatory word. It is common sense, not to say essential to care for our environment.

But let's get this straight:

Let me tell you what conclusions I draw from this:
-- Second category: Fine. Well respected nuclear science research and open for international regulations.
-- Third category: Smaller countries with only a few reactors, which they can handle and they're also taking part on the international nuclear research and safety scene. The money and prestige invested in these reactors, will keep them running safely.
-- There's been many many reports from the IAEA of incidents, accidents and breaches of security regulations in this last category. This is to be expected when money is tight and technology and equipment getting older. These countries never made and "cost analysis", however. These reactors are mainly built for 2 reasons: cheap power at any expense and nuclear weapons. Neither is a terribly good reason for building and running a nuclear power plant.

What has this got to do with this node then ? The simple answer is that what the communist regimes were doing in the 60's thru the 80's was nothing but monopoly capitalism. They were of course trying to maximize the net effect of the plants to a minimum cost.

I think my point is that only a fool would defend the running of the old nuclear plants in the world, especially those built by dubious regimes in the 60's. Also, when profit and safety are complementary, I know what will go first. With an operation where such a great deal of the costs consists of safety arrangements, I'm not sure I want it run but General Electric or Micro$oft.