its problems not be left to fester. It is in the world's interest to push forward with safe nuclear power-but also to deal properly with its damaging legacy when things go wrong, as they will new nuclear power stations are being constructed in more than a dozen countries. China is working on almost half of the 65 reactors currently being built, and interest in the technology from developing countries. Supporters of the spread of civil nuclear power must acknowledge that some of these countries would be unable to cope alone if faced with a nuclear accident on the scale of Chernobyl Nations, particularly those pushing new nuclear build, must invest in bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, to ensure that new and old reactors around the world are sufficiently safe, and that they are fully prepared for the worst. And politicians and the nuclear industry must revisit their relationship with a sceptical public. Being open and transparent about the uncertain costs of new build in countries such as the united Kingdom would be a start If a public subsidy is required to get them built, then say so. If the industry wants people to believe its assurances that nuclear power is safe, then now is not the time for obfuscation and weasel words, ny aspect of th Governments must also work to present a clear narrative about the health implications of accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima For heroic plant workers exposed to extreme radiation doses - and for those still suffering from Chernobyl,s legacy of thyroid cancer -the risks are all too clear. But it is harder to pin down more subtle health effects. There are hints that low-level exposure can raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, breast cancer and other conditions, consistent with the idea that there is no safe threshold for radiation exposure. To clarify the situation, the world needs studies of large numbers of people exposed to very low doses of radiation-and Chernobyl can provide those. Funding such research is vital for those affected by Chernobyl's radiation, but it should also answer some of the questions over the future of nuclear People legitimately ask whether the low levels of radioactivity now drifting across Japan are safe The current best answer is probably. a better response would be to find out, before another 25 years passits problems not be left to fester. It is in the world's interest to push forward with safe nuclear power — but also to deal properly with its damaging legacy when things go wrong, as they will. Today, new nuclear power stations are being constructed in more than a dozen countries. China alone is working on almost half of the 65 reactors currently being built, and there is growing interest in the technology from developing countries. Supporters of the spread of civil nuclear power must acknowledge that some of these countries would be unable to cope alone if faced with a nuclear accident on the scale of Chernobyl. Nations, particularly those pushing new nuclear build, must invest in bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, to ensure that new and old reactors around the world are sufficiently safe, and that they are fully prepared for the worst. And politicians and the nuclear industry must revisit their relationship with a sceptical public. Being open and transparent about the uncertain costs of new build in countries such as the United Kingdom would be a start. If a public subsidy is required to get them built, then say so. If the industry wants people to believe its assurances that nuclear power is safe, then now is not the time for obfuscation and weasel words, on any aspect of the technology (see page 549). Governments must also work to present a clear narrative about the health implications of accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. For heroic plant workers exposed to extreme radiation doses — and for those still suffering from Chernobyl's legacy of thyroid cancer — the risks are all too clear. But it is harder to pin down more subtle health effects. There are hints that low-level exposure can raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, breast cancer and other conditions, consistent with the idea that there is no safe threshold for radiation exposure. To clarify the situation, the world needs studies of large numbers of people exposed to very low doses of radiation — and Chernobyl can provide those. Funding such research is vital for those affected by Chernobyl's radiation, but it should also answer some of the questions over the future of nuclear power. People legitimately ask whether the low levels of radioactivity now drifting across Japan are safe. The current best answer is 'probably'. A better response would be to find out, before another 25 years pass