I know we are in the business of recycling and reuse, but I make no apology for returning to a subject that has featured in this column on several occasions. I refer of course to my recycled concerns about all things nuclear.

Inevitably, the dreadful events in Japan that have led to so much loss of life and destruction of property and infrastructure are uppermost in my mind. The Fukushima nuclear power station now has an infamy to rank symbolically with the Windscale fire of 1957, the Three Mile Island accident of 1979 and of course Chernobyl in 1986.

The ‘experts’ will argue that the scale of the disaster at Fukushima is nowhere near that of Chernobyl. They may well be right, but that doesn’t make it any less of a cause not just for concern but for a rethink of our government’s infatuation with nuclear power. Nuclear apologists will tell us that it couldn’t happen here, that our planned new generation plants will be safe and that we don’t live on seismically active land like Japan. On the latter point they are right – but the combination of natural forces that left Fukushima out of control only highlights the intrinsic riskiness of nuclear energy once the radiation genie is out of its bottle.

As I write this, the desperation of the Japanese nuclear authorities and Tokyo Electric Power Company (the plant operators) about the rising levels of radiation is such that they are trying to hire special workers prepared to perform plant rescue activities in areas of very high contamination for short bursts. For their ‘bravery’ these special workers are to be paid £3,000 per shift.

It’s an interesting twist on the operation of the free market. How does anyone determine the price – or indeed value – to be attached to such a dangerous and thankless task?

Of course, nothing to do with the market for nuclear power has ever been natural. Our government tells us that new nuclear stations here will be built ‘without any public subsidy’. But they (or rather we taxpayers) will still be underwriting some of the costs of nuclear waste disposal. And, despite proposals to require nuclear operators to pay the first £1 billion in clean up costs after an accident (which is higher than the present £140 million), there are few guarantees about the real costs of a nuclear clean up. Don’t forget, these plants cannot be insured and so this is nearest the operators can get to an insurance policy – underwritten by the state. Even at today’s values, the bill for managing our existing nuclear waste comes to around £1,000 per person, per year.

If that wasn’t enough burden on the taxpayer, the recent budget confirmed reforms that will increase electricity prices over 20 years, in part to pay for nuclear power.

All of this is good reason to support the valiant efforts of Rory Walker of Heysham in Lancashire. Helped by some decent lawyers, he’s on a one-man campaign seeking a judicial review of government’s policy of expanding nuclear power. His assertion is that Secretary of State Chris Huhne did not fulfil his obligations under UK law and the Euratom Directive to ensure that health detriments from nuclear power stations are outweighed by economic, social and other benefits. His concern is about the lasting effects of radiation and his future family, given that he is a young man living near existing and proposed nuclear sites.

When there are real low-carbon alternatives, the idea that we squander another generation’s hard-earned tax monies behind a low carbon mask whilst refusing to acknowledge the true and potentially endless costs associated with nuclear accidents leaves me astounded at the irresponsibility of our political and industrial leaders.

We can only hope that Rory Walker’s judge takes a different view of the risks and costs of nuclear than our ministers have done, and allows a genuine reopening of this debate. Nuclear costs too much, it is too risky and we don’t need it to deliver a low-carbon energy policy. We must see sense.