There is nothing in the article other than one side propaganda and inference. No discussion of the Pros and Cons, no discussion of the NEGATIVE impacts of Coal/Oil and RENEWABLES (solar, wind, batteries, hydro, tidal).

Simply saying 'support me and all my green mates' (see list of over 20 support NGO's in their submission, which I assume this article is trying to promote) is not a useful approach., Try again Pass/Fail - in my book for this effort in terms of arguments. Still well written, but wasted opportunity to make his/her/it/their case.

The author forget to mention a new uranium mine near Wiluna WA, the re-opened Honeymoon SA and the possible mine at Jabiluka NT. Uranium is everywhere there is even a small deposit near Adelaide's Myponga reservoir. I'd worry more about lead, arsenic and copper in the water supply which affects perhaps 20 sites across Australia yet the people somehow carry on.

BHP's Olympic Dam financially supports the Arid Recovery project which aims to preserve endangered animals like the bilby. More to the point their uranium creates about 200 Twh a year of carbon free electricity overseas. SA itself uses 14 Twh a ear of electricity 45% powered by dwindling gas reserves. Yet they crow about their battery that can power the state for 3 minutes on a hot day. Somebody is not seeing the forest for the trees.

Sorry aj, renewables have NO negatives.

Why bother discussing uranium or anything nuclear. Our thick politicians won't countenance it, preferring Chinese made windmills and solar panels, with French battery electric submarines that have been out of date since the first nuclear one.

Ms Pepper writes: "The reality of uranium mining in Australia has been one of leaks, spills, accidents, license breaches and a failure to rehabilitate."

But what happens when you change 'uranium mining' to 'urban development'? The sentence could read something like this:
"The reality of urban development in Australia has been one of broadscale clearing of native vegetation, species extinction, adverse changes to hydrology, draining and filling of wetlands, crime, deaths and serious injuries from motor vehicle crashes, air pollution, domestic violence and a failure to live sustainably."

Every human activity can be described in negative terms if the author is so narrow and biased in their attitudes as to deliberately ignore the positives and only focus on the negatives.

Ms Pepper is described on her LinkedIn site as the 'Nuclear Free Campaigner at Conservation Council WA'. Says it all really.

Spill some uranium (yellowcake) on your shoe and what happens?

SFA!

Spill some sulphuric acid and you may be lucky to get outta those brogues before they dissolve?

Now if you are really concerned about rogue emissions? And extinction? You'd ban all coal-fired power today! Because of the melody of highly toxic materials given off via the smokestacks/ash dumps.

Apart from the CO2 which will in due course if allowed to continue to pollute the atmosphere, will result in guaranteed extinction of all life.

Some of the toxic substances spewed out of coal-fired power stations, include uranium, lead, carcinogenic cadmium, mercury and arsenic. Facked gas always comes with radioactive gas (radon) when burned

Renewables are not as clean and green as presented. Solar voltaic comes with mountains of toxic waste! When used up need to be buried in landfill!

Windmills have a high rate of bird kills some of which are threatened species.

Moreover, need to turn for up to thirty years before they offset the carbon created during their manufacture phase!

MSR thorium, on the other hand, can be burned and reprocessed to be burned again and again! To make just around 1-2% as nuclear waste, which is less toxic, has a half-life of just 300 years, stabilises in around 30, and is eminently suitable as long life space batteries which burn up with reentry! How long have we mined uranium? And coal? During that time, how many fatalities have each caused?

Coal has a dark history that encompasses centuries. Uranium not so much unless you include Hiroshima and Nagasaki! And some of the accidents associated with the extreme pressure of the earliest examples of solid-fueled reactors. Some of which allegedly operated att phenomenal, 300 atmospheres.

Today, the modern versions have gotten it down to 70 atmospheres and MSR, just 29 PSI! There's more pressure in your tyres!

I'm glad the board includes some experts, given the lady is clearly not one of them, but rather a modern-day Luddite obsessing over Skyfall? Needs to talk from much higher up!
Alan B.