Of course its a charade, just like every other pretence at democracy to come out of Howard government. Between balancing the interests/payolla of Rio Tinto, Lord Ashcroft, Emperor Bush II and Alan Jones, who's got time to even listen to the views Australians in this nonelection year.

Howard has already been told to ramp up uranium mining and go for enrichment, the 'national debate' is just to get our complicity in genocide in Iraq, oil prices, the rolling of Alkatiri, and the terrorism kangaroo courts off the front pages. Watch the birdy, children..

Richard's Bronowski's article is a very thorough dissection of the propaganda now being pushed to us all by the Bush and Howard governments and the uranium mining interests. It's hard to believe that Howard would start all this, just as a ploy to split the Labor party. (Especially as they do such a good job of that by themselves, usually). I really thought that it was just a greedy push by Howard's mining backers to make heaps of money not out of nuclear reactors here, but out of selling uranium, and then even more heaps by Australia taking in international nuclear wastes. Bronowski's article is a sobering and convincing argument. But will Australians just ignore this, seeing only the dollar signs for their investments?
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Thank you Richard for that excellent contribution. We had a public call here on the Central Coast from the Liberal federal MP Ken Ticehurst (Dobell) (14/3) who wanted to hear from the Central Coast residents what they thought about the "new debate" and nuclear power etc. That was 14 days ago but my letter to the Express Advocate, a major local paper, has not appeared as yet. The gist of my argument is that the best way to deal with uranium ore is to leave it in the ground, given that it is not an good alternative to power needs, cannot be checked properly once it leaves our shores, is definitely a security risk and, given Australia's geological instability, cannot be safely buried here. Those with the dollar signs in their eyes, the PM' constituents and his US friends, as well as the stacked Committee of Inquiry, have commercial aims and will endeavour to confuse the truth. Mr. Ticehurst specifically referred to "the government's experts", when making his call, who would provide objective background material if required. What I am getting at is that, given the complex nature of the argument, an attempt is being made here deceive the public. I know that your sister Helen Caldicott lives here. Could you or Helen or both answer Mr. Ticehurst as well please? I can provide the text of his (and my letter) if required. The email of the Express Advocate is coastnews@cumberlandnewspapers.com.au.

Klaas Woldring

I was wondrously deceived. Professor Brionowski in his opening paragraphs appeared to be advocating an expansion of nuclear energy. Alas no way, as we read on he reiterates the anti-nuclear propaganda of the extreme left. Arguments that could well come out of the pages of say “Greenleft Weekly.” Of course one must acknowledge Professor Brionowski’s deep knowledge and scholarship in the field of international relationships. Clearly, there are other and more plausible interpretations of international affairs and of the role played by Australia.

I hazard a guess that only very small percentages of Australians are motivated by a hatred and distrust of America and American foreign policy. Over a long period there are few sharp brakes in either American or Australian foreign policy even if the government is succeeded by a rival party.

Many of would say that one of the great achievements of Prime Minister Howard is his strengthening of the Australian-American Alliance, and his reported empathy with President Bush. I know the left does not like it, but it is none the less a fact.

As for Australian uranium being used to make weapons or fall into terrorist hands yes this may be possible. So what, there is enough nuclear material about, so as to make any Australian contribution negligible. By the way it is not easy to manufacture bombs. It is expensive in money, energy and time to enrich uranium to the level required. Fissile Pu-239 is probable best prepared in a purpose built research reactor. Plutonium from power reactors (because of long refuelling intervals) will be a contaminated with Pu-240 and other unwanted radio-nuclides. It would seem from the history of the Manhattan project to manufacture a plutonium weapon requires considerable expertise and resources.
Some counties such as Libya and S.Africa have already given it away. Iran always appears to be some years in to the future. North Korea is alleged to have a bomb or two, the question is, is it doing her any good? Do the N. Korean bombs actually work?

Much of what the article says is possibly valid though some points have been rebutted elsewhere. However as far as global warming and the nuclear fuel cycle is concerned we are already in it up to our ears. Australia both contributes disproportionately to GW through coal exports and to overseas nuclear industry through yellowcake. SA and NT have thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars of State revenue through uranium mining. Given the reality of the situation Australia's role as a major supplier should be to help set standards. For example the spent nuclear fuel could be buried next to the mine. If the corresponding amount of material isn't checked back in that customer gets blacklisted.

Within a few years it will become clear that squeaky clean energy sources won't be enough; compared to coal nuclear is the lesser of two evils.

Professor Brionowski is another of the worried group who do not want an informed debate about Uranium and its mining, enrichment and uses because they could never accept any result other than the "leave it in the ground" outcome. So, their arguments are never really about the subject itself but always about potential risks and conspiracy theories which they exaggerate out of all proportion.

Whenever a left group tries to paint an issue as being too dangerous to contemplete examining in a calm and scientific way, you (ie normal people) know you are on a winner. That is, the group knows they are on thin ice and want to shut down any sane discussion before it starts.

Fortunately the majority of people are not on the extreme left and are quite comfortable with supporting a rational, scientific dabate and examining the result.