The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australia’s nuclear future > Comments

Australia’s nuclear future : Comments

By Helen Caldicott, published 2/8/2007

Australia is in grave danger. The Labor party has joined the Coalition in its open-slather uranium mine policy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 26
  7. 27
  8. 28
  9. All
Once again, Dr. Helen Caldicott has spelt out for us the facts that the Howard government and the nuclear lobby really don't want us to understand.
Amidst the smoke and mirrors of their occasional mention of the wonderful GNEP (Grandiose, Nonsense,Exaggeration, and Propaganda), the facts on the dangers, the costs, and the deceptions of the government's plans are made clear for us.

It was the work of Dr. Caldicott which led to the public's awareness of the hazards of radiation from the French nuclear testing - way back. Who would have thought that she would be needed so much again. in this time of the so-called "nuclear renaissance"?

As all the facts emerge, (even with the US government subsidising nuclear as a "renewable" technology) there is already a groundswell of world opinion against this toxic technology.

People can understand what Dr. Caldicott says, - it's so much clearer than the Ziggy Switkowski jargon and half-truths.

The nuclear lobby fears a "stillbirth", rather than a "renaissance" - and with good reason - as the only real justification for nuclear is for weapons, - and the nuclear lobby's time is running out. With the world's 441 reactors ageing, there is no interest from investors in new ones. Hence the frenzy of the nuclear lobby and their political puppets - to try and distract us all from the 21st century wave of truly renewable energy souces.
Posted by ChristinaMac, Thursday, 2 August 2007 9:48:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I'd like is for the Liberal party to follow what's supposed to be its policy - a free market.

Let's remove all subsidies from all power generators. No subsidies for coal, oil, gas, solar, wind or nuclear. Oh and those limited liability laws the nuclear industry gets the US and France etc to pass in their parliaments? None of them, either - that's another subsidy, subsidising their insurance premiums.

Then let's have them all compete in the free market, and see which wins. I've a funny feeling that it won't be nuclear. Not one nuclear power plant has ever been built entirely with private capital, or without limited liability laws. Funny how coal and solar and everything else can often do it with private money only, and don't require limited liability laws.
Posted by Kyle Aaron, Thursday, 2 August 2007 10:01:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not so long ago that a Liberal PM, John Gorton, took the opportunity to develop a site in NSW for a nuclear power plant to produce nuclear weapons. Fortunately the incoming Liberal PM, Billy McMahon, who rightly thought the whole concept was nutty, scotched the idea.

Being a dyed in the wool chicken hawk, John Howard has revived the idea of the Oz Nuke Bomb and as a pay-off to George Bush for hoped nuke support, he will make Oz the nuclear waste dump of the world. That is fortunate for the US who can't dispose of it safely despite over sixty years of trying.

There is nothing new for Mr Howard and he cannot learn from the past. If he could, he might remember the conservative governments that welcomed the Brits to test nuclear weapons in Oz. It was done gratis and all in the hope that the Poms would give nuke secrets to the aussies. Kids as far away as Brisbane all got a dose of radioactivity from the tests.

Of course the Poms never handed over any secrets but they did get to leave their rubbish behind - the nuclear waste is in pits and mounds with a light dressing of soil for the wind to blow around.

We lost our sons fighting their wars and we took their rubbish. All for what? Again with Mr Bush, our sons are at risk on his behalf and we are also bending over backwards to take his dumpsters of waste. All for what?

I sense that the inheritance of nuke waste pits that Mr Howard would leave for future generations will be huge, very long-lasting and very poisonous.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 2 August 2007 11:10:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A geologically unstable region! I had no idea that Helen Caldicott achieved a doctorate in geology, I assumed it was in witchcraft and deception both of which are sprinkled liberally in this article. Serieously though, the author really should stick to commentary about warts and appendicitis which are her stock in trade.

I am equally disappointed to see that one of her disciples has cast aside Australia’s pre-eminent nuclear physicist ( perhaps the author thinks physician and physicist are the same) by writing ‘People can understand what Dr. Caldicott says, - it's so much clearer than the Ziggy Switkowski jargon and half-truths.’

Sadly it was another barely sapient leader of our people, Pauline Hanson who ‘only said what people think’.

The article and the comments do nothing to add to the debate they simply dress up their own argument in a cloak of insincerity. Shame.
Posted by Nigel from Jerrabomberra, Thursday, 2 August 2007 1:00:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Helen Caldicott can hardly be considered insincere given her exhaustive involvement in educating people all over the world of the hazardous and expensive nature of the Nuclear Industry that in the short term will enrich the mining industrialists whose prime concern is deriving a profit out of the Uranium.

As a Harvard professor of Pediatrics she was also a bit more than a 'warts & appendics' practicioner before she embarked on warning the world of the dangers of the Nuclear Industry.

I recall hearing her speak in the 80's when we in the N.T. opposed the mining and export of Uranium but capitulated in the face of a back-down by our National Union leadership who were concerned at the prospects of massive fines under secondary boycotts and the Trade Practices act.

One fact that I cannot dismiss is the matter of a retrospective study on the deaths of some 29 ex miners from the Rum Jungle Uranium mine who succumed to cancer.

Keep up the good work Dr Caldicott, we do need plain language facts before us in preference to the well paid mouthpieces for the Nuclear lobby ,particularly at a time when safer alternatives have not been seriously promoted.
Posted by maracas, Thursday, 2 August 2007 1:31:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS NUCLEAR BOMBS PLEASE

Are we to be the white trash of Asia without the ability to defend ourselve against the growing number of nuclear armed countries in our region?

Does Caldicott descend from the fully nuclearised country of her own choosing (America) to tell us we can't have more than one test reactor (Lucas Heights)?

Is she part of a US campaign to deny Australia independent defences?

It may take 15 years for an Australian nuclear weapons capability - should we just keep on waiting like nice little (but shot dead) Gandhis?

If we listen to Helen of America we'll always be dependent on America - wherever America wants to send our troops.

As suggested in my blog Australia has the right to defend itself with its own indigenous nuclear weapons http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2007/06/australia-to-go-nuclear.html.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 2 August 2007 1:58:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr. Helen Caldicott’s anti-nuclear fantasy is well known. Many times in the past she has referred to the element plutonium. She now writes. “(Less than one millionth of a gram of plutonium is carcinogenic and it has a half life of 24,000 years - radioactive for 500,000 years.)

Lots of different materials are more potent cancer inducers then Pu.

Perhaps the good physician can explain the following:

1. According to Prof Jaworowski one time chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on effects of atomic radiation and chairman of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. 2.8 tons of Pu-239 was released into the atmosphere as result of atomic atmospheric bomb testing. (International Herald Tribune December 24 1996 letter).

2. Voelz and colleagues have followed up for 50 years the medical history of 26 heavily contaminated Pu workers from the Manhattan Project. Medical examinations were carried out every 5 years. Estimates of activity in Bq and effective dose are published. 19 were alive after 50 years. 7 deaths 3 due to cancers (lung, prostate and bone). Standard mortality rate compared to USA white males is low 0.43. The overall cancer incidence in this small group was not elevated. (Health Physics 1997; 73; 611).

3. A British study of 14,319 Pu workers at Sellafield.
“For no cancer site was there a significant excess of cancer registrations compared with rates for England and Wales.” (Brit J Cancer 1999; 79:1288).

4. A study of 15,727 workers employed with the Manhattan project (Los Alamos).
“The results indicate that overall mortality among this cohort was quite low, even after 30 y follow up. No cause of death was significantly elevated among plutonium-exposed workers compared with their unexposed cowowkers.” (Health Physics 1994; 67:577).

Perhaps our learned physician would care to rank some of the known cancer inducers: Cigarettes, alcohol, Certain infective agents (EBV, Hep B, Hep C, Papilloma Virus, H.pylori etc.) Influence of diet, certain chemicals with infinite or long half lives i.e. asbestos, arsenic, benzene, dioxin, DDT etc.
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 2 August 2007 2:43:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This woman is a liar and a deceiver!

There is one type of proposed reactor that has a sodium blanket but there are many others that don't.

Nuclear power can be as safe as we wish to make it.

People who stand against nuclear power are anti-human genocidalists!
Posted by Jellyback, Thursday, 2 August 2007 2:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The great thing is that we'll know within a decade or two whether the other low carbon alternatives actually work; I'm talking clean coal, baseload solar thermal, hot rocks geothermal and so on. I've got a horrible feeling we'll be tightening our energy belts to breaking point while China, France & co. seem to do OK on Aussie uranium. Even after a national Carbon Cops workover I think we will probably need around 20 gigawatts of continuously available electric power. Note that we will probably also be driving mains charged plugin hybrid cars before long due to liquid fuel shortages. If this can be done long term without nuclear or squandering our gas reserves UK style then that's great. Let's just see what happens.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 2 August 2007 3:27:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plantagenet said: "Australia has the right to defend itself with its own indigenous nuclear weapons."

So much for nuclear non-proliferation. That will really endear us with other countries in the region and in the world.

Can you give a scenario where having the bomb will help Australia? Iraq? Against terrorism? Against anyone who steps on our shores? To nuke refugees?

Tell us too where and at what cost bunkers and command posts will be built for our politicians and military brass who think they ought be saved (above us) when the big bangs happen.

The bluff of being able to wipe out half of humanity is not much value when others will immediately retaliate to do the same.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 2 August 2007 6:06:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course we'd only use nuclear weapons in self-defence. Remember, it's the Ministry of Defence, not the Ministry of War.

Everyone only wants them for self-defence. Really. Honest. We want to spend billions of dollars and never use them!
Posted by Kyle Aaron, Thursday, 2 August 2007 7:06:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes I agree

Nuclear weapons are a coward's weapon.

If some one wants to fight they should do it one on one- with an equal and willing opponent.

But nuclear weapon's kill from a distance and as well kill many innocent bystanders.
Posted by Jellyback, Thursday, 2 August 2007 8:55:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Pollyanasses

Why does Australia need a nuclear weapons capability within the NEXT 20 Years?

Because China and India already have nuclear weapons (haven't you heard?) http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

They are building Navies with the capability to project power as far as Australia. They will be starving for energy (coal and uranium) within 15 years because their main competitors, the Yanks and the Russians, are cornering the oil market. Have you heard of Iraq or Siberian oil?

Australia and Japan are hoping, just hoping, that Uncle Sam will deliver Middle East oil for our little defence countries.

This may or may not encroach into blinkered PRESENT THREAT imaginations but like Curtin you have to think ahead.

If anyone thinks that a poorly armed Australia is the best defence, thank Christ they'll never need to defend it.

More likely they'll have the mentality of too many "peace in our time" New Zealanders who:

- are protected by the American nuclear umbrella
- are protected by Australia
- and are oblivious to the fact that New Zealand is quietly an essential part and beneficiary of the UKUSA intelligence sharing agreement. The New Zealand Government has been playing two games - realistically working with its allies - and conning little peace hobbits.

Feel safe, green and righteous.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 3 August 2007 12:01:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh sure - Helen Caldicott is just a silly old woman, who can't help overdramatising everything - right? WRONG!

In fact, Dr Caldicott is being quite restrained. Why? Because the truth is something that would beggar your imagination. The reality is that the nuclear cowboys have created a mess so great, that in order to justify what they have done, the only thing they can do is to keep on "failing forward" (a popular saying amongst the Pentagon Neo-Cons). Maybe they are gambling that a "nuclear surge" will somehow overcome past realities, in the manner of the Iraq invasion. In this, they are both self-deluding and self-serving, with shocking implications for our grandkids.

But hey, it's all about turning a dollar - right? Someone has to do it. It's not easy being a Captain Of Industry. Remember that, you freeloaders!

Reality check. Let's take a look at what this actually entails. Let's see who the freeloaders really are.

Begin with the Hanford site, which is the American nuclear Stonehenge:

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/31/AR2006103101109.html

DoE website:
http://www.hanford.gov/communication/video/?video=archives

Thyroid disease management at Hanford:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hanford/health_care/video_presentations.html

Cheer up and look on the bright side:
http://www.archive.org/details/acc300

There is only one thing I am absolutely sure of. Neither Ziggy Switkowsky, nor Ron Walker, nor Hugh Morgan, nor Robert Champion de Crespigny, nor John Howard nor their children or grandchildren, will be within coo-ee of the Australian nuclear mess, when it's time to clean up the great malfunction. They will be far away, living off the proceeds.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Friday, 3 August 2007 1:03:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think I'll mention this again, in case you were too lazy to click onto the links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/31/AR2006103101109.html

---

Quote:

Now in its 17th year, the nation's largest and most complex environmental remediation project is costing many billions of dollars more than expected and will continue far longer than experts once predicted.

By almost every measure, except the radiation and chemical illnesses suffered by some Hanford workers, five decades of making bombs were a blessing to Pasco, Kennewick and Richland....

....cleaning up Hanford's colossal nuclear mess is proving more lucrative -- for the locals -- than making it in the first place.

"I think the cleanup will last a hundred years," she says.

The plant has already cost $3.4 billion but has yet to process a single gallon of the 53 million gallons of deadly high-level waste stored in 177 underground tanks.

---

Mr Costello must be rubbing his hands together with anticipation, because according to the modern methods of national accounting, all of the above is only serving to enhance the GDP of the good old USA. Geez, I just can't wait to hop onto the gravy train myself.

Bring it on!
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Friday, 3 August 2007 1:36:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Ugly "Truths" from Nuclear Experts, Ping Pong Champions, Twiddle Knobs and Other Fairy Bells.

1. 10/1976 (Source West Australian)

Dr Sabine, a NSW physicist at a WA Nuclear Emergency Seminar, pushes for uranium mining and enrichment in Australia and a "nuclear garbage dump" about 1600kms west of Alice Springs. He said: "The waste had to be capable of being buried and forgotten about because society could not monitor it for thousands of years."

2. 12/1976 (Kalgoorlie Miner)

A letter from Graeme Campbell, stating in the strongest possible terms, his opposition to the nuclear industry and the proposed use of the outback as a nuclear dumping ground. "It worries me and I tremble for my children," he said.

3. 02/1987 (Source Hansard, Nuke Science and Tech Bill)

Graeme Campbell, now Federal member for Kalgoorlie and no longer trembling for his children says "The nuclear processing and reprocessing industry would provide us with an income of a couple of billion dollars a year.

"I wonder how long we can go on pandering to the ill-informed, greedy, selfish, short sighted environmentalists and ignore this piece of economic salvation staring us in the face. As for Chernobyl, this was going to be the big one the environmentalists had all been waiting for . According to my research, no more than 4 people will get additional cancers."

4. 10/12/1985 (West Australian)

Perth millionaire, Bob Oliver believes it is feasible to create a huge inland sea on the Nullabor Plain by blasting a canal using controlled nuclear explosions, through from the Southern Ocean.

5. 11/12/1985 (West Australian)

Perth Millionaire's vision of changing Australia's climate by creating an inland sea on the Nullabor Plains has sadly evaporated. As it was pointed out, none of the Nullarbor is below sea level!

6. 30/10/1986 (Kalgoorlie Miner)

Sir Ernest Titterton at a UWA Physics Seminar said "all the nuclear waste in the world could be safely stored down an old mine shaft at Kalgoorlie."

NB: Mine blasts occur daily, cracking residents walls and ceilings and other seismological disturbances occur measuring up to 4.2 magnitude.

contd...
Posted by dickie, Friday, 3 August 2007 1:14:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not in favor of any long term radio-active waste storage.

If its radioactive then it is fuel and the nuclear fuel cycle can be constructed such that all waste is reprocessed.

Of course that requires a fast breeder reactor and a thorium fuel cycle but eventually we will be getting our nuclear fuel from the oceans and over time lowering the background radiation level.

For me its about design , science and responsibility.

Without a world wide nuclear renaissance 3/4 or more of the worlds population will be condemned to live in poverty for ever.

Unless of course the Malthusians get their wet dream of depopulation to come true.
Posted by Jellyback, Friday, 3 August 2007 3:42:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> If its radioactive then it is fuel and the nuclear fuel
> cycle can be constructed such that all waste is reprocessed.

Anti-nuclear activists will fight reprocessing and the Thorium cycle bitterly. Using Plutonium as driver fuel? Burning up of the long lasting actinides? A ten-fold reduction of radioactivity in the waste products after 100 years, and a 10,000 fold reduction after 500 years?

Logic does not trump faith and their belief system cannot accommodate a modern nuclear fuel cycle. They don't care that coal fired plants release much more radioactivity into the environment that any nuclear plant. This is just heretical talk. Solution is for us to revert back to the bush and an imagined past where we were at harmony with Gaia
Posted by john frum, Saturday, 4 August 2007 3:53:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A word about Hanford:
Firstly the contamination problem at Hanford as at the Mayak site in the old Soviet Union has no relevance to a civil nuclear energy program.

The Hanford Engineering Works began in March 1943. The DuPont Company started to build the reactor called “pile” in those days. Testing started in July1944 and charged with the first uranium slugs on 26 September 1944.

The first reactor supplies of Plutonium date from November 1944. This was the plutonium source for the Nagasaki bomb.

The site was active for about 25 years some 8 reactors were built in all. The average life span of the reactors was about 22 years. In addition a chemical separation plat was built.

During the active operation of the reactors much was learnt about safe reactor operation, cooling etc. Much too has been learnt about cleanup operations and the movement of radio-nuclides in to the environment.
Source Wikipedia)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A number of radionuclides were released during operation of site estimated as including 26 PBq of iodine-131. This raised considerable concern in local residence in respect to thyroid disease. Releases occurred from 1944 through to 1972. Dosimetry on 3440 persons born between 1940-6 was estimated (Health physics 2004; 87:15-32). Although there must be uncertainty in estimates the range is given as 0.0029 mGy to 2823 mGy. with mean and median of 174 and 97 mGy.
To be continued.
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 4 August 2007 11:03:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hanford continued.

Davis et al (JAMA 2004; 292: 2600-2613) studied a total of 5199 persons divided into 9 cohorts on basis of geographical regions surrounding the Hanford plant. It was possible to locate 4877 of the subjects (4350 alive; 527 had died). Diagnosis was based on clinical examination, ultrasound and if appropriate fine needle biopsy. Subjects were young children at time of peak exposure namely: in 1945-1946. More then 60% were born between 1943and 1945. Essentially there was no significant statistical association between estimated thyroid dose and thyroid disease. Perhaps because the cumulated dose was received over a long time period.

A parallel study in this group showed no evidence of increased risk of hyperparathyroidism. (J clin endo metab 2005; 90:9545).

“Updated analysis of mortality of workers at the Hanford site provided little evidence of a positive correlation of cumulative occupational radiation dose and mortality from leukaemia and from all cancers except leukaemia.” (Gilbert ES et al Health Physics 1996; 64: 577). I have only read the abstract of the Gilbert paper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…
Lessons to be learnt:
1. Low level exposure below 50-100 mSv is not as deadly as is made out by Dr. Caldicott and her friends.
2. Many useful lessons on plant operation and storage have been learnt since those early days.
3. The proposal is for civil not military applications of nuclear technology.
4. Nobody can possible know for certain the future in terms of military application. However, Australia has stringent safeguards in place.
5. An Australian civil industry in my opinion is not a threat to world peace.
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 4 August 2007 11:04:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank God we have Dr Caldicot!

"Australia has stringent safeguards in place."

Anti-green, what evidence do you have to support the above claim?

Mt Walton, near Coolgardie WA, is a site for intractable hazardous waste, including low level radioactive waste.

Visitors to the site have advised that the site is un-manned. Interred at the site, in shallow graves, is plutonium 239. At what level would you deem Pu239 to be benign?

Contrary to your claim, I advise that regulatory agencies for hazardous waste in this country have an abominable record for protecting citizens.

The uranium industry's record for "safety" is of much concern and Lucas Heights does not have an exemplary record.

Many catastrophic releases of hazardous waste are only brought to citizens' attention by citizens, whilst governments and their environment agencies duck for cover as they are now doing during yet another WA parliamentary enquiry.

Recommendations from previous Parliamentary Enquiries, resulting from catastrophic environmental disasters, have been completely ignored by governments and their regulatory agencies.

Releases of these hazards over communities are insidious. As with radioactive releases, you cannot see them, taste them, smell them or hear them, therefore citizens remain asleep at the wheel.

The planet is now seriously contaminated from military and civil radioactive waste, resulting in untold misery.

Despite the US having the largest number of nuclear reactors on the planet, they remain the largest polluters on the globe.

The project for a repository site in the Yucca Mountains, Nevada, reveals that despite the billions of dollars expended to date, the site may already be incapable of interring the current radioactive waste strewn around America.

Do the Bush and Howard Reich have other plans to inter America's radioactive waste?

Will Hiroshima John and his Calabrian choirboys allow for a referendum on the advent of nuclear power in Australia?

Will Dad's Army, led by St. Kev, allow for a referendum?

Will the proposed nuclear waste dump be restricted to Australia's radioactive waste?

Will the federal government refrain from interfering with state policies on the mining of uranium?

"Don't be naive. It's the (he hem) 'environment' stoopid!"
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 4 August 2007 3:53:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

As usual the discution turn into a dance around the bitter tree

the anti get into the " woes and ashes " circus ,
the pro get into the " those anti-sciences witches hunters " mood

there is not going to be any choices
all australian uranium is going to go oversea to a power hungry world
here the green movement has stood steadfastly beside the coal industry
never ever raising the small matter of Australia being the biggest coal exporter in the world ,
we are equal in economic importance to Saudi Arabia and pretty much equal in political influence ...zilch !!
we are in fact the carbon dealer of a carbon addicted world ,
wasting time talking about the " Evil " of the atom while the clock is ticking on the depletion bomb

.
Posted by randwick, Sunday, 5 August 2007 2:46:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Caldicott has shown again that she can raise issues that the nuclear lobby + Liberal-Labor really just don't want raised. And - a spirited debate ensues.
And once again - as happened back in the 80s Dr. Caldicott attracts the same sort of flak from people who just can't answer her arguments.

I read with amusement of Dr Caldicott's " witchcraft and deception” and how "s she should stick to commentary about warts and appendicitis". And, Nigel who made these comments, goes on to confuse things.

Apparently, if someone speaks clearly and can be understood by others, then Nigel thinks they must be speaking with Pauline Hanson-like ignorance. On the contrary. It is because Dr. Caldicott knows her subject, that she is able to speak with clarity.

To give Dr. Ziggy Switkowski his due, it also because he knows his subject, that he does not speak with such clarity. Because Switkowski knows that nuclear power is unreasonably expensive (especially for the tax-payer), and very dangerous, and a poor investment risk - Switkowski glides over these areas with a degree of unclear doublespeak.

I am also fascinated at the double standards here - Nigel has sneered at Dr. Caldicott because she hasn't got a doctorate in geology. Why are we all not sneering at Ziggy Switkowsi for not having a doctorate in ecology, economics, health etc - while he pronounces on the virtues of nuclear power? Also, let's not forget - Ziggy is paid to spruik for that nuclear industry which is now in danger of closing down.

Anti-green’s comment recalls the good old days, when Dr. Caldicott was insulted as a “silly emotional woman” – unable to answer Dr. Caldicott’s argument – well – you just say “This woman is a liar and a deceiver!”

Now, who really does sound emotional and ignorant?
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Posted by ChristinaMac, Monday, 6 August 2007 12:57:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christine,

The phrase “This woman is a liar and a deceiver!”
is not from my post.
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 6 August 2007 2:18:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How pathetic all we get is the veiws from these people making their own agenda.
Just like labor in NSW with their desalination plant, for the people NA.

Water takes and capture at homes also solar.
Dont worry we will spend billions to solve this problem when the problem can be reduced by spending and creating grants,loans to power our rooftops.

This will also provide jobs and help reduce our inpact.
It will not stop the changing climate as this happens but to be able to have smaller electricity bills or none and to be able to say ,now i really can do my bit.

States dont want solar they will lose money.
but then again since when does the states concern themselves about money.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton
Posted by tapp, Monday, 6 August 2007 3:11:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry - anti-green I misread the thing - it was Jellyback who wrote those silly insulting things about
Dr Caldicott.
Without attempting to answer your attempts to minimise the health dangers of radioactivity, I would like to still make a couple of points about your argument.

1.the fact that cigarettes, dioxin, asbestos and so on are all very unhealthy does not make ionising radiation healthy.

Other people than Dr. Caldicott have battled, with some considerable success, to have these products banned.
Dr. Caldicott has the courage to take on an equally unhealthy product,nuclear radiation at a time when it is being portrayed as "clean and green"

2. If nuclear power is so safe and so OK, why are such huge precautions being taken everywhere by the nuclear industry itself? If we are truly interested in clean energy, with no hazards to health or to increase global warming - then wind, solar etc look like clear winners. And - what's more, technologies which, along with energy efficiency, have investors ready and eager to go (which is more than can be said for nuclear)
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Posted by ChristinaMac, Monday, 6 August 2007 4:58:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

some people have those spooky ideas about radioactivity ,
Wake up there is radioactivity everywhere , it's NATURAL
it's like some Midwest housewife of the fifties freaking about GERMS !
there is radioactivity everywhere on earth , and radiations everywhere in space too , the sun is radioactive , you want to switch it off ?
so what exactly is your phobia ?
smoke detectors , concrete buildings , modern medicine ,Tasmanian granite , people have radioactive potassium in them
look at your hand it's irradiating you

.
Posted by randwick, Monday, 6 August 2007 5:50:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RANDWICK

So i take it you are quite happy to have it in your backyard.
The waste can go in your backyard as well.

Energy will be able to be created elsewhere and safetly but looking at least another 10 years.

So what is the problem with free energy on our own homes.
Viable,safe and will provide jobs, or is that the problem.

Reliance of the people to better provide for themselves seems to be the problem with some.
Big people stomping on the little person to keep them in place.
So if Labor gets in who will be running our power industry, which ex premier and the same with liberals.

Its about time some of you spat it out and say what you mean, instead of hidding behind the party crap.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton
Posted by tapp, Monday, 6 August 2007 6:58:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christine

You must quantify the risk and if you read the (and of course believe) the medical and scientific literature. You will find that the risk coefficients for all cancers as given by ICRP 60, indicate a very small risk for exposures below say 50-100 mSv per year.

You will also find that the risk decrease for low dose rates. That is, if the dose is given over a period of weeks or months rather then as a “blast.”

The small increments of risk at low dose means that epidemiological studies lack the sensitivity to detect the excess risk, or else the findings are inconsistent.

Another thing if you are making several comparisons such as looking for several different types of cancer or in multiple types of questionnaires you can expect 1 in 20 answers to be positive on say a “T test.” This is on the basis of chance alone. Hence you need to adjust the critical level downwards.

If the "alpha" level is set at the conventional 0.05 and you make 4 comparisons the probability of one or more significant results is 0.2. A simple correction would be to set the rate of a type 1 error at 0.05/4 = 0.0125 for each test. There are several alternatively procedures known to statisticians.

I have had no formal training in statistical methods but you can find a reasonable simple explanation in “Basic & Clinical Biostatistics 2nd Ed. By Beth Dawson –Saunders and Robert Trapp . 1994 Appleton and Lange.
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 6 August 2007 7:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Wake up, there's radioactivity everywhere. It's NATURAL."

What are you trying to say, randwick?

Lead is everywhere too. So is arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury etc. Are you happy to be exposed to those NATURAL metals?

Like radionuclides, they too are cumulative. That's where the danger lies.

Humans already have to cope with constant exposures to radiation from a background source. To top up the natural source of exposure, humans are then directly or indirectly exposed to radiation from human use by the mining of uranium and the subsequent use in the nuclear industry.

The facts do not emanate from a "midwest housewife's phobia." The facts are scientifically established as Madame Curie had begun to realise when many of her colleagues died at a relatively young age from cancer. She too finally succumbed to aplastic pernicious anaemia, from the cumulative effects of radiation.

The nuclear industry is well aware of the lengthy lag times between exposure to radiation and for health symptons to emerge, often making the source of the illness difficult to prove, which suits the industry's agenda perfectly.

Perhaps you should obtain a manual on environmental toxicology to learn how Australians may, in the near future, be further utilised as cannon fodder in their government's maniacal quest for a more radioactive planet.
Posted by dickie, Monday, 6 August 2007 8:16:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am afraid that Helen Caldicott's biggest fans are those who have never studied nuclear physics.

Read what those who have say about her.

"Helen Caldicott, a highly political activist who has never
published a paper in a scientific journal on health effects of
radiation and is not a member of any of the major scientific
societies that deal with that subject."

Nuclear and Radiation Safety Issues
Responses of Professionals in the Industry

www.ntanet.net/publicinfo.html

Of course that is no where near so exciting as those lovely attacks on the establishment.
Posted by logic, Monday, 6 August 2007 9:01:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
logic, I infer that those that have studied nuclear physics are also those that are interested in the continuation of an industry that they have spent time and money studying. Therefore they are somewhat biased. Dr Caldicot stands to make little personal gain from her stance and indeed holds herself out to ridicule from the establishment and their true believers. Having watched the documentary on her today on SBS, she is also far from being hysterical on the issue. To the contrary she appears well-informed and literate, and not at all afraid to take on whoever she needs to, all with poise and dignity. Whilst she may not have been a nuclear physicist, she is certainly well educated and intelligent and capable of educating herself about such a subject.

Personally I have a swinging opinion (and I notice that none of the other posters so far could say the same). I can see benefits from a greater reliance on non-carbon technology, but I also recognise great danger from puddling in such a toxic substance. If we can get to the stage where advanced reactors can process the toxic junk down to reasonably harmless substances, then fine. But by all accounts we are not there yet. I dont think its something we should rush into just because the rest of the world thinks its trendy at the moment. Lets do a bit more Aussie-style fence sitting first.

As a by-line, I loved the good doctors summary about why any capacity for nuclear weapons is dangerous. I believe it went something along the lines of... "there is a very small percentage of men who have a toxic reaction to testosterone.... unfortunately these are currently running the White House".
Posted by Country Gal, Monday, 6 August 2007 11:08:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
A rather refreshing set of answers

first ,honor to common sense
"To the contrary she appears well-informed and literate, and not at all afraid to take on whoever she needs to, all with poise and dignity.
Whilst she may not have been a nuclear physicist, she is certainly well educated and intelligent and capable of educating herself about such a subject."
...........country gal

Then the incoherent
"Energy will be able to be created elsewhere and safetly but looking at least another 10 years."
..........tapp
Wootzat ?

somewhat more intelligible "happy with waste in the back yard "
if you live in Sydney you would be aware that low level waste from hospitals and universities is stored in garages , rent a space , backyards and such ,
it doesn't matter , 90% of radioactive waste isn't radioactive anyway, only the medium grade , heavily irradiated equipment and the hight level ( fuel ) is to be treated with care , even then the notion of death on a stick is pure Gothic romanticism

now for the arguments
"The small increments of risk at low dose means that epidemiological studies lack the sensitivity to detect
the excess risk, or else the findings are inconsistent."
..........anti green

What the man is saying is that if low dose casualties are extended it's equivalent to the line
if 100 people die drowning every year , 10 millions will die from drinking a glass of water

somewhat of a low blow but still pretty accurate
"I am afraid that Helen Caldicott's biggest fans are those who have never studied nuclear physics.
.........logic

I would rather believe that as a specie we are prone to self delusion
the biggest fan of Ms Caldicott's are those who are not interested in studying nuclear Physic . or any science for that matter

The scientific revolution pushed back the bound of obscurantism and delusional superstition , always the old evils will push to come back
Posted by randwick, Tuesday, 7 August 2007 4:32:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting to note that Logic's information to support his defamatory remarks over Dr Caldicott is 10 years old.

It appears that Dr Caldicott's "expert" opponents on that URL may end up with egg on their face.

The European Commission has given the go ahead and the funding for research into the impact of low and protracted doses of ionising radiation.

The programme (titled RISC - RAD) is a gathering of 80 scientists in 29 research institutes from 11 countries and will allow the partners to measure the knowledge gained.

One of the aims is to study the long term effects of low-dose ionising radiation and how it causes cancer.

Of course, Dr Caldicott is a decade ahead of these researchers, however, better late than never!

In Australia, we have the baffling high incident of breast cancer among women working at the ABC in Brisbane. Then you had TV presenter, Andrew Ollie who died of a brain tumour at a young age and the recent death last month, of the news' broadcaster from another brain tumour.

We get the usual inane sophistry from regulatory authorities assuring us there is "no immediate danger" from microwave radiation which is similar to the advice from scientists who encouraged us to kill anything that moved with the heinous organochlorines. As like the scientists with organochlorines, the current ones obviously haven't a clue or they would have shut the ABC down before the excessive number of cancers emerged.

The RISC RAD website advises their programme "is designed to enable improved and more appropriate standards to be addressed" in the field of radiation. Ehhhh...he...hem..does that mean we've been duped all along?
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 7 August 2007 7:41:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

well dickie , of course radionucleides are dangerous and should be handled with suitable precautions ,
like any other hazardous material
I don't see people protesting against lead in car batteries or their kiddies toys mercury batteries .
marie curie would be horified to have her name used against her beloved science ,
she struggled to push the boundaries of knowledge, one of her discoveries was the danger of radiation ,
true Marie Curie got radiation sickness , so did her professor and friend Becquerel ,so did others
they were pioneers and the defeat of ignorance had to be paid for .
Marie was crushing tonnes of pechblende ore to extract the active element Radium , slaving in an old shed at the ecole nationale de chimie ,
it was still standing in the 70ies , used for tool technology classes for fresh faced undergraduates ,
the background radiation was still above normal for Paris , but below Brittany or Devon
in the 90ies at work I calibrated an atomic cesium source level detector
for fun I took the safety geiger counter to the beach to take some readings , sure enough coogee beach , bondy and maroubra are clearly radioactive , much more that around the source , there was no drama with the state government then , I wonder why ?

I'm OK with not building nuclear power plant , if you think coal fired base stations is better , well go for it ,
they are the cheapest way of producing the power people crave , but there is no need of inventing nuclear risks to frighten the good folks

also it's not sophisticated inner city folk who pay the blood price of coal power
but it is some yobbos and their families in a grim mining town ,far out of sight out of mind ,
so coal is all right I guess

.
Posted by randwick, Tuesday, 7 August 2007 10:22:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear physics is studied by anyone who takes physics to a reasonable level. Helen Caldicott obviously hasn't, her howlers are apparent to anyone who has. In fact medical students only study physics in first year which does not cover much detail on the nucleus.

To suggest that anyone who has studied physics is biased is ridiculous, the study of nuclear physics is not the study of nuclear power but of the structure of the atom. The link I gave may be 10 years old, but physics is not a fashion statement, it is the most basic of sciences and its basic principles are not changed very often.

Only last year Helen made one of her scaremongering statements about the solubility of Xenon which was so inaccurate that a friend, a retired Professor (of chemical engineering) with a long background with oil refineries (not nuclear power) knew to be totally false and showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of physical chemistry.

I am open on the subject, but having experience as an engineer with the power industry (coal fired) I am at least in a position to identify the charlatans. Trouble is that misinformation from armchair greenies (as opposed to knowledgeable environmentalists) is driving an uninformed debate. I do not know Helen's motives but I wish she would stick to her own field of expertise which is certainly not physics or engineering.
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 7 August 2007 10:29:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to add that radiation is everywhere and has been since the big bang. It comes to us from the sun and is present in the soil and in our foods. In some areas it is naturally at a dangerous level (the badlands in aboriginal belief). Our bodies have evolved to cope with it. The problem is when levels of radiation exceed the normal levels. To find radiation kilometers away from a site which suffered an accident is not significant unless the radiation is above the natural level which was always there.

Also the Einstein equation E=mc2 where c is a huge number means that we can get enormous energy from a small amount of material. Hence the nuclear waste at the moment is a very small quantity stored safely in containers. When it becomes larger there are several methods of storage. Diluting it in Synrock and burying it deep under the ground would be a lot safer than leaving it in the badlands where mother nature dumped it.

Oh, and nuclear power stations do not and cannot become bombs, the uranium isotope used in them is not suitable for a chain reaction. And Chernobyl was not a normal power station. To refuse nuclear power on the basis of that disaster is as silly as it would have been to refuse to travel on ships because of the Titanic.
Posted by logic, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 5:22:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doesnt really matter any more as Kevin Rudd has worked out how it will cost less.
He will use overseas labor and products as this is the labor party's and unions way.
Dont worry about the worker.

And the used uranium he will store in australia on other countries behalf.
Posted by tapp, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 5:40:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, some facts.
- Electricity accounts for just 36% of the global sources of GHG emissions anyway (International Energy Agency) so the nuclear push merely attempts to ignore 64% of the greenhouse problem.

- If it weren't for uranium mining we'd be living in a world free of nuclear weapons and potential nuclear terrorism (terrorists don't target wind turbines or solar arrays). Had nuclear power existed in WW2 much of Europe would likely be totally uninhabitable.

- The government's own Parliamentary Research Paper of 4/12/06 states that a nuclear power plant would require "up to 83% more water than for other power stations" (ignoring uranium mining and milling, eg up to 155 million litres/day for the Olympic Dam mine expansion).
and "Expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities need not be part of a response to climate change... In our view it is unrealistic to believe that a reactor could be operating in as little as ten years. Similarly, the view that only 20 people a year would need to undergo relevant training and education is an underestimate." - the government's official peer review of the Switkowski draft report, chaired by (pro-nuclear) Chief Scientist Dr Jim Peacock, 9/12/2006.
Posted by Atom1, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 5:44:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Furthermore:
- "Safeguards" on uranium exports do not even apply to military nuclear facilities, do not guarantee inspections and facilitate the diversion of domestic uranium reserves for weapons.
("While China had enough uranium resources to support its nuclear weapons program, China's Australian Ambassador Madame Fu said it would need to import uranium to meet it's power demands." - The Australian', 2/12/05).

- The nuclear power/weapons connection exists via:
a) infrastructure
b) expertise
c) covert research and
d) the fuels themselves (uranium, plutonium, tritium).
http://www.myspace.com/icanw

Chernobyl - studies on exposure were based only on measurements of Iodine intake. The WHO Chernobyl report ignored the latent period of cancers and the 53% of fallout that actually fell on Europe & the UK.

Finally, It would require more money than has ever existed in the world to pay the overtime costs for even just two staff to guard/manage radioactive wastes for the periods required. NO accurate assessment can be made of death rates from the nuclear industry based only on the past.
Posted by Atom1, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 5:50:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic

I don't have a background in physics or engineering like you have.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on the "solubility of xenon" and Dr Caldicott's opinion. Please - do tell.

Your suggestion of vitrifying HLW waste in "Synrock" (sic) could work. Problem is Logic, the inception was realised by ANSTO in the '70's and the first Synroc demo plant established in 1987. To date, they can't even give it away!

Perhaps you are more au fait with the wonders of Synroc than the inventors?
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 8:05:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The silly part about the nuclear industry is we do not need it. It is too expensive, too dangerous, and the waste problem goes on forever. Renewable technology is viable now and with a concerted effort we can get rid of coal. Stop the spin of 'clean, green' uranium and 'clean coal' and put the money into renewable energies now. Elect a decent government (ie, one not in the pocket of the mining lobby and concerned for the future), get rid of the 'greenhouse' mafia in Australia,and lets show the world what we can do.
Bravo Helen Caldicott!
Posted by JudyC, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 11:34:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Well judyC a spirited paean to renewable sources as against those horrids others power
quote " The silly part about the nuclear industry is we do not need it..... Renewable technology is viable now and with a concerted effort we can get
rid of coal." unquote

here is the state of energy now in the world
oil............. 38%
coal............ 25%
gas..............23%
nuke .............6%
biomass...........4%
hydro.............3%
solar thermal.... 0.5%
wind..............0.3%
geothermal........0.2%
biofuels..........0.15%
photovoltaic......0.04%
the totality of renewable minus hydro is equivalent to the margin of error on the big three carbon

fixed wind energy has been in use since the hight middle age
biomass since the olduvai gorge
hydrolic since the great rivers civilizations
NO renewable energy is remotely competitive against fossil fuel by a factor of 10 ,
considering the great amount of subsidies poured into them they are a brilliant example of subventions being throw into a wind .
we are talking here of energy , the very life of modern , democratic , advanced society it happen around the 5 Kw/P/D
australia consumtion is 7Kw/P/D
china is 2Kw/P/D and rising with their standard of living
at 1Kw/P/D it's third world , military coup or some tyranny , the women are back at the bottom of the heap
at 0.5 Kw/P/D starvation is a fact of life no organized society can survive

So , sure get the wind mills turning we might get to 1Kw/P/D on a good springtime day !

.
Posted by randwick, Thursday, 9 August 2007 12:13:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Renewables are not competitive today because the only criteria used is the current cost which does not take into account the pollution value.
We need a pollution tax on the nasties. Nuclear is not in the hunt because it could not be viable without government subsidies and its waste control costs go on into infinity!
If we stopped subsidising the energy costs of Alcoa in Australia and earmarked the Federal Government subsidies for "clean coal" research to renewables we could do it!
Read George Monbiot and find out why even Europe could set up a grid of different renewable technologies and survive. It just takes the will to protect our vulnerable little planet.
Posted by JudyC, Thursday, 9 August 2007 12:37:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear is dirty, unsafe and unaffordable. If we converted the world's energy production to nuclear we would run out of uranium in less than 10 years. It's a fossil fuel, a finite resource. Haven't we learnt from our mistakes with oil (production has peaked, demand still escalating) and coal (climate change)? What do you need to extract uranium, process it and transport fuel and waste? OIL! Oil production has peaked and burning it causes global warming. Clean and green nuclear? I don't think so - what a lie.
A mix of renewable technologies can supply our energy needs, but we need to get serious about efficiency and smart choices like local food production, public transport, etc. Why waste billions of dollars on a dangerous, dirty, expensive dead end like nuclear power when it can only provide for our needs (or greed?) for a decade or two?
Reneable energy is just that, renewable. So let's put the investment where it will last and secure our energy for the future.

Export renewables, not cancer. Thank you so much Helen!
Posted by JonS, Thursday, 9 August 2007 12:34:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Nuclear is dirty, unsafe and unaffordable.”

A meaningless slogan copied from the ACF.

Could we have some quantifiable evidence please? Could we have authenticated data comparing the economics of nuclear with other forms of power generation?

How about some information on the capacity factor for wind and solar? [ mean. SE, and range etc.].

Could somebody supply information on the pollutants such as heavy metals released into the environment from the manufacture of photovoltaic cells?
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 9 August 2007 1:12:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-green

Here's the latest figures for only one uranium mine in Australia and a alumina company. Source: The National Pollutant Inventory. These estimates, I have concluded long ago, are very conservative.

URANIUM MINE:-

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) = 88,000 kgs

Nitrous oxides (NOx) = 1,500,000 kgs

Particulate matter (PM) = 2,400,000 kgs

Carbon monoxide (CO) = 430,000 kgs

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) = 1,500,000 kgs

I have not yet been able to access documents for radioactive emissions.

Now in fairness to the uranium company, let's compare the figures above with a really big polluter, shall we? This one's been in the media lately due to Erin Brockovich considering a class action against the company allegedly poisoning whole communities:

ALUMINA COMPANY:-

VOC's = 140,000 kgs

NOx = 850,000 kgs

PM = 320,000 kgs

CO = 730,000 kgs

SO2 = 60,000 kgs

Bear in mind, Anti-green, you will need to greatly multiply the uranium emissions, due to the advent of a resurgence in uranium mining (that's if you get your way!)

In the advent of the adoption of solar energy, I remind you that the manufacturers are addressing the issue of heavy metals head on.

Unlike the nuclear industry in denial, solar energy experts are aware of the potential of pollutants in the solar technology and have already manufactured a lead free solder, in consideration of future decommissionings.

I doubt the new solar energy technology will be released before these problems have been solved. Those irresponsible actions belong to yesterday's men in the uranium and nuclear industry!

This whole nuclear debate is on how to reduce atmospheric pollution - CO2, greenhouse gases and other destructive and harmful pollutants.

Therefore, I must reiterate:

"If at first you don't succeed, why go on and make a fool of yourself?
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 9 August 2007 5:01:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
To judyC
" Renewables are not competitive today because the only criteria used is the current cost which does not take into account the pollution value."

Well the comparisons have to be done on an equal footing , the pollution cost of etching silicon with solvents bath and fluoridric acid should be considered ,
so should the birds flying into the wind turbines blades .
or visual pollution of a pristine coastline disfigured by wind turbines , I wouldn't want a 50 Kw 20m tall mast with rotating blades in my backyard certainly !
the total amount of nuclear waste is about 1% of all industrial hazardous waste , in fact most of the low level waste is NOT radioactive at all , it's clothing , hand tools ,personnal gear or general supplies , the newspapers read in the control room of a plant is deemed by procedure to be waste.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
As I posted above in Australia ,universities and hospitals have tonnes of waste stored all over the metropolitan cities in unsecured and unidentified places ,
because it doesn't matter
Where on earth do you get the notion that Alcoa is subsidized by the government
there are four times as much federal money going to waste on renewable pipe dreams as there is on decreasing the greenhouse effect of coal
for memory coal produce 95% of our electrical energy , renewable zilch % . anyone with a shred of common sense would accept the wisdom of fixing the largest Co2 emitter first .

then " why even Europe could set up a grid of different renewable technologies and survive."

A few facts about electrical power generation in europe
total gross production 3206622 in GigaWatt /h of which nuclear .....973491 or 30%

let's drop the french and their 83% nuclear electrical generation and 59 nuclear plants
other European countries
UK 23 ,Germany 17 ,Sweden 10, Spain 8 , Belgium 7, Switzerland 5
Holland 1
also Canada 1

Are those people deluded or is it the anti nuclear movement witch has some problem with a pet hate ?

.
Posted by randwick, Thursday, 9 August 2007 6:34:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie,

Thank you for drawing my attention to “The National Pollutant Inventory.” I have book marked the site for future reference.

However, to make sense of the data you have a colossal task ahead.

Firstly you must rank the polluting industries in terms of tonnes per year.

Secondly, you will have to discover yearly trends.

Thirdly, if you are going to comment on many different pollutants and/or potential pollutants you will have to invent a “figure of merit” for comparison purposes in order to rank industries.

Fourthly, you will have to find a denominator, so you can express results as a rate.

The University of Sydney carried out such a study for the Switkowski report in respect to CO2 emission. They reviewed 39 papers including the van Leeuwen Smith paper. Apparently the van Leeuwen paper was an “outlier.”

The Sydney group looked at all stages of fabrication and operation of plant and reported results as kg CO2/MW-h.

It is not going o be an easy task to rank all pollutants. It will also by its nature be very controversial, so more then one data source will have to be studied.

I freely admit that I have neither the resources nor qualifications to do this work. However, do not let me distract you from what is an important project. In fact I imagine it would be a suitable subject for a Ph.D.
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 9 August 2007 6:59:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How nice Australia is with her pastoral both landscapes and governments, since the very dawn of a colonization importing the most and exporting pollution, while more recently ballooning a foreign debt, which is a hidden way to conserve own nature on expense of the foreign “primitive” nations.

If something positive in a last decade of a national-liberal stagnation and colonial impotency Howard government demonstrates is reaching a vital understanding of a nuclear power for very existing of this UK-copycat in Southern hemisphere because between Islamism and English feudalism the last is seen to be a lesser devil anyway.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 9 August 2007 8:02:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic,Helen Caldicot might be a medical doctor by trade, but from my understanding has devoted much of her time since the early 80's to campaigning against the nuclear industry. That's plenty of time to educate yourself well on a topic,particularly given that to become a medical doctor in Australia isnt easy, requires intelligence, and at the time that she would have trained would also have required a great deal of tenancity as as woman.I dont doubt for a moment that she has the capacity (at least) to be well educated on any subject that she chooses to turn her attention to.

You now draw the distinction between nuclear power and neclear physics,although you appear to refer to them as one before. yes, I understand the difference. My physics study stopped at the end of Yr 12, but I enjoyed the subject immensely and found nuclear physics (the study of subatomic particles) fascinating. We got to do a bit on this in chemistry too. Certainly not a very high level at all, but its given me at least a basic background.

From the doco I saw on the author this week, her main concern is not nuclear power (although she doesnt like it), its the continued push for nuclear and semi-nuclear weapons that she sees as dangerous. The targetting of power plants by terrorists to get waste material for dirty bombs was a related concern (and part the reason she was against power plants).

I am not altogether against the idea of nuclear power, just dont feel that it has been proven enough - no need to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. A report by switowski is not good enough for me - he stuffed telstra (even worse than when he took over) so I question his logic and judgement. One of my biggest problems is (if this is a fact) that liability limitation laws are needed for the industry to be able to afford insurance - that spells a very big warning to me. I would not like to see us go down this path.
Posted by Country Gal, Thursday, 9 August 2007 9:29:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Gal

I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue. I have not made up my mind on nuclear power but there is a powerful anti nuke lobby that is often not adequately informed. I would like to see the matter seriously discussed without bias.

There is a lot of experience of successful generation of nuclear power in many countries. The case of Cherobyl should be dismissed as irrelevant because it was an incompetently built reactor run by cowboys. What you might expect from a totalitarian state.

The extreme green movement is always willing to knock anything without understanding any of it and they actually create a problem although their hearts are in the right place. They have developed a horror of nuclear power, which is understandable but because of their bias they fail to make an attempt to understand it.

What annoys me about Helen Caldicott is that there is no evidence that she has made any attempt to gain an understanding. The way she twists evidence on nuclear power is perhaps short of being ethical. If anyone with knowledge challenges her she makes an emotional plea rather than answer the question. I heard her on radio and saw her on TV and was disgusted with her performance.

I would be happy to see alternatives but the sun comes to us at such a low intensity it is hard to do much with it. Any solar electrical device has a low efficiency because of that and it is only available during the day. Let's face it we all like the good technologies, and now that the other two thirds of the world are starting to demand their share we will be in real trouble. The people in China and India want their share of the goodies, and why not? Alternatives are useful but they alone cannot solve the problem.
Posted by logic, Thursday, 9 August 2007 10:54:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
randwick:
Of course there are advantages and disadvantages for all energy sources. Nuclear has so many negatives (most already mentioned) – and who is going to pay for any disasters? Answer: governments, who must also subsidise the building of reactors.

You say “the total amount of nuclear waste is about 1% of all industrial hazardous waste”. I wonder what that would be as a ‘toxicity’ percentage? Who is going to pay forever and ever to store it and keep it secure? Old bumper sticker: “Nuclear is thalidomide forever”.

Where on earth did I get the notion that Alcoa is subsidised by the government? (and that this money be used instead for renewable technologies to avoid the use of nuclear power and coal). It was unfair to name Alcoa as the only one receiving heavily subsidised electricity from coal-burning power stations. I quote from 'Scorcher:The Dirty Politics of Climate Change' by economist Clive Hamilton, p117 “Overall, the total financial subsidy to aluminium smelters in Australia is estimated to be $410million….plus smelting pollution .... an additional subsidy…..worth at least $430 million per year”.

anti-green:
You ask “Could we have authenticated data comparing the economics of nuclear with other forms of power generation?”. I am confident that the cost of mining and refining uranium, 10 years building and the material needed for the very expensive reactors, the cost of running and maintaining them, and then decommissioning at the end of their life (20-30 years?) and storage of nuclear waste would show nuclear power is a ridiculously expensive way to boil water. We must not measure only in dollars - care for the earth and the creatures it supports must be taken into account. It is time we dropped the notion that environmentalists are the enemies of capitalism given the state of the planet. We have to work together.

logic:
What annoys me is your criticism of Helen Caldicott’s knowledge without one single example! Please read her book 'Nuclear Power is Not the Answer' and let us know what you do not agree with.
Posted by JudyC, Friday, 10 August 2007 12:09:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-green

The ranking you refer to is already performed by the National Pollutant Industry.

For instance, up amongst the largest polluters for CO is the iron and steel manufacturers. Last year they emitted a "mere" 570,000,000 kilograms into our environment.

Now, Anti-green, I bet they're excited with the prospect of being contracted to supply their materials to assist with the 25 nuke reactors.

Blimey, it's unimaginable how much CO and all the other hazardous emissions they'll produce for the construction of 25 nuclear reactors.

Randwick. I suggest you correct the number of reactors you claimed in some of the countries you mentioned. No point in plucking figures from the air, is there?

The technology of Chernobyl is not relevant today, however,the radioactive releases are. After that disaster, huge quantities of milk in Poland, Hungary, Russia, Austria and Sweden were destroyed.

In some farms in Cumbria, Scotland and Wales, restrictions are still in place today. Sheep must continue to be checked and tested with special monitors to detect radiation from the Chernobyl fall-out, twenty years ago. The high radiation levels in those countries had not a thing to do with the existing background levels.

However, Logic stated: "To find radiation kilometers (sic) away from the site which suffered an accident is not significant unless the radiation is above the natural level which was always there."

Hey, but hang about. Didn't he also say: "having experience as an engineer ..............I am at least in a position to identify the charlatans."

Tsk tsk......naughty boy Logic!
Posted by dickie, Friday, 10 August 2007 12:50:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

To dickie

my deepest apologies , I had a finger slip , Canada doesn't have 1 nuclear plant , it has 18

In spite of it's faults , I've always considered the international atomic energy agency to be the first reference when numbers are concerned ,
after all they are the united nation specialized body for all things nuclear

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/RDS2-26_web.pdf

check the numbers yourself and tell me of my errors , please
or tell me if I'm right .

.
Posted by randwick, Friday, 10 August 2007 9:43:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is always good to get assurances from experts who chastise the (allegedly) uninformed for having the temerity to comment where the experts know best what is good for us. They forget of course that this is a democracy and the expertise required to arrive at informed decisions is not restricted to those technocrats with an interest, declared or otherwise.

How many times do we hear that technology has so improved processes as to make 'accidents' almost impossible? Then there are those who assure us that regulators and industry watchdogs would always ensure that processes are safe, agreed management controls are in place and there are regular independent audits thereof.

However in truth this is all bunk where profits and politics are concerned isn't it?

But don't take my word for that, just review the background that led to the fire and aftermath at a chemical works (a toxic chemical waste treatment plant) located a little north of Brisbane, close to highly populated areas and the sensitive marine environment of Moreton Bay. Here is the link:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13811

Having made one hell of a mess of the environment you would think that there would be some cooperation and urgency in the clean-up, especially when regulators and courts have finally got on their tail. But no, guess again, they have to be dragged kicking by a population that forced government to act and then by government regulators who had to get more court orders in the hope of getting them moving. Years later, the saga continues.

Now maybe the experts out there can tell us again how this would never happen with nuke power or with nuclear waste reprocessing.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 10 August 2007 10:55:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems Randwick and some others are ignoring the fact that ANY exposure to ionising radiation is IN ADDITION to natural background levels. It is also cumulative. There is no safe dose.

Background radiation amounts to around 100 millirems per year, per person. Nuclear workers' "allowable" exposure: 5,000 millirems/year (the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission).

Again, I draw your attention to the fact that 64% of greenhouse gas emissions come from NON-ELECTRICTY SOURCES (such as agriculture, transport and deforestation).

Nuclear power remains the only energy source to fuel WMDs and potential nuclear terrorism, and on this we have one - deservedly emotive - option: prevention. More than reason enough.

Nuclear incidents - a (partial) timeline with references at:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=214632362&blogID=289277470
Posted by Atom1, Friday, 10 August 2007 11:04:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JudyC Atom1 Cornflower

I have already posted a website full of knowledgeable criticism of Helen Caldicott. Re her regular statement that Xenon is radioactive and highly soluble that is nonsense. Xenon has a zero valency and in consequence has little energy and a low solubility. The radio active isotope would have a higher solubility but it fortunately has a half life of less than 3 minutes.

This is an example of how she twists facts,

The view that the opinion of experts should be discarded because they are biased is common;ly expressed. Tell me, if you felt a sharp pain from your chest, do you see a GP and get a referral to a heart specialist or do you decide that the specialist has a vested interest and instead read an alternative medicine book that recommends herbs?

If the level of radiation around a reactor site is not measurably different from the natural level at similar sites, would you not conclude that the reactor has not changed the radiation level? Our friend tried to ruin a chocolate factory by false claims about increased radiation levels in the chocolate.

I have heard Helen debate on radio with a Professor of nuclear physics about her book. When the physicist challenged her figures she made a great emotional charade about her concern, but could not substantiate her argument. The debate went nowhere because Helen got so offended every tine she was (politely) challenged.

Unfortunatly a debate about nuclear energy has to be by experts with non-experts asking questions. It is the same when you are seriously ill in hospital.
Posted by logic, Friday, 10 August 2007 1:46:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So sweet Country Gal’s suggestion is that PhDs are clever because they had studied many subjects!

PhD is just a piece of paper testifying to acceptance by a particular circle of privileged of a particular person to be in their circle in Australia, where playing English rather than creative abilities is the most.

These days famous eco-advocate E. Berkovich of the States plays a similar comedy in some seemingly over-polluted Western Australian region.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 10 August 2007 2:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading through the postings on this thread, I am reminded of CP Snow and the story of the two cultures. Nearly fifty years ago Snow pointed out an almost unbridgeable gulf between those with a scientific and or technological background and those trained in the humanities and literature studies.

So it is with the proponents of nuclear energy and the one hand and those antagonistic to the technology on the other. Both groups use the English language to express their ideas. Yet the meaning and interpretation of words is quite different. Frequently, this is the case when considering questions of evidence and causality. The two groups have little in common.

Those in the anti nuclear camp discount on principal the opinions of experts. Nuclear physicists, engineers, health experts are all to be distrusted. It is as if they see a vast conspiracy spanning many countries, covering many disciplines as well as the mining and the nuclear electric generating industries. The conspiracy extends to those who finance nuclear projects, governments and regulators.

The irrational fear of radiation, no matter how trivial the exposure, gives rise in some minds to a profound negative emotional state. This has been labelled radio-phobia and is not amenable to reasoned argument.

Like Dr. Caldicott I too have a back ground in health. So I am sure that she would agree with me that phobias are very difficult to treat. In fact there is no known cure for radio-phobia. Fortunately, there a few who eventually grow out of their phobic state.

In the Washington Post of Sunday April 16 2006 Patrick Moore a co founder of Greenpeace describes how he grew out of radio-phobia. Others named in the Moore article has having discarded their radio-phobia include James Lovelock, Stewart Brand and the Late Bishop Hugh Montefiore
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 10 August 2007 6:07:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I reckon Atom1 deserves the award for the most sensible comment so far -

"Nuclear power remains the only energy source to fuel WMDs and potential nuclear terrorism, and on this we have one - deservedly emotive - option: prevention. More than reason enough."

All the other statistics and claims of scientific high-ground become irrelevant with that statement. No nukes needed!
Posted by JudyC, Friday, 10 August 2007 7:28:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
Since the anti nuke make such a bad job of it ,
it behold the rest to do the job properly

CHERNOBYL : worst peacetime nuclear power accident to date

on the 26 of April 1986 the soviet electrical authorities had the Chernobyl generators perform a simple test ,
in case of a failure of coolant , how much time had the network to cope with a base load failure ?

interesting problem , it affected the configuration of power generation over all western URSS
the nuclear technicians thought it was a very stupid idea and protested vociferously
the ultimate authority was the electrical network , they owned the plants and this was it !
the tech worked out how to make the coolant failure test , removing every safety devices witch would have
tripped the plant as a danger violation . the test went ahead on the unit nbr4 ,
when the cooling water got at the critical level ,that was the end of the test and the operators restarted the pumps flooding the reactor with cooling water.
the sudden rush of water on an heat stressed core created a steam overpressure ,it blew the lid of the reactor , buckled the control rods and destroyed the control room
the graphite shell ignited a fire ,

The plant fire fighters went in , it was to save the number 1, 2 and 3 reactors
all knew radiation effects , all knew they were doomed , they actually removed their protective equipment to fight the fire better in the heat , only stopping now and again to vomit their guts , a sure symptom of being way gone ,they did their job and stopped the fire ,
all died in the following weeks
together 31 people died in the accident 28 from radiation , one from burns and one from heart attack
for all other casualties , an increase in thyroid cancer lead to an excess of three death statistically attributable to the accident

http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c05.htm

PS: for the millenarian crowd Chernobyl is very loosely translated as wormwood

.
Posted by randwick, Friday, 10 August 2007 11:05:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many thanks to anti-green and JudyC for writing in plain English the messages contributing perfectly each other: WMD were existing and used much prior to nuclear bombs, whilst a nuclear power followed a bomb-related extended research and discoveries used to the nuclear engineering fields much later. Of terrorism history started, perhaps, from the dawn of the human history recorded, since the Snake had destroyed human virginity to destabilize a goody paradise and seize a divine power over people.

And randwick’s post of Chernobyl (it is not “wormwood” in translation but “Black Tale”, if even this word, a title of a sort of grass, one could attempt translating from Slavic languages) seems omitting a core of an accident, which is non-authorized scientific experiment undertaken.

Probably, UK-linked nuke accidents occurred routinely till a closure of the most famous nuke station in recent May would much better illustrate necessity to deploy the newest nuke technologies and practices from worldwide if even having initially originated in non-Anglo-world.
Posted by MichaelK., Saturday, 11 August 2007 2:08:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-green ("Those in the anti nuclear camp discount on principal the opinions of experts.") this is blatantly untrue and typical of many proponents' narrow minded tech-fix view, as you would see from the factual points I have made. It also discounts those experts who remain all too aware of the nuclear risks, both ecologically and economically. For crying out loud, the industry's not even insurable.

Make no mistake, this issue has little to do with an energy "need" (see sliver cell technology for some true solar power potential) and more to do with riding the uranium market and in keeping a military boot in the nuclear door.

Michael K, the first reactors were used to generate Pu 239 for... bomb making. There's simply too many links between nuclear power and weapons to mention on this forum so here they are:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=214632362&blogID=288871569

www.icanw.org
Posted by Atom1, Saturday, 11 August 2007 8:39:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow

We should also stop TNT and dynamite they are fuel for conventional bombs. Let's go back to digging tunnels by pick axe, and men working 12 hour shifts.

There is a vast difference between nuclear power and bombs, they even use a different isotope of uranium. Bombs need an isotope which releases fast electrons and a special configuration to keep the electrons inside otherwise they don't go bang, power reactors need slower electrons because with their design the fast electrons would escape and the reaction would stop.

Guilt by association is never a good idea, it was the argument used against Haneef.

I learnt about the difference between reactors and bombs in a lecture given at the Institute of Engineers by one who has designed reactors. Oops he was an expert sorry.

The ultimate problem with Chernobyl was that it didn't have a containment vessel, something which all reactors built outside of Russia have.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 11 August 2007 8:59:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, Logic, you are wrong - both nuclear power and atom bombs use uranium 235 (the latter simply more highly enriched) or plutoium, produced in reactors, and H-bombs use tritium - also produced in reactors.

In fact over 20 countries which have built N-power or research reactors are known to have used their 'peaceful' nuclear facilities for covert weapons research and/or production.

Uranium exports to China alone will involve Australian yellowcake first arriving at a jointly military-run conversion plant, also exempt from IAEA Safeguards (disclosed in the Q&A of the signed Agreements). Nuclear deals with India allow it to retain 8 reactors exclusively for military use - exempt from international safeguards.

Additonally, the 2,500 scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considered a scenario involving a ten-fold increase in nuclear power over this century and calculated that it could produce 50-100 thousand tonnes of plutonium. The IPCC concluded that the security threat "would be colossal." (IPCC, 1995, "Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses").

http://www.icanw.org/
Posted by Atom1, Saturday, 11 August 2007 6:10:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am sorry I must be wrong. I relied on an Indian engineer who had worked on a breeder reactor. I think he said that bombs required U238, but of course I took it for granted that he was an expert giving a lecture to Engineers Australia (Institute of Engineers).

We can't trust those with expertise and experience can we. What did you say your qualifications and experience are?
Posted by logic, Saturday, 11 August 2007 7:31:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-green

You've really hit the bottom of the barrel when you attempt to separate the "anti-nuclear camp" from the "nuclear physicists, engineers and health experts."

Only last year an open letter was sent to Tony Blair over his proposal to return to nuclear energy.

The 40 signatories objecting to nuclear power, included nuclear security scientists, engineers, health experts, professors of physics etc. Their accreditations are too numerous to list here. These are eminent professionals with science degrees.

Your inane endeavours to separate Dr Caldicott from the sciences reduces your credibility. Entry into the medical faculty requires proficient levels in physics, chemistry, maths and biology.

You claim we see conspiracies in everything. Incorrect, we see conspiracies when there is one.

An example is the Uranium Information Centre in Australia where they play down the Chernobyl disaster by stating that only 56 people have died. However, Nikola Omelyanets, deputy head of the National Commission for Radiation Protection in Ukraine said at least 500,000 have already died out of the 2 million officially classed as victims in Ukraine.

Why are American medical teams still visiting Belarus, the worst affected area, to treat victims in 2006 and 2007? Statistics reveal a 250% increase in congenital birth deformities and a 2,400% increase in thyroid cancers.

Professor Edmund Lengfelder, who has conducted a clinic in Belarus since 1991, wrote, 15 years after the explosion, that he has witnessed a "massive increase in non-malignant diseases."

The Soviet government has been exposed for conducting an enormous cover-up and a criminal neglect of its people. The West, including the IAEA are equally guilty by their spin, in an endeavour to dupe the masses, by concealing the lingering horrors of radioactive releases over communities.

Many of us have witnessed the continual incompetence of Australian governments and their regulators, in their failure to protect public health.

You will have to do better than condescendingly suggesting that opponents to the nuclear industry are radiophobics or hysterical eco-warriors, Anti-green.
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 11 August 2007 10:07:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for delighting on nuke bomb/energy issue, Atom1,however, producing a nuke bomb for Nazi Germany rather than fulfilling a demand on power supply was an initial engine of accelereting an applied nuclear science/engineering.

What vessel, LOGIC? It could be in a case of Chernobyl as useful as drainage in the NYC subway recently.

Problem with Chernobyl is much more internationally complicated than simple disaster-related lies by Gorbachev & Co those days, DICKIE. And a bunch of well-connected international bureaucrats with supposedly-imaginable particular knowledge in engineering / medicine / bio-ecology, leashed with short-term contracts by demanding the particular "international reporting" context, had presented the UN Report on Chernobyl more recently, neither consequences of an event nor recommendations reflected a shadow of reality but subversive-ness to bosses extending the contracts at the UN.
Posted by MichaelK., Sunday, 12 August 2007 2:28:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie,

Your latest hysterical rant is noted.

You should be aware that unverified statements by “so called” experts are valueless. The opinions that you are voicing are not published in the open scientific literature, and so can not be objectively analysed.

If you want to be taken seriously then provide the published evidence for your claim.

Like it or not the membership of UNSCEAR and similar organisations have solid scientific credentials. A little reflection should make it clear to you that scientists and engineers employed by the nuclear energy industries also have credibility. Since charlatan characters would soon put their company out of business.

[If the cap fits wear it.]
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 12 August 2007 9:21:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic, ("What did you say your qualifications and experience are?") just 7 1/2 years of unpaid, non vested interest research, with experts, stemming from a dire awareness of the threat of nuclear annihilation.

I could argue how is it that you learnt seemingly all you need to know about reactors from one lecture, but instead point out that I think you mean neutrons in the fission chain reaction, not electrons (though electrons tend to be somewhat involved in the transfer of charge along a conductor - ie electrical current).

You also said "the ultimate problem with Chernobyl was that it didn't have a containment vessel, something which all reactors built outside of Russia have." This is not the case with the ever-present risks posed by nuclear powered sea vessels.

And if you "relied on an Indian engineer who had worked on a breeder reactor" then he should have told you how unsuccessful they have proven to be.

Again, I encourage proponents and those lead astray by the trojan horse of a climate "debate" to read up on the many hidden truths about the nuclear industry from those with no vested financial interests before assuming all's ok via someone within the very industry. It's like asking the mining-funded Uranium Information Centre for objectivity.

Randwick, it's disingenuous to attempt to simplify that to be anti-nuclear is to be pro-coal. As for Dr Helen Caldicott (whom I have met), she would clarify that to be anti nuclear is to be pro-DNA.

Demonstrating a prime issue of concern by Dr Caldicott such as with the Indian Point nuclear plant, NY, the premise still stands: had nuclear power existed in WW2 it is highly likely that much of Europe and the UK would have been rendered totally uninhabitable from conventional bombing alone.

http://www.icanw.org
Posted by Atom1, Sunday, 12 August 2007 10:46:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
logic

You are in the denial business.

I gave the example of a preventable accident at a toxic waste chemical treatment plant in Queensland that is coincidentally located near a large metropolitan population and an endangered environment.

That plant imports toxic waste to treat and is claimed by technocrats to be leading edge and absolutely safe.

In return you criticised Dr Caldicott and called for faith in technocrats.

My example proved that Where profits are concerned (and that is the name of the game, isn't it?) management controls will be circumvented, it is only a question of when. It was proof that government bureaucrats cannot always be relied upon not to go asleep at the wheel. It was proof that private industry can always be trusted to 'lean' on politicians to remove pesky controls and inspections. After all, what industry doesn't argue that self-regulation by its 'informed' managers and technocrats is superior to government 'red tape'?

The chemical plant near Brisbane is real as was the toxic plume from the fire. You would think they would be embarrassed enough to clean up quickly. But no, that is never the case unless a big stick is applied and government is reluctant to do that. Politics!

In trying to draw a poor analogy with medical doctors you omit to say that many scientists are opposed to nuclear energy and even those for it have not solved the twin problems of: 1) safe waste disposal; and 2) nuclear arms escalation.

The most foremost country in nuke technology, the good old US of A is looking for somewhere to dump waste and our PM wants to help. It is about dollars. They will have to hurry because he is about to find another job.

I note that the nuke industry has come back to the idea of dumping the most poisonous waste in the ocean. Some things never change.

I also note that New York is presently in lock down in fear of a dirty bomb being exploded. Some things never change.
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 12 August 2007 11:03:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-green

Your ad hominem attack is rather pitiful.

You have now descended to your usual level of tricky tactics by implementing any method that will discredit the opponent.

You have failed to debate any issues I have raised, despite the inclusion of supporting evidence, including officially documented statistics, to substantiate my claims.

Why don't you take up the challenge? Hmmmmmm.....?

Where are the references in your posts to support your rants?

I reiterate that those "scientific experts" you refer to who say that the impact of Chernobyl is somewhat small and ever-diminishing are lying. The public needs to face the issue.

Cornflower

Only yesterday did the media announce that the Department of Environment and Conservation in WA are set to fine the Esperance Port Authority $1 million for contaminating Esperance with lead.

This incompetent department has found a scape-goat in the port and has refused to accept responsibility for knowingly allowing the contamination of eco-systems and human health. The large fine,in a desperate bid to save face, is rare in WA, despite the ongoing pollution and environmental catastrophes!
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 12 August 2007 3:11:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atom1,

Sorry I meant neutrons not electrons. The argument that power reactors are not the same as bombs still holds water. I did attend many lectures on nuclear physics and got honours in second year physics.

And please tell me more about the experts you worked with. Exactly what qualifications and what experience.

You criticize the knowledge of an Indian engineer because the plant which he helped to design in your view was not a success. How many nuclear plants have you or your experts designed, and how successful were these?

What have sea vessels do with a debate on nuclear electricity stations?

Cornflower

Why use the derogative term technocrats?

Toxic waste chemical treatment plants have a totally different performance record (and technology) to nuclear power plants.

Dirty bombs are as different to power plants as mining industry explosives are to conventional bombs.

And it is France not the USA which leads in nuclear power. The French have an excellent safety record. Nuclear power is now a mature technology, modern power stations have an excellent record.

MichaelK

A containment vessel is an extremely strong reinforced concrete enclosure which is strong enough to contain a mishap to the reactor inside.

dickie

Entry into the medical faculty only requires year 12 physics. They only do one year more of physics at Uni and unlike engineers and physicists they don't get practical experience in applying the science in their profession.

Yes many engineers have doubts about nuclear safety, I always said I was OPEN MINDED about the subject but wanted INFORMED discussion not fear mongering.

Just as many scientists don't believe that global warming is a problem.

Please tell me how many of you would change your minds if good evidence was available that modern nuclear energy power stations were safe?
Posted by logic, Sunday, 12 August 2007 5:10:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

OHH , let's keep civilised , this is becoming unduly personal

for Atom1

"Randwick, it's disingenuous to attempt to simplify that to be anti-nuclear is to be pro-coal."

no doubts the intentions are otherwise but the net results are plain ,
the coal industry and the Australian government agencies are desperate to protect our most important export ,earning our standard of living by the way ,
what australia burn or not is small beer compared to what we export , the silence of Peter Garrett is proof of his dissembling
the anti nuclear position main weakness is that Australia has the choice , most other countries haven't .

The energy consumption in a country is roughly divided in transport and electricity
for the first one the most efficient by far is hydrocarbons fuels
for the second , while marginal production can be obtain from just about any system , the most efficient base load is coal

of course there is two small problems ,
1.. Co2 production is fantastically high and probably nefarious
2.. we will run out of fossil carbon in less than a generation

this leave the second best option
transportation using Hydrogen , not so good but it can do the job
nuclear plant for base load and hydrogen production

of course there is two small problems

1.. the whole distribution of fuel has to be switched to hydrogen gas ,
no one has much of a clue how to implement it and not be voted out by irate voters

2.. there is not that much of U235 around , the nuclear boiling kettle you are so afraid
are really quite benign compared to what is just over the horizon ..... Fast breeders reactors ,
the Yukkk factor is much higher it's like comparing dope with heroin
once people are used to the pressurized water reactors and their good safety record ,
they will discount all the screaming wolf .
They will not really understand the change

.
Posted by randwick, Sunday, 12 August 2007 5:17:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi

What if we continue to develop thorium as a "green reactor" fuel and then use it to get rid of all the nuclear waste in the world.

As well as provide energy.

I understand that India and Australia have large amounts of Thorium.

Unfortunately this design is not up and running yet.

But we are working on it. :-)
Posted by Jellyback, Sunday, 12 August 2007 5:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Thorium reactors work by changing the thorium into U233 witch is fissionable and O.K.
there is enough of it for a couple centuries on present usage
I's not green and has the same basic drawback as using U235
I.E. Treat it with respect , it's powerful magic , reliable but it do not suffer fools .
the advantage is that there is less plutonium created and the reaction is more stable and simple than fast breeders
However it must be noted that India was desperately short of nuclear fuel , they were under a worldwide ban because they broke the NPT
and they have plenty of thorium , the city of Kerala at 200mSv is one of the most radioactive place on earth ,
Still the Indians couldn't use the Thorium and had to grovel ( successfully )to the U.S. government to get some fuel
thus destroying the last credibility of the NPT

The present ( and next )government will probably disregard any treaty supplying yellow cake to India

.
Posted by randwick, Sunday, 12 August 2007 7:09:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic

The pebble bed modulator reactors do not have a containment building.

From a layman's perspective the PB reactor could be a terrorist's dream come true.

Zero marks to the nuclear scientists who OK'd the construction of a reactor, situated near a seismic fault line in Japan, where the recent earthquake in July resulted in a fire at the reactor and the release of RA water into the ocean. In addition, 100 drums of radioactive material fell over during the earthquake and spilled an "unspecified" amount of the contents. "What......no lids!?"

The plant has suffered years of accident cover-ups and fudged safety records. TEPCO said the earthquake was stronger than the plant was designed for. Operator admitted that more radiation had leaked than was first reported. (Source ABC News)

IAEA advised it could be a year before the plant is operational. Mmmm......so where will they derive their energy from in the meantime?

(ABC News 27/4/05)According to UN figures between 15,000 and 30,000 people exposed to radiation at Chernobyl have died. Is this another stab in the dark!?

Since this thread is about "Australia's nuclear future", I would hasten posters to peruse the contents of a paper written by John Busby. Search words: sandersresearch Busby uranium.

Nuclear proponents could be getting excited about nothing. Busby's account verifies much of what opponents have said in the past about Australia's future uranium supplies.

ABC June '06: The Federal Opposition is demanding the public be told about radiation accidents at facilities operated by ANSTO.

Four contaminations occurred in a week at Lucas Heights and elsewhere.

Accidents in the nuclear industry will occur whether the reactor is "modern" or obsolete. Many of the accidents have had little to do with the operating efficiency of the reactor and often have been a result of human error. These are errors that can't be rectified and the inherent risks to human health and the environment can be catastrophic!

Some European countries remain committed to phasing out their nuclear reactors. It is claimed that Germany already employs 150,000 workers in the renewable energy sector.
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 12 August 2007 11:46:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic, ("What have sea vessels do with a debate on nuclear electricity stations?"), you implied that no reactors other than Chernobyl operated without a reactor safety containment vessel. I'm clarifying that nuclear powered subs also do not, due to the weight that would be involved.

Experts include Dr Frank Barnaby (author and former British Atomic Weapons Establishment physicist), Richard Broinowski (Former Australian Diplomat and author of 'Fact or Fission? The Truth About Australia's Nuclear Ambitions'), Prof Joseph Camilleri (Professor of International Relations, La Trobe University), Assoc. Prof Tilman Ruff (President the Medical Association for the Prevention of War) and Felicity Hill (campaign coordinator of ICAN, led by MAPW).

Randwick, regarding weapons proliferation and thorium reactors:
- Neutron bombardment of thorium (indirectly) produces uranium-233, a fissile material that can be used in nuclear weapons.
- The USA has successfully tested weapons using Uranium-233 cores, and India may have investigated the military use of Thorium/Uranium-233 in addition to its civil applications.
- "Thorium (Th-232) absorbs a neutron to become Th-233 which normally decays to protactinium-233 and then U-233. The irradiated fuel can then be unloaded from the reactor, the U-233 separated and fed back into another reactor as part of a closed fuel cycle." (World Nuclear Association, 2006).
- "No thorium system would negate proliferation risks altogether." (Friedman, John S., 1997, "More power to thorium?", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 53, No.5, September/October; Feiveson, 2001).

A note on U exports:
Only 10 Chinese nuclear facilities (including reactors, enrichment plants and reprocessing plants) are currently subject to IAEA Safeguards (this doesn't mean they will be inspected). Of these, only 3 Chinese nuclear facilities were inspected by the IAEA in 2005 (IAEA 2005 Annual Report) and, as I mentioned, all military nuclear facilities are exempt from the Safeguards system of the IAEA.

"It is clear that no international safeguards system can physically prevent diversion or the setting up of an undeclared or clandestine nuclear (weapons) program."
- IAEA, 1993.

http://www.icanw.org
Posted by Atom1, Monday, 13 August 2007 12:08:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic, are you serious writing such stuff:

"A containment vessel is an extremely strong reinforced concrete enclosure which is strong enough to contain a mishap to the reactor inside.

Toxic waste chemical treatment plants have a totally different performance record (and technology) to nuclear power plants.

What have sea vessels do with a debate on nuclear electricity stations?"

Had you ever heard of a disaster in Manhattan a few days ago caused by heavy rains having flooded subway system absolutely? You think no bypass was available and other preventive construction in New York City, the USA?

And treatment plants are as much comparable to “nuclear power plants” as conservatory to a jam factory.

Perhaps, lacking of linkage between sea vessels and nuke electricity stations is a last straw for attempting to comprehend some topic responses from practical engineering view point.

Nuke power industry is a complex process, but much less life-threatening than imposing the GM crops locally.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 13 August 2007 1:59:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
logic

Technocrat is the appropriate term for the people we are talking about. If they have managed to make their occupation a derisory label as you seem to think then they probably deserve it.

If you think France is pre-eminent in nuclear technology then so be it. However you should be aware that reported leakage from its waste dumps and lack of audit of what is stored in those dumps are very much in the news. That is precisely what I am talking about: the promises of management controls, supervision, independent audits and appropriate penalties for lapses are quickly forgotten after the industry gets its go-ahead. In France, the legislature has realised that no-one has any idea what is going into those dumps and there are photos abroad of rusting, leaking drums. Some things never change!

You imply that the entrepreneurs, their managers and the technology of the chemical industry are a cut below their equivalents in the nuclear industry. Other than blind faith there is no reason to support that view. The routine fudging of nuclear waste numbers alone would cause anyone to disagree with your assessment. The amount of waste can variously be tiny or huge depending on the technocrat and the day of the week. Tell me, will all of those mothballed nuclear powered naval vessels end up on a beach in India one day because there is no 'economic' way of disposing of them. Maybe with Mr Howard they could end up on a beach in Western Australia.

You haven't dispelled any of my arguments and it is not enough to simply quote a site that criticises (probably unfairly) Dr Caldicott.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 13 August 2007 9:00:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sputniks and part of space-equipment have also made it sometimes to surface-does it mean space discoveries (and simply telecommunication deployment) must be abandoned?

Diminishing the possible negative by-consequences of technology rather than rejecting progress in general is seen to be an achievable task.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 13 August 2007 3:03:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower, you have misinterpreted me. The chemical industry has a completely different risk structure to the nuclear industry. Obviously both industries should be carefully monitored by independent public bodies, as should alternative energy plants.

Are you suggesting that alternatives are all rosy? If the environmental movement would get more practicing technical people into its ranks it would be much more useful. Trouble is that cranks with poor or limited judgment and knowledge and little if any real experience are putting the knowledgeable people off joining.

Newspapers are a great source of misinformation, as they chase popular ratings rather than search for real information. Besides I have yet to meet a journalist with a proper technical background, look at the ridiculous car reviews.

And the site that criticises Dr Caldicott, contains comments by many people with a real background in the subject, it is not the only one.

And Atom1 Dr Frank Barnaby seems to be the only expert on nuclear matters in your group. Let's hear him, I would like more information from those with real experience. Being an author is not a qualification for an expert subject other than writing, you know that.
Posted by logic, Monday, 13 August 2007 5:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael K, the (majority of Australians) opposed to the nuclear industry are far from "rejecting progress in general" when Australia could become a world leader in sustainable renewable energies- now the fastest growing of all energy industries and worth $54 billion annually.

We could reduce GHG by 15% via EFFICIENCY ALONE (2005 Australian Ministerial Council on Energy report signed off by every State environment minister).

In fact the IEA argues, on a least-cost strategy, almost two-thirds of cuts to global emissions would come from improving the efficiency of energy use. That's twice the savings from nuclear, clean coal and renewables COMBINED. (2006 World Energy Outlook, The Age, 22/5/07).

Australia could supply nearly 10% of its electricity demand from solar by 2020 simply by installing 3kW solar PV systems (ie, solar photo voltaic alone, EXCLUDING solar thermal or gas boosted solar) on just a third of Australian households (Business Council on Sustainable Energy).

Again, we're talking only the 36% of global GHG emissions that come from generating electricity.

Whereas nuclear power - far from being "clean & green" - involves fossil fuels and greenhouse gases at every stage of the fuel chain:
- uranium exploration
- uranium mining
- uranium milling & treatment
- uranium (yellowcake) transport
- conversion
- fuel fabrication
- enrichment
- fuel reprocessing
- reactor construction
- reactor maintenance
- reactor decommissioning
- construction of reprocessing, enrichment & waste facilities
- road construction
- waste disposal
- waste management
- all related transports

http://www.icanw.org
Posted by Atom1, Monday, 13 August 2007 6:09:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atom1

Alternatives also use up fossil fuels in manufacture. And they need periodic replacement just like any other machines. And 36% of global GHG emissions is a huge percentage, and is likely to grow. Stop being so fixated against the nuclear industry. The anti nuclear lobby is becoming so set in its views and so selective in its reading.

Energy saving I deeply regret is not popular and most people won't comply. I do but I am in a a minority. And alternatives are just not as simple or productive as non engineers think.
Posted by logic, Monday, 13 August 2007 10:14:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Hi all ,

Atom1...
" and India may have investigated the military use of Thorium/Uranium-233 in addition to its civil applications."
You are right as usual on the thorium use and capabilities but my point was that India with plentiful ressouces of the stuff couldn't use it in it's reactors ,I don't know why !
the recently signed India /USA nuclear agreement is going to be interesting to follows , a meeting of the nuclear suppliers countries ( the real muscle of the NPT )is scheduled to meet soon ,
my money is on a blessing to Canada and Australia amongst others ,to sell yellow cake to India

to all ...
What have sea vessels do with a debate on nuclear electricity stations?"

Everything , the Pressurized Water Reactors were developed by Westinghouse to power strategic missiles submarines of the U S Navy
they were not the most efficient but their design was the most rugged ,compact and trouble free .
using them at sea with an abundance of cooling water around was just peachy
This type was a success ,with good operation record , it got used on board aircraft carriers too ,
Westinghouse used this basic proven design to sell nuclear power plants ,
the Electricitee de France , the French power authority there had experimented with graphite/gas at their st laurent site but bought the Westinghouse design finaly , as this was the most reliable with plenty of operational data .

the report of incidents in a nuclear power plant is a very good thing
there is a ratio of trivial incidents to serious to catastrophic
having no trivial one mean that someone is lying , but by the same token , don't jump up and down when there is minor events it make the operators clam up , hide stuff or under report it.

.
Posted by randwick, Monday, 13 August 2007 11:19:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic, the emissions and fossil fuel costs for renewables & energy efficiency is negligble or zero, and with an energy payback time for wind (yes, only part of a solution) being just months, compared with "10-15 yrs" for 1 nuclear plant (Ziggy's government report) PLUS a further 10+ yrs to recoup its energy costs.

Solar sliver cells: "The cost of solar is measured in the number of years of free electricity you need to pay off the installation. Today it’s about 20. With mass-produced sliver cells it could be just 5 to 7 years. Another advantage they have is, if they’re partially shaded they still produce power. Unlike conventional panels which shut down with even with a little shade covering them." - ABC's Catalyst 8/3/07.

Randwick, thanks for bringing the issue back to its inherent military links, which, along with the mining market, actually drives the industry rather than any nuclear energy "need", let alone viability.

The fact remains, even if not for nuclear's massive water use, energy costs (especially U enrichment - also a major CFC source in the USA), time scale, wastes, safety, WMDs and terrorism risks, nuclear still merely attempts to address 36% of the sources of global human-induced greenhouse gases.

See also 'Climate of Hope':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_NLdRUELjo
Posted by Atom1, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 12:27:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what? The majority of Australians can hardly calculate an elementary without calculator-and only 0.4% students graduate as qualified mathematicians in comparison with 1% of others “first world”'s graduates. Surely it is a clear explanation to ATOM1’s spell:
“Michael K, the (majority of Australians) opposed to the nuclear industry are far from "rejecting progress in general" when Australia could become a world leader in sustainable renewable energies- now the fastest growing of all energy industries and worth $54 billion annually.”

Nothing is absolute and a nuke power cannot be realistically 100%-green-process. However, one must be too narrowminded if not understanding, that some decisions based on a no-choice situation where exhausting of coal and oil are in a visible proximity.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 14 August 2007 2:31:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie wrote

“I reiterate that those "scientific experts" you refer to who say that the impact of Chernobyl is somewhat small and ever-diminishing are lying. “

Firstly: The word “lying” is being used too freely.

Secondly: I profoundly disagree with Dickie. I have provided in previous posts a plethora of references. Further the majority of my references are from the published, peer reviewed scientific or medical literature. On the other hand the so called anti-nuclear experts rarely have the respect of their peers.

Thirdly I remind Dickie and others of the world wide growth in the Nuclear Industries. I suspect should a Labour government be returned at the next election the process towards an Australian nuclear industry will only be delayed. Likewise the newly formes “ANTI_NUCLEAR ALLIANCE,” will be only a minor nuisance,

A FEW FACTS:
Today there are 437 power reactors in 30countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 370 GWe . In 2006 these machines provided 2658 GWh of electricity.

About 30 power reactors are under construction in 11 countries. For instance Kazakhstan is building a 300 MWe plant of Russian design. In all over 70 reactors are planned with a total net capacity of over 80 TWe and further another 150 or more are proposed.

In the USA Most plants were designed for a 40 y life. Recently some 50 US plants have been granted licence to extend the life time to 60 years. In Japan plant lifetimes of up to 70 years are planned.

Nearly Twenty countries are actively considering embarking upon a nuclear power program. In our geographical area the countries are Bangladesh; Indonesia; Vietnam; Thailand; Malaysia; ? Australia; New Zealand (not at Government level).

Italy currently a non nuclear country has electricity prices 45% above the EU average.

You may also be interested to learn that Sweden and Finland have both indicated a willingness to host waste depositories. France is actively building a deep geological repository. Their waste management program is located at Bure in Eastern France.

My sources are UIC Briefing papers 9, 19, 28,102 and 104.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 11:11:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-green, insofar as lying also means not telling the whole truth then yes, lies abound concerning the Chernobyl disaster and its unknown total death rates - the likes of which cannot be based only on the past as radioactive contamination bioconcentrates in the food chain and the WHO's Chernobyl report excluded the 53% of fallout that landed on Europe and the UK, ignoring also the latent period of cancers, and measurements at the time of the accident were for thyroid cancers (iodine intake) only.

Today, one out of every five Belarussians lives on contaminated land. That's 2.1 million people, of whom 700,000 are children. Because of the virtually permanent presence of small doses of radiation around the "Zone", the number of people with cancer, neurological disorders and genetic mutations increases with each year.

The idea that any nation has an impossible choice between coal or nuclear for its base load power is completely ignorant of the facts. The massive expansion of nuclear power in China only plans to increase it from 4 to 6% of their electricity.

As for "worldwide growth", nuclear remains thwarted by renewables and nuclear remains the most inefficient, wasteful and risky means of boiling water we don't have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeCCBvz_XwA&mode=related&search=
Posted by Atom1, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 6:59:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Dr Frank Barnaby seems to be the only expert on nuclear matters in your group" says Logic, trades assistant, - oops apologies, self-proclaimed engineer!

The hit jobs and smear campaigns on your opponents reveals how ill-informed you are Logic.

Professor Stephen Hawkings, the renowned mathematician said:

"We forsee great perils if governments and society do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and prevent further climate change."

Weapons proliferation is a rather difficult to prevent when the IAEA confirmed that just in the South Caucasus region (including Georgia), between '02 and '06, 481 smuggling incidents of radioactive materials occurred, including weapons grade materials.(Source: Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Analyst).

The following eminent scientists in addition to Barnaby are all outspoken critics of the nuclear industry.

Professors: Alice Stewart, Ing Schmitz-Feuerhake, Ruth Barnham, John Whitelegg, Joshua Lederberg, Linus Pauling, Jim Harding, Sue Roaf (recent vice-chair to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), Wasserman, Schmitz-Feuerhake, Horst Kune, Roland Scholz, Edmund Lengfelder.

Drs: Rajat Gupta, David Lowry, Hofman, Edward Martell, Kune, Diekkmann.

Of course there are many more too numerous to mention Logic and I'm certain that you would agree the numbers are not insignificant.

In Schleswit-Holstein, Germany, the "Investigation Expert Commission" was formed due to the high radiation emissions from the Geesthacht nuclear plants.

Professors Wasserman, Schmitz-Feuerhake, Horst Kune Roland Scholz, Edmund Lengfelder and Drs Kune and Dieckmann reached scientific consensus that radiation contamination was three fold to what officials reported and that the rates of leukemias were unacceptable. It was discovered all victims, diagnosed after 1995, were under five years of age."

On 1 November '04, the entire expert commission resigned, citing government obstruction and concealment of the evidence. Sound familiar? (www.NIRS.org/mononline/nm619)

For more information on how crafty and cunning governments and the nuclear industry are, see Australian Professor Martin's papers, using the following search words:

1. Brian Martin Nuclear Suppression

2. Suppression of Dissent in Scientists.

Similarly, the flawed and often commercially influenced, peer review system is also in need of reform!
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 1:37:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

More on the Non Proliferation Treaty death throes

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSSYD33624220070814?sp=true

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia has ended a ban on uranium sales to India, with senior ministers reversing a policy of selling the nuclear fuel only to signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
the "australian" newspaper said on Wednesday.

also a nice clip from chernobyl 20 years on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=101OEaksU0s&mode=related&search=

Atom1 congratulation on the ANAWA clip it was a pretty good covering of the problem , with an anti nuclear angle

my response is one of the truth they mention ,
As uranium ore get scarcer, poorer grade or hard to reach sites are exploited at a greater energy cost , leading to the terminal point
when all the energy obtained is used to generate it

the same principle apply to coal, gas and oil cost .
As an energy resource is depleted less and less energy can be practically used , some kind of drop in efficiency

This also apply to renewable , how much of their own produced energy it would take to reproduce them , in the case of photo voltaic this is probably never
wind turbine are manufactured using fossil energy not wind

talking about efficiencies is really talking about rationing by massive price increases or authoritarian measures to decrease consumption by the public ,
that's were the saving can come from , not industry , generation or distribution
Try selling this to the public in a democratic society , you would never be elected , people love talking about being green but they still want a modern , socially advanced developed society ,
that's a high energy one , low energy society hold individuals as cheap source of labor energy , they are exploitative and brutish with a lot of priests instead of public servant

you have the energy consumption of the 1920ies , you have the social cover of the 1920ies
the energy consumption of the 1700 , you have the lifestyle of the 1700
the energy consumption of a third world village you have the politics of a third world village

.
Posted by randwick, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 5:24:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atom1

I viewed the clip that you recommended on Youtube. I thought it to be a very professional and slick presentation. It must have cost someone or other a “pretty penny.”

You are correct in stating that there are two total divergent stories in circulation. There are the arguments advanced by recognised orthodox scientific bodies and organisations such as BEIR, ICRP, UNSCEAR, Health Physics Society, French Academy of Medicine and many others. True on the finer points the bodies disagree, not least in respect to the validity of the “Linear no Threshold Hypothesis” and its application to population studies.

Yet, all these bodies refer to papers and publications in the referred scientific literature and the there is a plethora of information going back for more then a century. Information that any interested person can obtain and critically examine.

My own experience is of working with and handling a variety of radioactive substances over more then thirty years in the health sphere. This does not mean that I claim expert status, but it does mean that I am knowledgeable. My own experience and study is consistent with the orthodox point of view.

On the other hand there are the opinions advanced by the anti-nuclear advocacy groups which are totally at variance with my own experience. In My view the advocacy people are also at variance with the bulk of scientific literature.

None the less the real battle is for Public Opinion. The decision makers in the business and investment community as well as Government have to be persuaded of the value of nuclear technology. In the final analysis no Government will act against the force of public opinion. Fortunately, we live in a democratic society and can freely express our opinions.

For reasons that I have already advanced it is my belief that the pro-nuclear forces are winning the battle for public acceptanc
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 10:44:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fyi...
China's Winds of Change (16% renewables target by 2020 alone, vs just 6% nuclear):
http://abc.net.au/foreign/content/2007/s1995352.htm

Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven'

"The idea that the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has created a wildlife haven is not scientifically justified, a study says.
Recent studies said rare species had thrived despite raised radiation levels as a result of no human activity.
But scientists who assessed the 1986 disaster's impact on birds said the ecological effects were "considerably greater than previously assumed".
The findings appear in the Royal Society's journal, Biology Letters".
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6946210.stm

Anti green, to my knowledge the "pretty penny" cost for the Climate of Hope video was funded soley by its maker, WA Greens candidate Scott Ludlam. like myself, no vested interests other than to win the campaign.

And I wouldn't hold in good stead your source of info being the industry-funded UIC.
Posted by Atom1, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 2:24:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
At the end of the third clip , john butler is mentioned , could it be the singer gave some funds ??
In a rather large personal experience with harsh industrial sites ,wildlife put up with any condition , no matter how hostile , and thrive if left in peace, the critical factor is the possibility of raising young in safety , hare browsing meters from jumbo jet taking off , deers
warming themselves in winter to the refinery flare , goldfish prospering in chemical effluent ponds ,
it's beyond belief what living things can survive indeed thrive in .

.
Posted by randwick, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 9:52:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atom1

"Logic, the emissions and fossil fuel costs for renewables & energy efficiency is negligible or zero, and with an energy payback time for wind (yes, only part of a solution) being just months,"

Did I understand you correctly, or did you mean that you could install a solar hot water system in your house for a negligible cost or at least make a return in a few months? This goes against my own investigations, but I dearly wish it were so.

And please Chernobyl was not a properly made reactor, it was a Titanic, please no one bring it into the equation. It is irrelevant when discussing properly engineered plant.

dickie, I tried to ignore your remark but do you wish to see my CV and Degree Certificate? I could e-mail both of them to you. As long as you agree to send me your CV and accreditation.

If you all want more wind turbines you will need to convert the people who refuse to have them on their back door. They are your chief problem.
Posted by logic, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 10:03:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-green ("The proposal is for civil not military applications. Australia has stringent safeguards. An Australian civil industry in my opinion is no threat to world peace.")

The development of the nuclear supply chain in Australia could lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons in our region (Australian Strategic Policy Institute, http://www.aspi.org.au ) and U exports to India could spark a Pakistan/China deal.

Safeguards don't apply to military facilities & don't guarantee inspections anyway, but do facilitate diversion of domestic uranium reserves for weapons.

"Whether or not Aussie uranium goes directly into Chinese warheads or whether it is used in power stations in lieu of uranium that goes into Chinese warheads makes little difference." - Taipei Times, 21/1/06.

If we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear to back out a lot of coal then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. - Al Gore.

Australia's uranium, once irradiated in reactors, has produced enough Pu for about 8,600 weapons (ASNO, 2003-04 Annual Report). If even the smallest amount of this uranium ends up in nuclear weapons then mining companies like BHPB and Rio Tinto are responsible for a major WMD problem. - Dr Jim Green, Friends of the Earth.

If you can enrich uranium to 5% for nuclear power then you can get to the 93% needed for nuclear weapons, therefore it's a dual purpose technology". - Dr Frank Barnaby.

"The development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the development of atomic energy for bombs are in much of their course interchangeable and interdependent." - D Acheson & D Lilienthal, 'A report on the international control of atomic energy', 16/3/1946.

"Almost every action, piece of research, technological development or industrial activity carried out in the peaceful uses of atomic energy could also be looked upon as a step in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. There is such an overlap in the military and peaceful technologies in these areas that they are virtually one." - Phillip Baxter, former head of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, 1968.
Posted by Atom1, Thursday, 16 August 2007 12:08:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further to the above, today's update on Howard's reversal of long held principles on selling uranium to India & weapons nations:

"Whatever reactors we put under safeguards will be decided at India's discretion. We are not firewalling between the civil and military programs in terms of manpower or personnel. That's not on."
India had no intention to quarantine its military program from its civilian program because nuclear scientists would work across both programs. - India's chief scientific adviser, Rajagopala Chidambaram, in an interview with 'The Hindu' newspaper.
- The Age, 16/8/07 Uranium sale to fuel arms race
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/uranium-sale-to-fuel-arms-race-imran/2007/08/15/1186857593210.html

This is in violation of the Treaty of Rarotonga which came into law in 1986, acknowledged by Leonard Spector - Deputy Director, James Martin Centre for Non-Proliferation Studies, Monterey Institute for International Studies, California.
Interview:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2007/2006382.htm

And Australia is bound to uphold treaties it has ratified under the Article XVIII of the Vienna Convention on Treaties.
http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%20Treaties.htm

To quote a colleague of the Medical Association of the Prevention of War:
The decision to sell uranium to India is a seismic shift. See you in court Mr. Howard .... unless there is a seismic shift in government first.

http://www.icanw.org
Posted by Atom1, Thursday, 16 August 2007 2:36:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ideally questions on bomb making should be answered by experts. Yet, all those engaged in this work are bound by a high degree of state security law.

So I venture this opinion.

Atomic bomb making is a complex difficult and expensive technology. Therefore a country has to have a strong motivation to go down this path. Some countries have indeed abandoned the attempt, notably South Africa and Libya. The Iran bomb is always sometime into the future. The North Korea test as far as can be determined was of low yield (still a big
bang) and probably only of limited success.

The allies did not need a power industry to manufacture a bomb. To best of my knowledge Israel and North Korea do not have working power reactors.

A uranium bomb according to Pugwash (1) is relatively easy to make and detonate. Not much risk to the bomb maker, except for a criticality accident. The problem is in obtaining or manufacture of highly enriched uranium (HEU).

Enrichment is a difficult and laborious technology to apply and few counties have or even need the capability.

Natural uranium contains about 0.7% U-235. Power reactors require enrichment to between 3-5% Weapons grade is about 90% although it is possible that enrichment to above 20% is weapons useable.

Some HEU is still used for fuel in a few research reactors and possible the nuclear plant in some submarines. Most research reactors including the Australian reactor at Lucus Heights are fuelled by Low enriched Uranium (LEU).

Pugwash believes countries with stock piles of HEU such as Russia, USA. have very high security in place. Plans are advanced to phase out HEU. The best way to handle HEU is to dilute it down with natural uranium to make LEU fuel.
[To be continued]
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 16 August 2007 3:52:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Continued]
With regard to a plutonium bomb I found this quote on the Internet.

"Most people seem unaware that if separated U-235 is at hand
it's a trivial job to set off a nuclear explosion, whereas if only
plutonium is available, making it explode is the most difficult
technical job I know."
Luis W. Alvarez, a key participant in the construction of the first
US nuclear weapons and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics,
1987; see Luis W. Alvarez, Adventures of a Physicist (Basic Books,
1988), p. 125." (2)

Reference 2 or the Milnet Nuclear Weapons FAQ (3) provides information on Plutonium Bomb making.
The question is often raised can the plutonium from spent fuel rods be used to make a bomb. In theory perhaps yes, but in practice the technical problems of gamma radiation from contaminants, excess heat from radioactive decay etc. would make this a daunting task.

“The only publicly known US test of a reactor-grade device was a 1962
explosion, partially declassified in 1977. However, in 1962 the
term "reactor-grade" included any purity less than 93% Pu-239.
The plutonium for the 1962 test came from a British MAGNOX reactor
(a dual-purpose electricity/plutonium-production design), and is
suspected of being in the range 80-90% Pu-239, although this fact
remains classified. (2)

Excess quantities of Pu-239 are best burn up. Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) is suitable for power reactors.

In Summary:

• It is my view that a civil nuclear power generating industry is NOT a surrogate for military application. The two technologies are distinct.
• Nuclear proliferation treaties, nuclear safeguards and security arrangements for weapons grade material are matters for governments. I have faith in the Howard Government.
• I believe that an Australian Nuclear industry (Power generation and uranium export etc) will have a minimal if any adverse effect on world security,
• Terrorist organisations would find it almost impossible to obtain HEU and a Pu bomb would be beyond their capabilities

1 http://www.pugwah.org/publication/pb/sept2002.pdf
2 http://Tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/13137
3 http://www.milnet.com
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 16 August 2007 3:53:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Together Howard and Rudd have opened up Pandorra's box. Expansion of Uranium mining is now the thin edge of the wedge. Both are ignorant and misguided they are not even considering many dangerous aspects of what they are doing. Uranium yellow cake should stay in the ground and only be used for medical and pharmeceutical means.
1 Uranium miners their families their neighbours will now be dying a slow death yes it is todays asbestos why shut down Wittenoon when you are opening up something that is far more dangerous. Reason it is a commodity that makes some people very rich. Even Gold mining is far too dangerous for local people around those mines.
2. Countries that receive uranium will them make plutonium then what will happen to that that cannot be stored and science still has not found the answer.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Thursday, 16 August 2007 10:58:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Australian Institute's poll during June 2007, revealed that only 8 per cent of Australians favoured nuclear energy and 50% endorsed solar energy as their preferred energy source.

In the Los Angeles Times Newspoll conducted during July 2006, to gauge opinion on preferred energy supplies, only 6 percent chose nuclear energy.

Seems the Americans have realised that while they have more reactors than any other nation (103), they remain the largest polluters on the planet.

This is a clear message that the scientific community who gave us nuclear weapons, should now turn their talents to achieving world peace without the potential for nuclear destruction. Most global man-made catastrophic events have been the result of scientific madness and many of us have encountered along the way, educated imbeciles, uneducated geniuses and the severely gifted.

"Those who do not remember the past, are condemned to live it once again."

Nuclear proponents, have failed to advise on the potential of radiological dispersion devices (RDD's) or the "dirty bomb" to cause death and injury to hapless civilians. These types of incendiaries, combining high explosives and radioactive materials are much simpler to make than a convential nuclear bombs. In fact, ingredients may even be purchased legally.
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 16 August 2007 11:05:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All these many ridiculous damaging crisis that the Howard Government has created such as Iraq War, Housing Affordability, Starving Government Education and Health to prop up Private Education and Health. The destruction of Telstra. The crippling HECS loans that repel graduates and potential teachers. The lack of University places for our young people that go to overseas students that have the money to buy in. The unfair Work Choice laws where by if you are foolish to sign an individual workplace agreement you no longer have any redress because you had signed away your right to an award and you no longer have rights at work that has been fought for by your fore fathers. The big one that overides all of them is one that should be a big NO NO Nuclear Power this is not scare mongering when people are warning us that this is the biggest threat to mankind. We all have been so lucky so far regarding Chernobil, One Mile Island and the recent earth quake in Japan. Do not believe John Howard and Ziggy when they tell us that this is safe it is not safe already these nuclear reactors whether they be fission or fussion they slowly send out a slow death that silently creeps into our bodies whether it be rain droplets or milk intake it is happening creating mutations the world over.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Thursday, 16 August 2007 11:24:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

BY the way , what exactly is the official " swear I die if I lie " position of the labor party ?
will they go for the " oops ,it's signed , we cannot do anything anymore " line
or the " uranium for a NPT violator is not so bad , they could boycott the cricket " line
a reduction in coal exports is probably never going to be mentioned by the member for kingsford smith the ineffably honest P.Garrett

quote from wiki
"Garrett has modified many of his earlier radical views and says he is now a "team player" in the Labor Party. He now supports the U.S.-Australia alliance, and no longer opposes the Joint U.S-Australian Defence Facility at Pine Gap.[3] He says he will argue for environmental causes inside the Labor Party, but will observe the decisions of the ALP caucus, including accepting any decision to change Labor's "no new uranium mines" policy. [4] Garrett's less radical public statements drew criticism from both journalists and Midnight Oil fans, who contrasted Garrett's former pronouncements on environmental and political issues while singer with the band before joing the Australian Labor Party - a notion he has since denounced. [5]

During the 2006 Victorian State election campaign, Garrett urged voters to not vote for the Australian Greens, but for his own Labor Party. This incurred the ire of Greens leader and former Garrett ally, Bob Brown who accused Garrett of having "sold out" and of going against the green movement, since joining the Labor Party. [6]

Although Garrett firmly supports the separation of Church and State, during his time in Parliament, he has commented extensively on the implementation of Christian values and how "personal values should and do inform one's day to day thought processes and decision-making." [7] [8]

In December 2006 Kevin Rudd, the newly-elected Labor Party leader, announced that he planned to appoint Garrett to his frontbench. Garrett was subsequently appointed as Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment & Heritage, Arts[4].

dickie ... I'm still waiting for some response on those reactors numbers

.
Posted by randwick, Friday, 17 August 2007 1:08:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“In fact the IEA (The Institutions of Engineers Australia –for next LOGIC’s references ) argues, on a least-cost strategy, almost two-thirds of cuts to global emissions would come from improving the efficiency of energy use. That's twice the savings from nuclear, clean coal and renewables COMBINED. (2006 World Energy Outlook, The Age, 22/5/07)” by ATOM1

-So far as I am concerned, the IEA-produced paper bears no iron-clad suggestions or recommendations, but in a pure Australian style concludes that in the future Australia is to face nuke-energy deployment anyway. At least, that is what fished from a copy I was provided with.

“And please Chernobyl was not a properly made reactor, it was a Titanic, please no one bring it into the equation. It is irrelevant when discussing properly engineered plant” by LOGIC

-Sorry, I am lost once again. Yes, Titanic was a nice modern ship to wonder New World with. And surely, any nuclear station design has windows for improvements by mutually exchanged technological achievements if such a deed could be done in reality of competition and hatred at mere biological levels internationally, as even some the most developed countries’ internal affairs are not immune from.

Bronco Lane, you did forget mention mere xenophobia and racism well nursed during the Howard Years, rejecting practically talented skilled non-Anglos from all areas but cash-in-hand seven/eleven style temporary part-time positions for the most lucky of these inferior tolerated near public sinks only.

However, speaking of security and safety of nuke industry should clear understand that a heard bypass is not 100% secure either, but necessary and unavoidable stuff.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 17 August 2007 1:10:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"dickie, I'm still waiting for some response on those reactor numbers."

Having a bad memory day, Randwick?

You already had a response from me when I advised of your initial errors. You conceded your numbers (though for Canada only) were incorrect and requested that posters again "check the numbers yourself and tell me of my errors, please or tell me if I'm right."

However, after your second failure at accuracy, your statement on reactor numbers remained flawed Randwick, a flaw I refrained from pointing out since you continued to blunder.

You may now play yet another game of "pin the tail on the donkey" without assistance from me!

I say.....wouldn't it be a refreshing change if these nuked up self-proclaimed "engineers" and "mathematicians" addressed or acknowledged some of the documented or scientific issues that other posters and I have raised, rather than nit-picking themselves into a corner?
Posted by dickie, Friday, 17 August 2007 9:08:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael K, the IEA is the International Energy Agency, not the Institutions of Engineers Australia (lol, as they say).

In any case, the media is finally seeing that 'safeguards' on uranium exports do NOT guarantee inspections anyway; that 'safeguards' DO NOT APPLY to military facilities (such as India's other 8 reactors and the uranium conversion plant at which yellowcake will arrive in China) and that 'safeguards' will facilitate the DIVERSION of domestic reserves to military use, as evidenced by:
"Given India's uranium ore crunch and the need to build up our minimum credible nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast as possible, it is to India's advantage to categorize as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refueled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons grade plutonium production." - K. Subrahmanyam, former head of the India's National Security Advisory Board.

Exporting uranium to India not only undermines the (flawed) NPT and removes any leverage Australia could exert on India in that regard, but it contravenes the Treaty of Raratonga and could likely spur Pakistan/China nuclear deals.

http://www.votenuclearfree.net/
Posted by Atom1, Friday, 17 August 2007 11:23:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
number of nuclear power plants in operation
France 59 nuclear plants , UK 23 ,Germany 17 ,Sweden 10, Spain 8 , Belgium 7, Switzerland 5
Holland 1
also Canada 1



dickie , dickie .... errors ( plural )
green Canada has 18 nuclear reactors , not 1
you haven't checked the numbers , a common garden greeny disease
this is not even controversial and the international atomic energy agency link is as solid as can be
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/RDS2-26_web.pdf

you cannot see for you do not want to see ,
your snide remarks on trade assistant mark you as a snob , mass produced intellectual of the K-mart universities , who would rather be a popular parrot than a thinking entity
your team is prejudices and superstition ,
not mine
Posted by randwick, Friday, 17 August 2007 8:41:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps I've a weird sense of humour when I witnessed Mr Downer speaking on the ABC's 7pm news last night where he advised:

"India has an excellent non-proliferation record other than their own nuclear weapons' programme."

Psst.......Randwick, "your solid as can be" IAEA reference site, which you nominated to substantiate your nuclear reactor figures, advises there are NINE operable reactors in Spain. Since you remained asleep at the wheel, all attempts by this "common garden greeny" to alert you to this fact failed and you had to reduce your argument to froth and spittle.

Do you expect the "prejudiced (and) superstitious team" to take responsibilty for your myopic disabilities?
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 18 August 2007 1:49:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Since the start of this thread your contribution has been trivial and swerving into inconsequential or abusive
you are obviously technologically illiterate and try to hide it
by making vague comments or personal ones
my proven point of nuclear plants being in widespread use hasn't been either answered or acknowledged , possibly because you don't understand it
read a book , change a light bulb , get a life

.
Posted by randwick, Saturday, 18 August 2007 3:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If even IEA has been of the double meaning, what would the more tricky international issues, the yellow cake involving definitely, have been presenting, LOLs?

I bet, in spite A. Downer’s prophesying, the USA to PRESS-in India and Pakistan into anti-proliferation treaty system. And Australia, a responsible citizen of a world community, will benefit from both nuke-adversaries - as well as from Russia, Indonesia and even Iran!
Posted by MichaelK., Saturday, 18 August 2007 7:21:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Randwick ("my proven point of nuclear plants being in widespread use hasn't been either answered or acknowledged , possibly because you don't understand it"). Hardly, whereas
- Wind power has had an average annual growth of about 25% over the past 20
years
- In recent years grid connected solar power has grown annually by 60%
- Renewable energy is now the fastest growing of all energy industries and is worth $54 billion annually, and...

US utilities haven’t completed a new nuclear plant since 1996, when the Tennessee Valley Authority switched on its Watts Bar 1 plant.

The 103 reactors in the United States that were built before nuclear power fell out of favor generate about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. That number hasn’t really changed in 20 years. Since 2000, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted 44 reactors, including the two in Russellville run by Entergy Corp., 20-year extensions to their original 40-year licenses.
- http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/198897/

To make even a minor CO2 difference would require ridiculous, subsidised investment and construction in new reactors.

My point being that “If we spread nuclear power abroad to boil water, the flip side of that coin is nuclear weapons. We’d be exchanging global warming for nuclear winter.” - Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear.

http://www.votenuclearfree.net
Posted by Atom1, Monday, 20 August 2007 3:21:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

First and easiest ,
......the 25% growth of nothing much is pretty much nothing much at all ,
second
grid connected solar power
PS10 in Seville is the only large power plant grid connected
it's a thermal molten salt carrier steam generator and the first commercial plant of its type with a nominal rating of 11Mw
and an electrical cost of three times the base cost , but no operational data has been published so far , it's too early
it seems identical to the experimental solar plant of Odeillo build in 1970
there is a large amount of pho-vo cells produced but their field of application is mostly for remote area or marginal generation
none feed the grid yet to any degree

as for Chinese intention ,
Chinese nuclear is planned to go from 6 Gw today to 36 Gw by 2020
wind power installed capacity is 485 MW it make it a production of 200MW at best
in Sinkiang , Uygur region and Mongolia , I have a suspicion that those places are off grid !
from the horse mouth
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull461/article6.pdf

here are two pro wind site from Danemark
http://www.windpower.org/media(1775,1033)/engelsk_resum%c3%a9_ea_analyse.pdf
http://incoteco.com/upload/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf

danes are the wind expert with 20% useful electricity fed into the grid ,
they have found that the rate of production is 1/3 of nominal output ( page 11 ..35% )
with a rider that
"When the wind is not blowing on a winter day, prices will therefore rise
when capacity is scarce ,consumption will fall as a result of high electricity price ...
security of supply will be maintained due to falling consumption -
that is , if the market works efficiently "

probably poor people switching off their heating !

.
Posted by randwick, Monday, 20 August 2007 11:59:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indonesia will have nuke stations in 2015 and Uranium is on a way from Russia to Iran recently.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 21 August 2007 1:41:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Randwick,
Real change in society requires... change. For as long as we rely on grid connected/centralised electricity generating (again and I will not hesitate to throw in the disclaimer that this ignores 64% of the sources of global GHG emissions) we will remain facing transmission and distribution losses.
And base load can be met via a combination of sustainable biomass, solar, solar thermal, wind and tidal power. Energy conservation and efficiency, and DECENTRALISED domestic power, are paramount to a sustainable future.
http://www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm

If real world investment is based on growth and potential, it's renewables all the way.

http://www.votenuclearfree.net
Posted by Atom1, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:41:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

....... To MichaelK.
about the Bushehr reactor , as far as I know ,the Russians are holding back the Bushhehr fuel even though the reactor is complete since six months at least
, officially about money , unofficially for fear of loosing control of the situation .
This is the last serious news I've heard of it
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070406/63236781.html
If you have details , please send them , I'm following this one with deep interest

Atom1 ,
yes this is the crux of the matter , in a centralised society , massive units make sense to feed a grid
the type of lifestyle has only the external trapping of democracy ,it is in fact a technocracy run for the elites
with a consumption level guarantying the acquiescence of the masses , some sort of bribe
If one want to go off grid , then the power production is less rigid ,
but the politics and economics not necessarily better ,
it would have to be tried , with a certain amount of probable failures , the price of experimentation

I believe in the overwhelming importance of the flows of energy in a society ,
it shape and dictate its forms , goals and needs , people must submit to its laws

The great age of carbon will end soon enough , nuclear is not a long term solution either ,
but can be useful as a stepping stone , toward what is the question .
If we mess up we will fall back into the maws of darkness , never to rise again ,
the available resources will have been squandered in a couple of centuries .

.
Posted by randwick, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 6:21:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to open sources, ATOM1, uranium to Iran had been supplied till the very recent days of August-2007
http://www.utro.ru/articles/2007/08/09/670338.shtml

No clear information of amounts ALREADY supplied is being provided but Iranian officials assertions that 100 kg is available only.

And this article does not cover sources of Kazakhstan and other CIS-states as well as amounts shifted under confidential agreements.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 21 August 2007 8:51:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just thought that in terms of nuclear weapon, it is extremely dangerous to have the nuclear deal with India.

First of all, India with its Islamic background is a potential Islamic extremism foster.

Another reason is India is producing missile which can reach US.

Hopefully, India will not be another Iraq, which US supported in 1980's to against Iran, because US is gonna support India to again China.

However, China is actually becoming an actual capitalism country and the majority of Chinese, which is Han Nation, has not invaded other country for more than 500 hundred years. Furthermore, Chinese seems really interested in business and earning money.

Please read the article written by a Canadian correspondent, http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2007/08/happy_birthday_1.php
Posted by Mark.elisita, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:52:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the link , MichaelK , no movement on this one basically , the reactor hasn't been loaded yet ,
so it's wait and see
if the Irannians have 100Kg at 5% enrichment ,it's not nearly enough
under the deal the Russians would get back the spend fuels rods , so no plutonium either

Mark.elista , I totally agree that supplying yellow cake to India would be , immoral ,dangerous , bad economics and terrible diplomacy
but India can hardly be called an Islamic state and I doubt very much if their Agni3 missile can reach anyone of note but Pakistan and China
the Asian links were Russia-India and Russia-China ,
The Russians attempted a reconciliation India-China and thus an Asian triangle ,it did not quite got off the ground and the Indian government instead got close to the U.S. last year , the nuclear treaty and the promised delivery of nuclear fuel are their reward , John Howard is only doing what he is told
the Canadians can be upset about India , they gave them a Canadian designed reactor and the Indian made a bomb with it , behind their back in spite of all the signed promises

.
Posted by randwick, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 4:46:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atom1

"And base load can be met via a combination of sustainable biomass, solar, solar thermal, wind and tidal power. "

Why did I waste time and energy getting a degree in Electrical Engineering with all that hard work studying maths and physics and work for 10 years on design of power stations when I could have just listened to your wisdom. And those websites which you recommend are so much easier to follow than those difficult technical papers text books and journals covered with mathematical equations.

Sigh, if only I had my life again. So much easier.
Posted by logic, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 10:42:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Howard, Costello, Bishop, Turnball, McFarlane, Downer have made it crystal clear they do want Australia to become Nuclear Power reliant. But this is not what Conservative Activists want. They know that it is too dangerous and will put their families at risk. This is why the Howard Government has become so unpopular. Australian people do not want another asbestos type problem. Nuclear Reactors are being decommissioned all over the world because whether fission or fussion the emissions do kill. Droplets fall out onto the grass. Cattle eat the grass. Strotium B 90 acts in the same way as Calcium. Our children drink the milk from the cattle who eat the grass. This ends up into the bone marrow of our children hence the many various cancers, myloid Leukeamia is treatable but is terminal. so please you that believe Nuclear Power is the answer think of your grand children because Europeans are escaping to Australia to get away from a known cancer breeding ground.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 11:40:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear power plants do not emit Strontium.
And Coal fired power plants put far more radioactive material in the air than Nuclear ones do.
Posted by john frum, Thursday, 23 August 2007 12:13:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strontium is from a different song - and as exeptionally right mentioned by LOGIC recently Australian-produced technical regulations look novels-like rather than engineering normatives. Tell me, why...
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 23 August 2007 1:23:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Randwick ("but... I doubt very much if their Agni3 missile can reach anyone of note but Pakistan and China"). Is that not enough??

Logic dismisses the possibility of base load power without nuclear (or coal I assume). Stuck in the past. Natural gas, with around 50% of the CO2 emissions of coal, is a proven and existing bridging fuel, whilst, given foresight & investment:
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free:
A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy (pdf)
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf
and The Base Load Fallacy:
http://www.cana.net.au/documents/Diesendorf_TheBaseLoadFallacy_FS16.pdf
Quote: "Base-load alternatives to coal power can be provided by efficient energy use, bioenergy, wind power, solar thermal electricity with thermal storage, geothermal and gas.
Large-scale wind power from geographically distributed sites is not ‘intermittent’. However it may require a little additional low-cost peak-load back-up from gas turbines."

John, maybe you could explain from whence the Strontium 90 contamination from Chernobyl came, if "nuclear power plants don't emit Strontium"?

But Bronco Lane, ("but this is not what Conservative Activists want.") thanks for clarifying that this is goes beyond politics or "leftism" as it's simply not what most AUSTRALIANS want, nor would any sane person favour the only WMD-related energy source.
Posted by Atom1, Thursday, 23 August 2007 7:37:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BRIDGING DOOM

Australia's best plan to abridge a 2025 overpopulation-meltdown and for its economic security, is to build UF6 centrifuge farms NOW to manufacture Nuclear PEBBLE fuel and the engineering capability to build medium to small PBR (Pebble Bed) REACTORS. These reactors can power ships, or medium to small cities. Australian cities over 50,000 people, should have such reactors within 5-10 years. Large reactors are beyond our capability and can't be EXPORTED.

Not only should Australia Export PBR Reactors but we should give REACTORS as aid to selected cities in poorer nations and supply PBR fuel on condition that recipients maintain a flawless one child per family policy. Australia too should have an equivalent one child per family policy plus an end to immigration and a compensatory technology boost so we can prosper while keeping our population, even if it is ageing, to 21 million people. That is the sacrifice we must make to BRIDGE the looming PEAK OIL crisis witout a bloody civil meltdown. HC's NIMBY nuclear phobia equals national suicide.

As for nuclear security/safety:

* You cannot use PBR fuel in breeder reactors nor can you use it to make bombs. You could crush the pebbles and make a dirty bomb but it would be just as effective to use an old car battery.

* PBR reactors automatically shut down when they reach critical temperatures and thus nuclear accidents are absolutely impossible.

* Long term wastes from tailings and processing (not from safe enclosed PBR pebbles) could kill or injure in the thousands over long periods of time, WORST CASE. Technology will make this waste future safe. This assessment must be weighed up against the 6 billion people, including millions of Australians, likely to be exterminated if we reach peakoil(~2025) without a reliable stop-gap, base-load and green-energy alternative.

Virtually unlimited GEOTHERMAL power will make Nuclear power obsolete within several decades so nuclear isn't a permanent solution. IF we get pat 2025, as Laser drilling technology matures and means are secured to prise it out of the hands of cowboy oilmen, nuclear facilities can and will be phased out.
Posted by KAEP, Thursday, 23 August 2007 9:07:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP, please read through the thread as you've ignored all the many reasons why nuclear is not a viable, sustainable, fast enough or safe enough option for addressing climate change.

"It is clear that no international safeguards system can physically prevent diversion or the setting up of an undeclared or clandestine nuclear (weapons) program."
- IAEA, 1993.

"Saying that nuclear power can solve global warming by itself is way over the top."
- Alan McDonald, senior IAEA energy analyst, 2004.

In relation to weapons proliferation and pebble bed reactor designs:
- The nature of the fuel pebbles may make it somewhat more difficult to separate plutonium from irradiated fuel, but plutonium separation is certainly not impossible
- Uranium (or depleted uranium) targets could be inserted to produce thorium targets could be inserted to produce uranium 233
- The enriched uranium fuel could be further enriched for weapons
- The reliance on enriched uranium will encourage the use of and perhaps be used to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons. And in China's pebble bed test reactor, "What to do with growing piles of nuclear waste is a problem that not even this reactor can solve".
- 'Catalyst', ABC TV, Feb 2007.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1854362.htm

Nuclear power is a 20th Century white elephant; it being a "solution" for climate change is a red herring (for uranium export deals and military relations); the Ziggy & the Libs' Report is a trojan horse and we could face a pandora's box of consequences. It's not worth the risk and is unwanted.

If you oppose WMDs, you should strongly oppose uranium mining, nuclear power and the fuel cycle.

http://www.votenuclearfree.net
Posted by Atom1, Thursday, 23 August 2007 11:06:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP, you are right – welfare should be extended to poor nations but not in a form of exporting technologies/nuke stations but ENERGY itself used to local projects (understandably, not affecting competitiveness of the western producers at the world markets and well-being of the ruling top of local privileged).

Surely, local night-bars and gambling venues to be among the most respectable consumers of imported nuke-related power.

ATOM1 – Strontium in Chernobyl was from by-products of experiments and producing of a military-linked stuff.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 24 August 2007 12:23:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> Strontium 90 contamination from Chernobyl came

Come on. Chernobyl?

Is a "Chernobyl" type explosion, typical of the way nuclear reactors have operated these past few decades? Are France, Japan, Canada, Britain, India, Germany, Korea or the US contaminated with Strontium ?

Do reactors routinely emit radiation much above the background levels?

Compare the radioisotope emissions of a properly designed nuclear reactor with a coal fired power plant...
Posted by john frum, Friday, 24 August 2007 9:10:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Probably, participants should pay more attention to each other posts on a page. If it was in not-so-perfect English written especially.

The official explanation is a”Strontium-90 fraction leached from the fuel particles into soil”.

And more:
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopaedia/?hdoc&nd=857100061
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 24 August 2007 7:53:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Anti Green
I will try not to allow my argument become personal but on reading all of your quotes, arguments and irrational reasoning you do come accross basically like Pauline Hanson. All of your replies do not keep to the issue you ignore the facts and to call yourself anti green highlights how blinkered you are.
I have lived close to a Nuclear Power Station and as part of a deputation with the local Resident Association we were shown round the whole of the complex. Since then that particular Nuclear Power Station has been decommissioned because the workers and Residents have lost many family and friends to various cancers. Please do not talk to me about Nuclear Reactors being safe almost every body that lived down our street had one of their family pass away from myloid, Breast Cancers, Bowel Cancers Non Hodgkin disease and the list goes on and on. Children in the Primary Schools were dying of brain tumours and other horrific related Cancers. In Great Ormond Street the number of birth defects were actually coming from the localities close to the Nuclear Power Stations. Many Europeans are escaping from Europe to be safe here in Australia. We are safe here in Australia until those who want to make profit from a commodity finally get their own way through mass propaganda within the Conservative Press and brain wash the impressioanable such as yourself and then it will be too late. Anti Green I will grnat you that you are persistant and I beg you please listen to Tricky Dickie as he does speak a lot of sense and we really do need you with your dogged persistance placing the argument for the benefit of our children and not the greedy multinationals. Peace be with you Anti Green.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Friday, 24 August 2007 9:28:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronco Lane

The fact that some nuclear power stations caused a problem does not lead logically to a conclusion that all do irrespective of their design. X-ray machines caused untold disasters when first introduced, but many of us would not be here today if we had stopped the technology because of initial mistakes.

The biggest killer today is the motor car, but there are few wanting to stop that machine of mass killing, it is difficult to even interest the majority of purchasers to spend an extra thousand dollars on safety. Those big four wheel drives have been shown to be more dangerous than power plants, where are the mass demonstrations against them?

Atom1

Yes gas when available and used with a combined cycle plant is a way of lowering CO2 emissions but it goes only so far. There are developments to make this technique also usable with coal. My doubts were about the possibility of using wind and solar for base load.

Nulear power is now a mature technology.
Posted by logic, Friday, 24 August 2007 10:01:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Atom1 the Agni3 missile range was mentioned only to retort to Mark.elisita comment about India being Islamic (?) and being able to hit the U.S.A.

I've looked into the sites you suggested , one about a grid reorganization for 0% CO2 by 2050 the other one " on the fallacy of base load "

for the first one ,twelve propositions are put forward
staring with legislating an end to CO2 production
and the twelfth proposing to set up an U.N committee !
anything in between is the usual mix of wishful,hopeful thinking
advocating government subsidies or stipend to solve a physical problem , in particular the imposition of a 40 billions carbon taxe called emission allowances
his vision is of a solar , wind , hydro ,biomass generation mix
including Co2 sequestration and batteries cars ,
he seems to confuse the combined cycle plant as an energy source , it is in fact only an energy use
his graph nbr 3 show coal , gas and nuclear going from ~ 3700Gwh to 0
solar, wind, hot rocks and biomass going from 100Gwh to 4000

the next graph is bizarre by 2050 it show efficiencies generating more electricity that all other sources combined ?!

the point is not of the nuclear being a political or military risk ,
anybody with enough brain to acquire and use fissile material is wasting his time making a bomb
it's much cheaper , safer and faster to splice the gens of golden staphylococci and make a truly terrifying weapon
it's not about nuclear energy being THE solution , but it is a proven , safe and efficient way of generating base load electrical power , lot of countries are using it from Canada to Germany and Sweden
the Californian nuclear plants saved the grid when the gas companies were gouging their customers ,
Australia will not have a nuclear plant for a long time ,people have been made too scared , I don't feel the same righteous outrage toward the coal fired plants so the climate change must be small beer .

.
Posted by randwick, Saturday, 25 August 2007 1:03:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronco Lane.
The National Academy of Sciences 7th report published in 2006 discusses the health of populations living near nuclear power facilities. Lists 16 ecological studies and 3 case-control studies on populations that live near nuclear facilities. Overall the best judgement is of no increased risk.

By the very nature of the problem “random controlled trials” are not possible. Whereas case-control studies usually have small numbers and therefore low statistical power. While “Randomized intervention trials (RIT) on humans, that is irradiating otherwise healthy subjects are ethically objectionable. Even to contemplate such an experiment is totally abhorrent.

So let us consider some of the factors to be taken into account when forming a scientific judgment.
• The selection of cases and controls. Randomisation is rarely possible in the selection process. Thus “selection bias" may be unavoidable, but every effort should be made to reduce this bias.
• The study area (such as distance in km from a geographical landmark is arbitrary.
• The Period of study is arbitrary.
• Ecological studies do not include data on individual exposure. A Surrogate exposure maybe a fixed distance from a power plant. It is assumed that every body living in a geographical area has the same exposure level assigned to that region.
• It is known that radiation emission from nuclear power stations are very low indeed please refer to UNSCEAR 2000 Annex C vol 1:182-188.
• Most studies do not confirm individual disease outcomes. There is known to be error in mortality reported from death certification, or in public health surveillance programs. Questionnaire studies introduce their own series of bias. For instance memory bias or badly framed questions etc. Cancer registries are usually a good source for data on incidence rates.
• Studies over prolonged periods need to take into account migratory population movements.
• Confounding and interactive factors such as smoking, alcohol intake, social class, Infective illness, dietary factors, genetic factors, other environmental hazards; all have to be carefully evaluated.
• Expert statistical input is required at all stages from study design, execution and reporting.

[To be continued].
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 25 August 2007 12:07:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Broncho Lane [Continued].

If we agree that a meta-analysis of several RIT studies is not possible or even desirable in this area. We are in agreement that there is no available gold standard. On the other hand the lowest level for evidence is uncontrolled anecdotal observations from biased reporters.

In brief we are forced to make a judgment call on inconclusive data such as ecological studies and small sized non random case-control studies. In this way the reader is helped, if there is knowledge that the work was published in reputable scientific journals.
There is always reader bias in our evaluation of the scientific reputation of the authors and in the reputation of their affiliated institutions. One other matter I am limited in my ability to examine documents in languages other then English.

You may be interested to read in yesterdays posting on the UIC site that a survey of 1150 persons living within 16km of USA power plants indicated strong support for nuclear energy. Over 90% thought it important for future energy supplies.

An editorial in the current Weekend Australian is also favourable to nuclear power.

Finally, you are correct in recognising my strong personal bias against the various anti-nuclear advocacy groups. This may be as you claim “blinkered.”

The following quotations are attributed to the late Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.”

"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 25 August 2007 12:08:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronco Lane

Scepticism is a requirement when being fed glowing reports on the safety of nuclear by the industry which has the most to gain.

A recent video titled "Something in the Air - Kwinana Pollution," is accessible by googling those words.

Kwinana is a heavy industrialised suburb in Western Australia where citizens are constantly bombarded with hazardous and carcinogenic stack emissions. The regulators remain in complete denial, despite the fact that the Health Department's graph revealed that Kwinana residents have the highest rate of cancer in the state.

Interestingly, after viewing the cancer graph, community members requested a copy, however, that graph somehow became "lost."

Luckily, the highly respected Dr Woollard was able to substantiate the cancer figures and had this to say:

"They (regulators) are in absolute denial with their heads in the sand. This is disgraceful!"

Dr Michio Kaku, is a Professor of physics, the world's leading authority on Einstein's Unifield, author of nine books and has published over 70 scientific articles in physics journals. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society, an honour held by about ten percent of the nation's top physicists. He had this to say:

"A few years ago, I was in Los Angeles debating a senior engineer from the Bechtel Corporation on the $2 billion nuclear plant at Diablo Canyon where the reactor was installed backwards by accident. The containment annulus containing the sensitive emergency core cooling systems was installed 180 degrees backwards which made two plants now back to front.

"The nuclear industry became the laughing stock of the world. But that's not all that's backwards. The heads of the utilities are screwed on backwards also where they are putting expediency before the health and safety of the people of this country."

So while proponents are singing the praises of the "new age nuclear technology" they remain silent on the scores of accidents in this industry, a result of human error. No technology in the world can compensate for human error or corruption, particularly when the industry is rife with lucifers, dunderheads and unethical governments and corporations!
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 25 August 2007 4:16:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Labor is to POTECT AND SERVE then it must reconsider Nuclear

This article http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/governments-latest-poll-shock/2007/08/26/1188066918904.html suggests Labor could win the November election on the basis of a government prepared to invest in infrastructure and education, for the days beyond the resources boom, ie. Peak-Oil.

One aspect of education is science and in particular the science of THERMODYNAMICS.

Added to the three reasons I have already stated for Labor embracing nuclear power:

* The second-law-of-Thermodynamics states that energy gradients create order and thus intelligence. Take away energy sources from that gradient and things like order and prosperity in human civil systems vanish. And given the recent experience of Rwanda's warlords, we all KNOW what will happen in our large cities around PeakOil. ONLY BASELOAD Nuclear power can take up the shortfall of our current energy requirements when petrol hits
the magical $10/litre. Peter Garrett especially take note.

* Pebble-Bed-Reactors are the only option and Labor must consider coal industries pose greater (utah mine, emphysema) numerical threats. !Begin a safe, secure and PROFITABLE PBR industrial behemoth industry in Australia!. Given dire future circumstances, PBR industries must remain regulated to avoid undesirable private-profit-leakage jeopordising our future .

* Russia is currently selling small naval reactors to nations for small cities. This is our market and I reiterate:

.It is not possible for radionuclides to leak from ceramic Pebbles so they cannot be used for bombs.
.They can't leak radiation as a poison and
.They can't let the Uranium recongregate to create a reactor meltdown.
.When GEOTHEMAL power finally gets 'up', pebbles can be safely dumped at sea in secure deep-sea geological subduction zones.

Pebbles ARE SAFE.

*To PROTECT and SERVE, Labor will need to have 'deterrence'. to Preventing foreign nations with multicultural enclaves taking key-installations and our nuclear bounty is priority#1. You cannot achieve this with conventional armies. They're totally dependent on oil.

Don't let us down Labor with short sighted NIMBY paranoia. Its time to take the reins, PROTECT and SERVE.
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 26 August 2007 2:38:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must admit that since I have come onto this opinion site apart from listening arguments the extreme right wing who do have their axe to grind because of profit, weapon defence to protect that profit, control the replacement for black gold. I do not ever hear the arguments for nuclear from a work mate, a neighbour, a relative or friend. This is why The Nationals have convinced John Howard to promise a referendum because every local member of parliament or senator that I have asked would you campaign for a nuclear reactor in our electorate and the answer is certainly not. Anti Green if you go into google and type in a word with cancer any word it will give you a true indication to say if there is a link. Right my first word say (whey cancer) good an anti cancer agent, (Broccolli Cancer) good again. Right now (Nuclear Cancer) whoops the cause. O'k (Uranium Cancer) Oh No Utah and the Navajo Indian this is what I mean when you know that Governments are blinkered just as they were with tobacco and asbestos, Formaldehyde, DDT, Wood Presevatives, lead in paint etc. It was only due to progressive people campaigning to shame governments that these known killers were legislated against. Those that are for Nuclear Power please do your research on Strotium B 90 and those that have experienced close contacts with Nuclear Power Australia has not experienced the suffering yet and I only hope that we will always have a Government that will not put us through that experience. Dickie you are a precious person it is a relief that we do have people like yourself that is helping to educate those that do not realise.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Sunday, 26 August 2007 10:49:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Australia dug out all its Uranium ore and produced not PBR but filthy Russo style mini nuclear fuel and reactors we still would not cause as much suffering as Road Carnage.

The Aussy love affair with their cars hides such great ugliness that none of us wish to see or feel. Over 1000 deaths each year and 5 times that number of horrific injuries. Year in year out.

And more important, the human world has not yet seen the kind of carnage that PeakOil will bring. The World Wars and Stalin's terror were a walk in the park by comparison to what is about to come unless we develop an interim nuclear strategy to maintain national and to a significant extent, global ORDER through creation and maintenance of a replacement, clean, baseload power source for oil and coal.

Time is running out .... petrol prices are being artificially held low for now .... the clock is TICKING.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 27 August 2007 12:38:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steady attempt to impost own will globally is paranoia distracting from a major task factual, which is sustaining national well-being apart from “globalization” of resource.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 27 August 2007 11:19:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
Bronco Lane ..
"Dickie you are a precious person it is a relief that we do have people like yourself that is helping to educate those that do not realise "
..Well , I'll be VERY interested to be educated in power distribution
"those that have experienced close contacts with Nuclear Power Australia has not experienced the suffering yet "
..Where is Nuclear Power Australia and the promised suffering , in N.S.W. or some further location ?! the future maybe ?!
" Right now (Nuclear Cancer) whoops the cause. O'k (Uranium Cancer) "
..Googling cancer and nuclear is the same kind of logic as googling U.F.O. and abduction , a high hit rate is by itself meaningless
"I must admit that since I have come onto this opinion site apart from listening arguments the extreme right wing who do have their axe
to grind because of profit"
..Some evil plutocrats , oil industry fiends and crypto nazoids are on this site ,
Gasp! Shock ! Horror ! they should be shot I presume , or forcefully reeducated

Dickie ..
"Scepticism is a requirement when being fed glowing reports on the safety of nuclear by the industry which has the most to gain."
.. fair enough , but the same can be said of the glowing reports from the alternative power industry
" they remain silent on the scores of accidents in this industry "
Hardly , all operational and S.H.E. matters are logged ,an analysis of events ,incidents and accidents would immediately show any fiddling ,
The authorities in Sweden ,Germany ,Canada or France could not hide clusters of cancers ,
in the case of Sweden the decommissioning of their reactors has been pushed back to keep using them .
In Germany ,the life span of the reactors has been extended by the last social-democrat -green coalition .
There is no future for nuclear power in Australia ,
a green scare campaign has very efficiently delivered electrical generation to the coal industry
That's the net result , and all this sophistry doesn't change it .

.
Posted by randwick, Monday, 27 August 2007 9:17:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Randwick

There appears to be a problem with your interpretation of the written word. I do apologise for again having to bring this to your attention.

You draw attention to this part of my sentence: "they remain silent on the scores of accidents in this industry."

Then you argue: "Hardly, all operational and S.H.E. matters are logged, an analysis of events, incidents and accidents would immediately show any fiddling."

My sentence commenced: "So while the PROPONENTS are singing the praises of the "new age nuclear technology" they remain silent on the scores of accidents.................."

I was referring to the nuclear energy PROPONENTS on this thread, Randwick. These proponents have not once acknowledged or debated the nuclear accidents raised in this thread, or those accidents occurring in the mining of uranium. Therefore, they have remained silent, despite the fact they are well aware of the blunders occurring in those industries. Or are they in denial?

It is obvious, you have interpreted the word "proponents" as the "operators" or perhaps "regulators" of the nuclear industry!

Definition of proponent: One who argues in support of something!
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 12:21:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Randwick
Unfortunately you do not answer regarding the many deaths and mutations from Nuclear Power and Uranium Mining. A lot of your thread appears cryptic and needs clarity. Americans and Europeans are experiencing multiple problems with Nuclear Reactors and the latest scare mongering is now Japan. What magnificent brain decided to build Nuclear Power Stations on top of a volcanic Rock. Japan was formed due to relatively recent eath quakes and they stupidly decide to take that risk even after being decimated with the atom bomb twice. So clever and a risk to neighbouring countries. A lot of the North of Britain suffered due to Chernobil but we have to block that out of our mind that was only incompetance that caused that. We never have any electrical faults or power cuts here in Australia do we. We do not believe in putting electricity underground do we ? No it is cheaper to layit on top of telegraph poles isn't it for everybody to look at. This isn't harmful is it ? It is within the safety standards isn't it. We do not have children suffering from various cancers at Princess Margaret Hospital do we. There are reasons why this occurs but we are baffled why this is happening. Time will tell
Posted by Bronco Lane, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 1:13:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"These proponents have not once acknowledged or debated the nuclear accidents raised in this thread"

This head in the sand ostrich rubbish permeates this thread!

The statement is not only indicative of this rubbish it is also UNTRUE:

My last post clearly acknowledged the nuclear accidents raised in this thread and compared them to, coal industry disasters, car accidents and past wars and the future PeakOil war. There is NO comparison. Thats the point. Nuclear accidents and potential accidents are INSIGNIFICANT even with current sloppy fuel reactors, compared to the above.

And the REAL points?

1. Only a nuclear baseload strategy implemented fairly quickly can stop billions of people dying as PeakOil bites. The second-law-of-thermodynamics guarantees this. Energy at the appropriate density for human populations that currently use oil will create ORDER. That ORDER will be significantly greater than with oil because there are NO associated high entropy pollutants to negate the low entropy PBR reactor source.

2. Pebble fuels and reactors are SAFE. The Uranium and other radionuclides are LOCKED in a ceramic ball. They can't get out and cannot form critical mass beyond the design meant for the reactor they are used in. There are no dangers at all and greater use of PBR reactors will see standards improved even though PBR is already 10s of times safer than coal industries right now.

3. Solar and wind power cannot mount the necessary energy densities to stave off a global civil collapse at PeakOil. PROPONENTS of these sources are wasting their time and jeopardising the lives of billions of people.

4 If and When the threat of PeakOil is abridged. PBR reactors can be dismantled safely. As GEOTHERMAL power generation utilities become cheaper to laser drill and engineer they will replace nuclear and and come on line en masse.

5 As we approach PeakOil, other nations will want to come and take our Uranium. That means we have no choice but to develop it ourselves as a deterrence to that threat. Conventional armies run on oil and will be of no use to stop any sustained horde attack.

Continued..
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 6:09:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continuing..

And while we are at we can make the most of the profits from nuclear fuel and mini reactor sales by ploughing it back into energy research for the future.

In summary the anti nuclear element on this thread are coming across as being snide, selfish and deceiving "she'll be right mate" twits who want their cosy lives to stay the same in the face of the greatest calamity that has ever hit mankind. They don't give a damn about the science or the rest of mankind. Sooner or later they will be sidelined as the TRUTH about our precarious future prevails and filters down to thinking individuals.
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 6:12:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Pebbles are safe."

Well Kaep, these "safe pebbles" have seen the National Nuclear Regulator in Sth Africa slamming the brakes on Eskom's PBMR at Koeberg. The suspension occurred last October and remains in force due to the advanced fuel behaviour and the safety criteria.

Eskom failed to disclose the order to stop work!

I have not yet learnt of any breakthroughs to prevent faulty pebbles slipping into and jamming the operations. The graphic moderator in pebbles could also be a fire hazard which has the potential for a catastrophic release of radiation.

The PBR requires some 360,000 uranium fueled pebbles where the used pebbles must remain on-site for the life of the plant. Surely, almost everyone would regard this as a high volume of waste? And how much CO2 will be produced in the manufacturing of billions of pebbles, should this technology take off?

Was it you who recommended dumping the fuel depleted pebbles in our oceans?

The up-side is that a PBMR could be completed and operational in a 3 year time span. However, these reactors require far fewer staff than conventional reactors, therefore, there isn't much in it as far as jobs are concerned.

Estimates for a 10 modular pebble bed reactor is purported to be some $2.3 billion - of course no containment building is required with pebble bed modular reactors.

Currently in the US, ageing reactors which should have been decommissioned after a forty year life span, are now being relicensed for a 60 year life span.

According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, twenty American states have requested stocks of potassium iodide which the NRC suggests should be available for those living within 10 miles of nuclear reactor plants, in the event of a severe accident.

So while this industry are frothing away at the new pebble bed reactors, conveniently forgetting that uranium is finite, they and the relevant agencies will have to be responsible for some 441 obsolete and ageing reactors (and repositories), where the deteriorating conditions of these reactors will put the inhabitants on this planet at serious risk.

Nuclear junkies: Recidivist, environmental vandals!
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 1:12:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
..To Dickie
on the ground of a distinction between operators and proponents , yep sure ,your opinion require a different answers
I took it as the global community of advocates of nuclear power ,
Still , I'm not sure that this thread proponents are particularly blind to the dangers of the atom ,
they usually argue that the risks are much less that the hyperbolic claims of doom usually advanced by
the opponents .
I would like you to acknowledge the tens of thousands of coal miners killed down the years
and the hundred of thousands of live blighted to provide power to the rest of us ,
the petrol industry also has some streaks of red in it's oil .
so far , for the total amount of energy generated the human price of nuclear is not disgraceful

.. to Bronco lane
your quote
" A lot of your thread appears cryptic and needs clarity"
It was an answers to some of the points you raised on your previous post , it goes a quote "..." an answers
try reading it again alongside to your post , if it still doesn't make sense , I'll try to be simpler for you
your quote
" Unfortunately you do not answer regarding the many deaths and mutations from Nuclear Power and Uranium Mining"
perfectly correct , I try not to answers unsubstantiated allegations"
your quote
"We do not believe in putting electricity underground do we ? No it is cheaper to lay it on top of telegraph poles isn't it for everybody to look at"
That is correct ,it is much cheaper I would myself rather see in buried in cities , much more aesthetic
your quote
"We do not have children suffering from various cancers at Princess Margaret Hospital do we. "
yes we do , what is your point ?
let me guess it must be a cryptic allusion to alleged links between high voltage power distribution and children leukemia
sorry you are swerving off thread
Posted by randwick, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 4:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Randwick
The point is Nuclear Power is not safe because even with straight forward current power utility we still have human and technical error and overhead electric causes cancer doesn't it.
With Japan the error of placing Nuclear Power within known earthquake and volcanic regions, even the Japanese are not as clever as we believe they are, another human error placing life in peril. Profiteers will always take this risk knowing full well it is all a threat to life. How can all of this be condoned ?
Posted by Bronco Lane, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 9:00:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If PBRs not on ... its not on.

Nuclear power is like sex. Both are essential to our well being and to our future. Both have dangers from lingering illnesses they can cause. But per capita, per killiowatt expended energy, diseases like AIDS and HepC and competetive violence associated with sex are millions of times more prevalent than any illness or injury nuclear reactors can inflict. Further, additional research will make PBR safer. I submit that sex will NEVER get any safer.

So given his frail logic, why doesn't Dickie call for ban on sex and NOT PBR nuclear power? I suggest that its because 'he's-alright-mate' and he doesn't give a damn about our future or anyone other than himself for that matter.

Additionally Dickie's remarks on PBR are misleading. The Wiki article gives full details of small PBR reactors. It presents the pros and cons with a bright hope for PBRs future given the ramping up of research efforts because of the threats associated with PeakOil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

His demonisation of dumping PBR pebbles in deep sea subduction zones is equally pathetic. Why? Because deep sea trenches collect all heavy radionuclides off the planet's surface anyway. Its a process called Gravity. What happens to those heavy nuclides in deep sea trenches is they get forced by deep sea pressure into sediments and later into the Earth's crust and melted as recycled magma. This process has been going on for 4.5 billion years and any pebbles at those depths are under such pressures that they cannot float away, leak or do anything other than get SUBDUCTED into the Earth from whence they came.

All Dickie ever does is present the cons of nuclear power and that is incredibly biased given all the information he needs to consider. For any fair minded individual dickie's viewpoint is simply a con.

Continued..
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 11:00:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continuing..

And lastly, it is not enough for Australian's to accept and embrace an imminent nuclear future. We have to learn the technologies and PARTICIPATE. Why? Because something this important to our future cannot be trusted to the Mr MacBurns of our corrupted private enterprise culture. Public Private Enterprise ventures are alright for roads because we can always get a political reversal of unjust funnel tunnel strictures. No such political backflips will be forthcoming if PPPs get hold of nuclear industries. As a preeminent future energy stock, nuclear will be as powerful and as unaccountable as the current oil giants. For similar reasons to why Telstra should never have been sold off, nuclear should NEVER be sold off by any government no matter what mandate they think they have.

And remember. If PBRs not on ... its NOT ON.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 11:01:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I would like you to acknowledge the tens of thousands of coal miners killed down the years."

Indeed I do, Randwick, as would Bronco Lane. Suggestion: Never believe government statistics. There have been HUNDREDS of thousands of coal miners killed between the 18th and 21st century.

Have you ever witnessed a loved one dying slowly from silicosis, a disease the goldminers contracted? The delay by governments and industry to protect workers from this terrible disease and the reluctance to compensate those on their death beds remains a vivid memory.

This disgrace was similar to those inflicted with asbestos related diseases, where governments and industry were well aware they were exposing workers to fatal diseases and remained silent until they were dragged kicking and screaming into the open.

Back to the topic. Only the IAEA did the statistics on the Chernobyl disaster. The agreement they had with WHO clearly contained a conflict of interest where, due to the agreement, were able to gag Director General of WHO Dr Hiroshi Nakajime and command WHO on the information they were permitted to release.

Dr Nakajime tried to inform on Chernobyl by organising in Geneva, an international conference with 700 experts and physicians. The IAEA blocked the proceedings which were never published.

The truth and consequences of Chernobyl would have been a disaster for the promotion of the atomic industry.

Are you requesting the general public place their trust in this industry?

I recommend you google www10.antenna.nl/wise/chernobyl/atomic_lies, to better understand how the nuclear industry deceives the public.

Atomic Lies is a documentary exposing the nuclear industry. Should you dispute the findings, I must ask you to explain why the IAEA have not brought a lawsuit against the "liars" which include highly regarded experts on the long-term and agonising effects of radiation.

Please advise, with the advent of thousands of pebble bed reactors, how long you believe uranium supplies will last? Daily replacement of U. depleted pebbles will require an ongoing supply, despite the more frugal use of uranium with this technology.

Perhaps you are only concerned with your own lifetime on this planet?
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 11:54:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Deep sea trenches collect all the heavy radionuclides off the earth's surface anyway. It's a process called gravity."

Ehhh......sorry KAEP. The science here's a bit difficult for poor old Dickie to absorb.

Mmmmm.......so why does there remain today, restrictions on farmers where, on many properties, they must test all livestock for radiation in Cumbria, Scotland, Wales and Ireland? Why do they still slaughter animals if they test too highly for radiation (a legacy from Chernobyl) which has been ingested by animals' grazing habits?

So why didn't your "gravity" sweep up all the radioactive contamination from the "earth's surface" in these places (and the rest of Europe) and deposit it safely in your "deep sea trenches?"

Mmmm.....perhaps the marine life contaminated with radionuclides, managed to get a feed before the stuff went into the sediment of KAEP's secure "deep sea trenches" hey?

But then why do ocean sediments, polluted with anthropogenic nuclear fallout, travel great distances where it has now contaminated the marine food chain in the Arctic, where this radioactive marine life is then consumed by humans?

Ah....now there's a thought! Could be those nuclear subs that the soviets dumped in deep water in the arctic ocean.

Mind you, didn't the yanks and soviets dump their nuclear subs in the Atlantic too? No worries. They've assured the world that the alloy encasings will prevent any radioactive releases. You see, alloys corrode slowly. I trust they'll be able to withstand the corrosion from salt until the RA matter decays! Hmmm....wonder why they are testing for radioactive fallout in that area?

Dear me.....I say KAEP, poor Dickie's stumped! He won't sleep tonight. Best you enlighten him by imparting more of your expert scientific knowledge.
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 2:29:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Dear me.....I say KAEP, poor Dickie's stumped! He won't sleep tonight. Best you enlighten him by imparting more of your expert scientific knowledge" - yeah, if it had helped me to sleep tonight and nights ongoing...
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 29 August 2007 8:28:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done Dickie and KAEP the title of this thread should be The Federal Election will be a referendum on nuclear reactors. The Australian people face a stark choice between the solar power and clean energy offered by a Rudd Labor Government and Mr Howard’s nuclear nation. this is a quote from Peter Garrett while he stays firm in the Labor Party swaying the Conservatives in the Labor Party, Labor will be the Political Party to vote for. Howard is just as crazy as George W Bush and we are not safe while those two are sabre rattling.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Thursday, 30 August 2007 7:32:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A choice between "clean energy" and nuclear power as much exists as a mirage in deserts represents a reality.

Either enough energy produced or pollution export to somewhere as usual, which is a simply hidden way to assure public in a highly sustainable mirage of “green clean technologies” locally.

In the case of the Australian nuclear future the least sympathetic are the least insane regrettably.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 30 August 2007 8:46:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

There is no solar alternative ,
only one generating plant exist for the whole world , the Spanish one and it's untested .
If it was economically possible the world would be solar .
but solar is an inner city public servant fantasy .

.
Posted by randwick, Friday, 31 August 2007 5:04:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's odd Randwick.

You've failed to mention Germany's solar energy plants of 10, and 12 MW's, Portugal has a 11 MW plant and the new Bolanden plant in Germany is due for completion in 2009, supplying 40 megwatts - the largest plant ever built.

Other large scale, open space solar projects are going ahead in Greece and even in Africa.

I do believe this industry is booming.

"Inner city public servant fantasy?" Please explain.
Posted by dickie, Friday, 31 August 2007 8:58:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And what happens to the 10,12,11 & 40MW plants at sundown or when it rains (which is at least 50% of the year from my experience of Germany)?

Solar proponents are like 5 year old kids in superman costumes who REALLY think they can fly.

We need nuclear power as a bridge over PeakOil. Nuclear Power is essential for this already overpopulated nation if we are not to sytematically start killing each other within two decades or when gas becomes around 10$/litre.

Sex kills people not Nuclear power!

And Remember ... If its not PBR ... its not ON!
Posted by KAEP, Saturday, 1 September 2007 3:24:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
public servant :
someone not involved in primary or secondary production ,
who ,with politicians live in a mutual parasitic symbiosis on the extraction of wealth from the above mentioned productors

On Germany
http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsGermany.htm
968 Megawatts of photo voltaic cells installed

German domestic energy sources in 1998 were: Coal: 46%, Nuclear power: 31%, Natural Gas: 14%,
Renewable Energy: 6% and Oil: 3%. In consumption terms, though, oil accounted for 44%, or 2.8 million barrels per day.

Of the renewables, wind energy accounts for about 58%, Hydro power 30%, Biomass 12%,
and solar and other source for the balance.
( my note ...it's 58 +30+12 = 100% ..solar balance = 0% measured production, so much nominal production ,so little juice in the cables)
Under the new tariff structure introduced in 2004, the base level of compensation for ground-mounted systems can be up
to 45.7 euro cents/kWh. PV installations on buildings receive higher rates of up to 57.4 euro cents/kWh.
The Feed-in Law fixes tariffs for approved renewable energy projects for a 20-year period from the plant commissioning
and will apply incremental price cuts. Tariffs were initially set at
48.1 cents per kilowatt hour for solar energy,
8.6 cents per kWh for wind,
9.6 to 8.2 cents per kWh for biomass,
8.4 to 6.7 cents per kWh for geothermal and
7.2 to 6.3 cents per kWh for hydropower, waste and sewage gas.

The world's largest PV installation is in Germany, at Hemau in Bavaria. with a combined peak power output of 4 Megawatts.
Waldpolenz Solar Park is at the stage of project

.
Posted by randwick, Saturday, 1 September 2007 5:06:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

On Portugal

the Serpa plant has been finished in January 2007 , it doesn't have operational data as yet
it was build with money from the European Union ,also
from http://www.azobuild.com/news.asp?newsID=3344
The Serpa project relies on a preferential tariff mandated by the Portuguese government
......At today's ceremony, a 3.7 million euro (US $4.8 million) contract was signed for a grant to the project
under the Portuguese government's Economic Modernization Program.

In brief all those projects are subventionned political floozies who couldn't pay their way out of a paper bag !

as for cost from the Californian energy authority
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html

solar cost is a guesstimate based on Stirling engines ,by far the least ridiculous way of producing solar electricity
further
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/levelized_cost.html
that's the killer !
Pho-vo is three times more expensive still ,
or simply ,
Your 100$ electricity bill will rise to 2000$ with no guaranty you would have it in a winter morning

Even then ,those numbers are grossly optimistic , the making of photo cells is very energy intensive ,
they are build now with cheap fossil and nuclear energy .

read and think carefully about this ... it take more energy to make a photo cell that the photocell will produce usefully

the anti-nuclear arguments of cost and inefficiency are not really serious
France at 80% nuclear has the cheapest electricity in Europe and export it at a profit

. THERE IS NO CHEAP ALTERNATIVE POWER , IT'S A FANTASY

.
Posted by randwick, Saturday, 1 September 2007 5:29:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Randwick's a dag! 1998 statistics on Germany? Obsolete, my boy, obsolete!

KAEP, like a drunken sailor, lurches from one topic to another, failing to address any questions posed.

Salivating over the prospect of nuclear energy whilst lacking the lateral thinking of other posters, their obsession remains with this redundant technology which instills a barrier to the real question: How to eliminate greenhouse gases.

Whilst nuclear energy may reduce GHG from the operations of the coal industry, they have completely ignored the drastic emissions from other pollutant industries, or offered any urgently required solutions on how those emissions are to be reduced.

An example of only a few of the current annual organic and non-organic emissions from the National Pollutant Industry reveals:

COAL MINING AUSTRALIA:

CO = 24,000,000kgs, Chlorine = 8,400kgs,

Fluoride compounds = 130,000kgs, Formaldehye = 11,000kgs,

Oxides of Nitrogen = 42,000,000kgs,

Particulate Matter = 180,000,000, Sulfur dioxide = 1,900,000, Total

Volatile Organic Compounds = 4,500,000kgs, Xylenes = 4,800.

METAL ORE INDUSTRY AUSTRALIA:

CO = 51,000,000, Chlorine = 130,000,

Fluoride compounds = 2,500,000kgs, Formaldehyde = 140,000kgs,

Oxides of Nitrogen = 65,000,000, Particulate Matter = 190,000,000,

Sulfur dioxide = 250,000,000, VOC's = 4,600,000kgs, Xylenes = 42,000kgs.

MOTOR VEHICLES AUSTRALIA:

CO = 2,200,000,000kgs, Oxides of Nitrogen = 370,000,000kgs,

VOC's = 260,000,000kgs, Xylenes = 14,000,000kgs.

Therefore other environmentally-destructive industries' hazardous emissions will remain unsolved (particularly Uranium mining) whilst you debate your silly arguments on nuclear.

Release of carbon from fossil fuel burning = 4 - 5 gigatons/year

Release of carbon from soil organic matter from oxidation and soil erosion = 61 - 62 gigatons/year

Carbon emissions occur from mining, deforestation, tillage and other agricultural practices.

I would hazard a guess that if Mother Nature chose to inter elemental carbon into the earth's crust, she had not planned on feeding the greed of humans digging holes, delirious over the prospects of pillaging and plundering her waste repositories.

Furthermore, solar will eventually cover any wind-related shortfalls and wind power will be able to cover solar related shortfalls. I await the futuristic advent of a solar-wind hybrid to eliminate current problems for tomorrow's clean energy supplies.
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 1 September 2007 7:10:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dickie I must admit your arguments do seem plausable. But I have always campaigned for Nuclear Power within my own party and it has not been easy. Now that we are all convinced that Al Gore was right anyway this now is the fundamental argument that Nuclear Power is now inevitable. The scare mongererers do not scare me or my family. I would want a Nuclear Power Station at the bottom of my road if that is what it takes to not be addicted to oil. Lancelin would be a fine site and Bunbury would be perfect after all they are now proven safe. Radiation is all around us and it is acceptable this would be far better than breathing in smog fumes and contaminating our lungs. Three cheers for Peter Costello, Alexander Downer, Malcolm Turnbull in standing up and promoting Nuclear Power it is great that they are now taking this stand.
Posted by Julie Vickers, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 11:56:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading a Julie Vickers’s message is worth time spent on exercising English in this topic.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 5 September 2007 12:40:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Julie Vickers

I presume you are a West Australian when you recommend Lancelin or Bunbury for sites to build a nuclear reactor. Should the Liberal Party win government in WA in 2009, your may see your dream realised.

Questions I must pose:

1. Do you really believe that in the advent of nuclear power, John Howard will shut down his beloved coal industry?

2. In the unlikely closure of coal mines, which decade do you envisage this occurring?

3. Did you know that recently the EPA in WA recommended that the application for expansion of coal mining in Collie be rejected due to the potential damage to the environment and that the State Government ignored that recommendation and gave its approval?

4. How long do you believe it will be before we have a sufficient number of nuclear reactors to significantly mitigate greenhouse gases?

5. Are you aware of the most recent accidents in the nuclear industry? Japan - July 2007, Germany (2 sites) June 2007, Tennessee US 2006, Sellafield UK 2005, Hungary 2003.

6. Have you realised that in the advent of nuclear power for WA, many thousands of square kilometres (already pegged for uranium) will be plundered for the mining of uranium?

7. Are you aware, that an upsurge in uranium mining will drastically increase emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and radioactive emissions? Just one Australian uranium mine, in its last annual report, emitted 1,500,000kgs of oxides of nitrogen and 2,400,000kgs of particulate matter. (www.npi.gov.au)

8. Did you know that one uranium company in Australia was prosecuted last year for supplying drinking and bathing water to its workers, which exceeded the "safe" level by 400 times?

9. Did you know that humans must already cope with the adverse health effects from normal background radiation and that additional man-made radioactive emissions add to the background level and place humans at significant risk?

10. Have you ever been to a Liberal Party State Conference to learn how they "debate" the issue of nuclear energy?
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 5 September 2007 7:53:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rights Flattened As Government Steamrolls Towards Waste Dump
The approval today by Science
Minister, Julie Bishop, of the highly controversial nuclear waste
nomination at the Northern Territory's Muckaty Station means that
Territorians are even closer to having a dump steamrolled into their
back yard. The approval comes despite the Howard Government telling Territorians before the 2004 election that:
"I think the reality of this is that there's no one on the mainland who particularly wants a nuclear waste dump in their backyard, and that is why we're pursuing the practical option of going to an offshore island,so the Northern Territorians can take that as an absolute categorical assurance."...(Senator Ian Campbell, ABC Radio (PM), 30/09/04)Today's announcement is yet
the next chapter in the decade-long saga of lies and mismanagement that has become Howard's waste dump.
The Howard Government has tried to impose its waste dump at numerous sites around the country; settling on the Northern Territory because of its ability to steamroll the Territory's rights and impose the dump against its will. After forcing legislation through Federal Parliament, the Science Minister now has full Ministerial discretion over the siting of a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. Now to cap it all there is now Nuclear fallout fear for the Northern Territory, Northern WA and Queensland because Indonesia are considering Nuclear Power this is madness as the islands are susceptible to earthquakes, eruptions and tidal waves. Ziggy Switkowski believes he would feel completely safe within a nuclear power station if it was hit by an earthquake surely he has lost all credibilty if he believes that.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Saturday, 29 September 2007 10:29:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If grey, out-of-touch, conservative Howard era’s legacy really matters something in Australian history, it will have been nuclear renaissance aspects in Australia.

With all my personal attitude at and opinion of last 11 years, rejecting the nuclear future is synonymous to surrounding/submitting this Anglo-oriented land to Osama’s demands.
Posted by MichaelK., Sunday, 30 September 2007 5:00:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Editor
At a recent meeting in Perth Kevin Kamps who is qualified on Nuclear Issues said that Reactor plants will become defacto waste storage sites if Australia adopts nuclear power.Washshington-based Kevin Kamps, who was on a national tour with the Wilderness Society, said that the public's primary concern should be where the governments planned to store nuclear waste.
He said US experience showed reactors, generally located near cities, had been forced to store toxic waste while the argument of where to build a national dump continued.
American nuclear reactors produced up to 30 metric tonnes of waste each year, which posed serious health and environmental risks, he said. ''Nuclear power is still a very contentious issue in the US with most people asking where do we put the waste,'' he said.
''If reactors are built, they will serve as waste storage sites for many years in the future and there is a massive risk for accidents.''
Mr Kamps pointed to the Yucca Mountain proposed dump in Nevada that had now been delayed as a groundswell of opposition grew.
He said nearby residents and environmentalists did not want the dump because of the site's location on a fault line, near drinking water supplies and on volcanic land.
He argued that the same problem would happen in Australia if nuclear energy was developed.
The South Australian city of Port Augusta, north of Adelaide, was named the most likely location for Australia's first nuclear power plant by The Australia Institute thinktank.
Mr Kamps dismissed the argument put by Prime Minister John Howard that nuclear energy was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions produced by coal.
''The creation of a nuclear power industry to decrease emissions trades one ecological disaster for another,'' he claimed.
The government should concentrate on improving energy efficiency and renewable energies to solve global warning, he said.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Sunday, 30 September 2007 9:47:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What would humans eat as a natural food’s finished?

What all this cry of nuce power about but a quest for simply engineering sustainable solutions of nuclear energy production?
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 2 October 2007 12:54:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 26
  7. 27
  8. 28
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy