The assumption in this article is that anything to do with uranium is unethical.

This would include medical isotopes etc.

The whole premise of this article is archaic given the need for non climate related energy sources.

The rest of the world has moved on so please can we.

Excellent article.

Is there no limit to corporate deceit?

The words 'ethical' and 'sustainable' obviously mean nothing to some of the operators of investment funds. Their real meaning is totally lost in this pliable and nebulous world of corporate wheeling and dealing. The terms are now nothing more than marketing tools, and their genuine usage by the few funds that could truly be described as ethical has now been totally devalued.

Shadow Minister

"The whole premise of this article is archaic given the need for non climate related energy sources."

Frances has clearly articulated the reasons why nuclear power is not the solution to our energy needs. There is nothing archaic in her reasoning and nothing particularly enlightened or forward thinking about the nuclear option.

The rest of the world has moved on so please can we."

No, the rest of the world has not 'moved on', at all. A noisy minority is trying hard to assume the case is settled. But, for most of us, questions about the security risk of going nuclear, its toxic legacy, its carbon output, its enormous expense and its unproven effectiveness are yet to be resolved.