The sad truth is that the only one form of agreement between Australia as a uranium supplier and any other country would satisfy Dr. Green and his boss in the so called “Friends of the Earth.” That of course would be a total ban on all supplies and all mining etc.

However, this is to ignore the importance of the uranium trade for the Australian economy. Even sadder is the mindless opposition of Green and his colleagues towards nuclear power generation. Nuclear power is arguably the cleanest form of power generation. It is also according to the Switkowski report the safest from point of view health safety per GJ of electricity compared to any other significant mode of generation.

Jim

You and I both know Russia has so much weapons grade plutonium that it has been selling it in one form or another, by agreement, to the Americans for years.

Russia mines its own uranium for weapons purposes, no matter what the Australian Left hopes. This is the widely recognised mine your own weapons grade principle - no matter what the civilian market is doing.

In any case Russia also has alternative suppliers of uranium, like Kazakhstan on its border. An Australian uranium ban has no effect on weapons.

The point is any uranium export to Russia for reactor purposes will not alter the unsafeguardable weapons cycle of Russian mined uranium going into unsafeguarded (closely protected) Russian reactors (next to reprocesses etc) all specifically built for plutonium production then eventually to weapons configuration.

The price effect of Australia banning uranium to Russia, like our uranium ban for Indian civilian reactors, only makes both countries turn to releatively cheaper greenhouse gas (ofter coal) power stations instead. Hence uranium bans add to the world greenhouse gas problem.

BTW - I'm always amazed how silent the Australian Left is about most of Australia's uranium going to China. Why that silence?

Does Chinese money for First Class bribe tours to China for Third Class politicians speak louder than their principles?

Does Chinese promises about safeguards defy the alternative supply/mine your own weapons grade reality?

Pete

hi Pete ... if you had actually read the article, it says: "In the short term, diversion of Australian uranium for weapons production is unlikely given the size of Russia's nuclear arsenal and its stockpiles of fissile materials. But as Kelvin Thomson, chair of the treaties committee, noted in 2008, "with uranium you have to have a system which is foolproof for hundreds of years." In the short term there is certainly a risk of theft and smuggling of Australia's uranium and its by-products."

NGOs complained long and loud about uranium sales to China but were largely ignored by the major political parties and the corporate media.

I do believe you're too polite Jim Green.

There is no integrity in the uranium industry or successive Australian governments - they just want to flog the stuff to the highest bidder or any bidder for that matter.

And the IAEA are lobbyists for the nuclear and uranium industry. The only thing the IAEA have done efficiently was to gag the World Health Organisation decades ago.

And the ignominious historical and very current 'incidents' and coverups in this industry, reveal the IAEA's profound impotence.

But hands over ears, hands over eyes and altogether now:

"La la la la la!"

Hi Jim

Thanks for replying.

I did read your article however I was not convinced that the hugely costly "die in a ditch" Russian effort to make bombs would be at all effected by what Australia did or didn't do in the short or long term. Even the Yanks who think they have influence find themselves successfully outmaneuvered time and again - by Russia using the following for its bomb making:

- Russian uranium

- non Australian imported uranium

- even smuggling yellowcake or tailings over Russia's long border with Kazakhstan (from ethnic Russian expatriates no less) may be an increasing winner.

- reprocessed plutonium from many unsafeguarded reactors, or

- reusing old stored weapons grade plutonium (especially in the unaccounted for category)

I respect you for your knowledge and idealism but once I come from a more cynical MAD reliant calling - can't shake off the logic.

As to the Chinese I think NGOs and the ALP must have put China use/misuse/substitution of uranium ultimately in the too hard basket. China is worth too much trade wise.

Must be too risky for Rudd to put China offside over the process of Australian uranium in the civilian sector, in effect, aiding diversion of expensive Chinese uranium into the weapons modernisation sector.

Many outside Australia see Australia's selective "stand" as uranium appeasement of China - I suspect they may be right.

Anyway its good to have others who can talk outside of govenment and who care about this complex political-technical issue - even if we disagree.

Pete

No one who is even half serious about building a uranium-based weapon is going to be put off by lack of access to Australian uranium. The stuff isn't that rare. With some time and energy, you can even extract it from seawater. Accordingly, 'safeguards' on Australian uranium would be so much empty posturing anyway. All you're doing is making it just that little bit harder for other countries to wean themselves off fossil-fuelled energy.