Australia does not need to go down the nuclear path. There is limitless engery available in solar, geothermal and other renewables. Remaining with some coal powered stations with renewable options is far preferable to turning to nuclear.

How many nuclear accidents have to happen before it dawns that there are too many risks in nuclear and human error or greed and failure to ensure safety standards will always be an issue.

Fukishima won't 'die down'. Chernobyl still has a no-go zone of some hundreds of kilometres. Those affected by these accidents won't be thinking 'oh well when it all dies down' - what about the ongoing medical problems, contamination and reduction in agricultural land.

Australia has already been clever enough not to go nuclear. People often say they support nuclear until some bureaucrat tells them it will be built in their backyard.

The proposed sites in recent discussions under the Howard Government were all in cities and larger urban regional cities and towns.

Another nuclear plant has gone into meltdown at Fort Calhoun Nevada.This too is being covered up. http://fairewinds.com/
They have top get the technology right and proper safeguards in place.The full disaster of Fukushima has yet to be realised.

Shadow Minister,

I'm intrigued by your reference to when Fukushima is "back under control". I'm wondering what you mean by that? As far as I can discern, three reactors at that plant experienced full meltdown. We don't know yet what sort of long-term impact this will have on the surrounding environment or the wider implications.

Some cover-up, Arjay.

>>Another nuclear plant has gone into meltdown at Fort Calhoun Nevada.This too is being covered up.<<

I wouldn't have thought that a thousand-word article in the New York Times represents a particularly competent cover-up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/21flood.html

Another version of this event appears on the "News Worldwide" site. The reason I am attracted to this particular source is because it states categorically that...

"All stories posted on News Worldwide have been verified for their accuracy."

http://newsworldwide.wordpress.com/about/

Right next to it, when I looked, there was the headline "H.A.A.R.P. Was a Direct hit on Japan March 11, 2011 Causing Earthquake, Inside Government Sources Say. Exclusive!"

These must be definitions of "verified" and "accuracy" that exist only in certain dimensions of the space-time continuum, to which I am denied admittance.

These stories have forced the operators to become far more transparent in their information releases, which can only be a good thing. In doing so, they perform the most useful function of educating the public on the basics of running a nuclear facility.

http://www.oppd.com/AboutUs/22_007105

I particularly liked this rumour that they have heard - possibly from you, Arjay, who knows...

"Rumor: A no-fly zone was set up around Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station because of a release of radiation, similar to what happened with the Fukushima reactors in Japan."

The concepts of "no-fly zone" and "flight restrictions" are of course identical in the vocabulary of the sensationalist. As the Utility puts it...

"The flight restrictions were set up by the FAA as a result of Missouri river flooding."

One thing is for sure, Arjay. You live in a very exciting, and highly dangerous world, that keeps you perpetually on the edge of your seat, waiting for the next disaster to occur. Meanwhile, sadly, the rest of us are forced to live a life of mere humdrum normality.

The problem with the neclear plants that are in trouble is that they are old and outdated and should have been replaced long ago.

As with most technology it makes advances in design and construction over time, the more modern plants are generally safer and have a much lower risk of meltdown and possible release of radiation.

Nuclear should be talked about more often, we dont discuss nuclear power we only hear what is happening with OLD TECHNOLOGY no discussion about NEW TECHNOLOGY.

There is even ideas that new technology could even use and reduce the radioactice rods left over from the OLD systems.

<< … Abbott should be proactive, step up to the plate, and call for a full scale debate on the role that nuclear power could play in meeting the future energy demands of a rapidly growing population. >>

No way Malcolm!

Abbott should be looking at how we can deal with this scourge of rapid and never-ending population growth, which by the way would NOT be difficult, and WOULD resonate with the majority of Australian voters.

He should be trying to out-green the Greens with policies directed at achieving a sustainable Australia, which again would not be difficult.

Population stabilisation is an essential part of this. Nuclear power has no place in it.