Peter,

I am prepared to enter into a rational debate. However I do have some reservations about those conditions you posted:

Firstly, although I recognise that some sources are far superior to others, scarcity of information is likely to be our most serious problem and I'm concerned that restricting our information to the most authoritative sources would prevent us from being able to reach any conclusion, even a contingent one.

Secondly, if anyone cheats, the rational thing wouldn't be to terminate the discuss in a huff, but rather to alert them to it and ask them to rectify it.

Aidan,

I agree with your second point. The way I propose to handle that is raise it, the other person accept or disagree for stated reasons. Then, if discussion is needed, we state we've move into 'Committee' until it is resolved and we reach closure on it. That's sort of what happens in Parliament when the House moves into 'Committee.

On your first point I agree, too, except, it is important we stay focused and rely on authoritative sources. Sources like Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, ACF, and many of the reports from university professors are simply not authoritative. We'd spend for ever arguing about what's worth debating. Let's give it a go and handle disagreements about authoritative sources by going into 'Committee' if we need to.

Do I interpret correctly that you agree with items 2, 3,4 and 5?

Interesting tactic Pl, you get to determine which are the sources to be considered authoritative?
Just so I'm clear, would you care to nominate which anti-nuclear sources you consider suitably authoritative?
Or does being anti automatically define them as not being so?
Just asking.

Watch out for that elephant over there in the corner while you're at it too!

To read the comments from the pro nuclear lobby, one would think that Mia Pepper is alone, in having reservations about the future of the uranium and nuclear industries.

However, the influential international business journal, Forbes, shares her views, warning that the recent brief lift in uranium prices is a "dead cat bounce". To quote Forbes:

- "For anyone unfamiliar with market slang a dead-cat bounce is the height a cat rises off the footpath after falling 20 floors – it’s an irrelevant recovery, and the cat’s still dead". And Forbes goes on to list its reasons for pessimism about the industry. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2014/11/17/uranium-is-hot-but-not-for-investors/

ChristinaMac1.

The spot price of uranium is totally irrelevant. facts:

1. Prices of commodities rise and fall. Iron ore price has dropped by 50% recently. Oil and gas prices have dripped by over 50% in the USA.

2. the price oif uranium is effecitely irrelevant to the cost of ncuelar generated electricity. Fuel cost is lesss tha 5% of the cost of electricity. it could double or tripple and make litte difference to the price of electricity. However, if gas prices double or tripple, the cost of electricty also nearly doubles or tripples (not quite, but you get the picture)

3. Nuclear is by the cheapest way to reduce emissions.

4. Nuclear is the fastest way to make large reductions to global GHG emissions this century

5. Nuclear is the only energy source that is sustainable for the long term

6. Nuclear power is the safest way to reduce emissions: See "he influential international business journal, Forbes":
"How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

So if you are concerned about GHG emissions, or health and safety, or improving human well-being globally you should be advocating for nuclear power.

There is simply no rational, objective justification for the fear-mongering, or for your paranoia about nuclear power. To oppose nuclear power or advocate against it is irrational.

I wonder what the 22 odd new reactors being commissioned and many more planned in china will do to this silly thread.