Typically superficial article from one who thinks they know all the questions as well as the answers. If the continuing use of coal presages the end of the world as we know it, then all options should be on the table. Furthermore, Australia could disappear from the planet and the world problem of increasing CO2 emissions would not be changed anything more than a minuscule amount.

Dear oh dear - no less than 11 posts trashing Mia Pepper's fine article!

I sometimes wonder who are the readers of Online Opinion. The same little bevy of pro nuclear spruikers pop up with comments on any article that touches on the nuclear industry.

And the same old methods - attack - not the facts presented, but the person presenting those facts.

So we again get the silly mantras of the nuclear lobby - phrases like these - "stupidity from the loony-Left" "mental defectives in the climate hysteria industry" "The reports quoted, - written by folks whose knowledge was hopelessly incomplete! "

Still, one useful little gem did appear. They don't often mention the schism in the nuclear lobby - the thorium promoters versus the uranium promoters. That was inadvertently revealed by thorium enthusiast Alan B

Wrong again CM and as usual as you seek to continually verbal or misrepresent! I guess to you all radiation is just radiation and all nuclear technology is dangerous technology?

Even where some of the radiation is life saving alpha radiation and other deadly gamma radiation!

That some nuclear reactors can be used to produce nuclear weapons and some like thorium cannot!

Moreover, there was nothing whatsoever inadvertent about the way I made those comparisons! No ifs, buts or maybes!

Suggest you read the whole comment next time rather than cherry pick those parts you hope, confirm your pre darwinian antinuclear bias?

I'll thank you not to misrepresent my views again before becoming actually informed. By getting on U tube, google tech talks and thorium V greens.

Alternatively you could note this is my fourth comment on this thread and just like a St Petersburg troll continue to willfully and quite deliberately misrepresent both my views and the verifiable facts?

And should you continue to quite deliberately and willfully impugn and misrepresent me my views and the facts in this way?

I expect other lees disrespectful readers to do some fact checking of their own before giving your, business as usual, diatribe the time of day!

Must be getting cold in St Petersburg around now?
Alan B.

Noel Wauchope, AKA ChristinaMac1,

The posters 'trashing' the already trashed are people honestly expressing their opinions. Honesty is not a big thing for you though. You are quite happy to deceive your employer by not using your real name in some instances because you fear that your employer is as narrow-minded and devious as you are, and you might lose your "fairly responsible job". Nobody could take you seriously. You are a menace even to the causes you champion. Pseudonyms are OK for people just expressing opinions; not OK for people who set themselves up as authorities, and take to leccturing other people.

So what is ttBaboon's real name?

17 posts thus far, only one real name.

I much prefer the approach of The Conversation regarding use of noms-de-plume, which is:

Don't.

C'mon, OLO. Make discussion real.