As I said before - the pro nuclear voices on this forum make no attempt to address the subject of the article .

//As I said before - the pro nuclear voices on this forum make no attempt to address the subject of the article .//

Well, no, but to be fair neither have you.

There's not really too much to disagree with in the article. Jim is bothered because he thinks the proposed facility won't employ as many as the Government is claiming. For once, I agree with him: I don't like Governments dishonestly inflating their figures, and I'm in agreement that we should have more people employed in the nuclear industry. A lot more.

Christina,

You made false assertions about the safety of nuclear power. Evidence has been provided demonstrating you are wrong. But do not admit it. When clearly wrong you do not admit but instead try to diver the discussion. These are signs of intellectually dishonest, and they show you are incapable of rational discussion:

Two of the '10 signs of intellectual dishonesty' are:
"4. Avoiding/Ignoring the question or “ . . . and let’s not forget about . . .” Anybody who refuses to admit that their argument is weak in an area and, worse still, avoids answering difficult questions in that area is being intellectually dishonest. If they don’t ignore the question, these people are easily recognised from their efforts to change the subject.

5. Never admitting error or “I am/We are right – regardless of your evidence”. These are the people who will never admit that they are wrong – ever – regardless of clear evidence that demonstrates their error. See Sign #1"

"A flowchart to help you determine if you’re having a rational discussion"
https://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion/
You need to be willing to publicly answer "yes" to the first three boxes and obey rules 1 to 4.

To Toni Lavis

No, I did not address the subject matter of the article. What I initially addressed was the emotive and derogatory language of one of the pro nuclear commentators.

I then went on, rather wasting my time, to a defence of attacks on me.

However - to return to the article. I don't see anywhere where Dr Jim Green is advocating for more people employed in the nuclear industry. Still, I think there is room for much employment in the nuclear industry. The total shutdown of that industry will eventually come. In the process, and forever afterwards, there will be employment, and need for expertise in the protection of the environment and the human species from the toxic man-made radionuclides that it has produced.

Christina,

Before trying to change topics, in accordance with the rules of objective discussion, you need to first acknowledge that:

1. You were wrong about the safety of nuclear power
2. You were wrong about the projected deaths caused by Chernobyl
3. Nuclear power is actually the safest way to generate electricity, and has been since the first nuclear power reactor began supplying electricity to the grid, some 64 years ago.

You should also state that you will never again make the false assertions and scaremongering that nuclear power is less safe than other electricity generation technologies.

If you do not acknowledge these you have clearly demonstrated you are not intellectually honest and you cannot be trusted to participate in rational discussion.

//What I initially addressed was the emotive and derogatory language of one of the pro nuclear commentators.//

Yeah, I noticed. Still not sure why; surely you noticed that Alan B is a few quarks short of a proton?

//I don't see anywhere where Dr Jim Green is advocating for more people employed in the nuclear industry.//

Yeah, but he's obviously concerned the Government won't be employing enough people, or else why would he bother writing the article? And the logical corollary of him being concerned that they're not employing sufficient numbers is that he'd like to see more employed. I concur.

Whadda we want? More jobs in the nuclear industry! When do we want 'em? Now!

//The total shutdown of that industry will eventually come.//

Yeah, one day we'll have cold fusion and Dyson spheres and warp drive and over-unity engines.

Until then, let's try and be practical: renewables are terrific, especially hydro, since it's the only that can generate baseload power. And there's your problem right there... it's the only renewable that can generate baseload, and it's very dependent on geography. But we live in Oz, and it's dry and flat as a pancake - not much potential for hydro. Fossil fuels can generate baseload, but they're full of carbon. With current technology, the only practical solution for CO2-free, baseload power in Australia is fission.

//In the process, and forever afterwards...//

Umm.... wow.

OK, we're back in flat earth territory now. Tell me, Noll, in your adventures in nuclear activism have you ever come across the terms 'radioactive decay'?

Radioisotopes are unstable. They decay into other isotopes... otherwise they wouldn't be radioactive. Radioactive samples decrease in activity over time as they decay.

I'm more worried about isotopes that are stable and toxic by virtue of their chemistry. Sure, too many bananas and brazil nuts might push up my radiation dose a bit... but I'd be a damn sight more concerned by high levels of Pb or Hg than a bit of extra K-40, even if they were stable isotopes of Pb & Hg.