Nuclear power is a risky and dangerous pipe dream, which Australia neither needs nor wants. It’s being used by the Coalition to buy time to allow the big fossil fuel polluters to keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere and destroying our planet.

1. Nuclear would just divert investment away from our transition to renewables, which is already providing 40% of our energy and on track to provide 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. Nuclear would cost twice as much as renewables.

2. Nuclear would take around 15-20 years to come online in Australia and possibly longer. We'd first need to bring about major legislative change which would face strong opposition. We don't have time to wait for nuclear.

3. There’s no evidence to support the claim of an 80-year life span. The oldest reactor in the world is 55 years. Most have an operating life time of between 20 and 40 years.

4. Nuclear uses much more water than renewables, a critical consideration in a dry and drought-prone country such as ours.

5. Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to extreme weather events which are only going to increase in frequency and severity.

6. Catastrophic accidents can and do happen. In addition to Windscale, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima, there have been at least 15 accidents involving fuel or reactor core damage, and many near misses.

7. There's no safe solution for the disposal of the highly toxic radioactive waste. It has to be isolated from the environment for more than 100,000 years. Nobody wants this waste. Australia has been searching for a suitable site for over 40 years and still hasn’t found one.

8. Decommissioning a nuclear reactor is a lengthy, complex and costly process, taking from around 15 to 30 years and costing from around $500 million to $2 billion.

To be continued ...

Continued ...

9. Nuclear industry workers suffer increased risk of cancer, heart attack and stroke.

10. Children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk of leukaemia, lymphoma and other types of cancer.

Australia has more sun, wind and hydro potential than most countries. We have the resources and the ingenuity and we’re already well on the way to becoming a renewables powerhouse. We don’t need or want nuclear power. It’s too risky, too expensive and it's too little, too late for Australia. Its waste would be a selfish legacy to bequeath to future generations. And who in the country wants to live anywhere near one of these monstrosities?

An article so riddled with fallacies (including straw-manning their opponents, no less) could only be written to create noise or encourage the faithful to stay the course.

Waving off climate change as "imagined fears" is so obviously incorrect that it discredits everything that follows. You don’t need to be a scientist to know that dismissing decades of peer-reviewed research and global consensus is a bad look.

The authors rail against subsidies for renewables but stay oddly quiet about the massive support fossil fuels and nuclear have enjoyed for decades. They pretend to be champions of the free market - until it's nuclear on the receiving end of handouts. Suddenly, the government’s role isn’t wasteful - it’s just in the way. That’s not economic philosophy - that’s cherry-picking.

Their portrayal of renewables is equally dishonest. Wind and solar are framed as expensive failures, yet the data says otherwise: they’re now some of the cheapest sources of new energy worldwide. Integration challenges? Real, yes - but solvable, and being solved every day. But you'd never know that from this piece, because nuance is nowhere to be found.

Instead, the article leans hard into conspiracy-flavoured rhetoric. Government = bad. Protesters = naive. You = a pawn. It’s less an energy policy piece and more a libertarian fever dream.

Nuclear power deserves serious discussion. It can absolutely play a role in decarbonization. But it won’t win hearts and minds with overblown promises, like “penny per kWh” electricity just around the corner. That’s not serious analysis - it’s wishcasting.

Energy policy is something that is clearly over the heads of this trio. It takes tough decisions, reliable data, and a willingness to deal honestly with competing viewpoints. These jokers offer none of that. Their article is all bombast and no backbone.

As can be easily shown, the more a country moves toward renewables, the higher the cost of that country's average electricity costs. Countries that have the highest level of renewables in their system also have the highest power costs while countries that rely more on fossil fuels/ Nuclear have comparatively lower power costs.

The green power complex continue to claim that renewables are cheaper, but this is all smoke and mirrors. These claims are only achieved by carefully ignoring most of the indirect costs of renewable installation. When all costs are included, renewables don't measure up which is why renewables the world over require massive subsidy to even exist.

Recently, in the US there's been a push by several of the larger technology companies to get more access to power supplies due to the gigantic electricity needs of their proposed AI centres. And in each case, these companies, after evaluating their options, have gone with nuclear power to meet those needs.

Increasingly, populations have become inured to the scare campaigns of the green movement, realising that the predictions over the past 50 years of imminent doom have all been proven wrong. You can only tell people that we've got ten years left to fix the problem so many times before they stop listening. Wasn't the Arctic supposed to be ice free by now, New York City under water and Perth a ghost town?

The world is moving on from the daffy notion that we can run the entire economy on renewables. Australia will eventually catch on to that.

Thanks, mhaze.

I would have thought the “renewables make power expensive” correlation-causation conflation was too amateurish for someone as versed as you in denialism.

Countries with higher renewable uptake often do have higher electricity prices, but not because of renewables. Germany didn’t just slap on a few wind turbines and call it a day - it built a whole framework around climate policy, legacy feed-in tariffs, and infrastructure upgrades. Blaming solar panels for the entire bill is like blaming airbags for the cost of a car.

As for subsidies - let’s not pretend renewables are the only ones at the trough. Fossil fuels still enjoy eye-watering support globally (over $7 trillion in 2022, says the IMF), and nuclear doesn’t exactly run on bake sales. If renewables are only “propped up by subsidies,” what does that say about industries that have been getting handouts for a century?

The tech-company shift to nuclear? Sure, baseload power matters for energy-hungry AI centres. But many of these same companies also invest in renewables, batteries, and demand-side tech. Picking nuclear doesn't mean renewables "failed" - it just means energy systems are complex. If your takeaway is “renewables bad, nuclear good,” you’ve oversimplified it to the point of parody.

“WaSn't ThE aRcTiC sUpPoSeD tO bE iCe FrEe By NoW?”

No, it wasn’t.

You've distorted early, worst-case projections. Some models suggested the possibility of ice-free summer Arctic conditions by now if emissions stayed high and trends accelerated, but even those came with huge caveats. Consensus has always pointed toward mid-century.

And in case they’re not reporting this in denialist echo chambers: Arctic sea ice is vanishing - just not on the cartoonish timeline deniers keep inventing so they can laugh when it doesn’t happen overnight. It’s not that the science was wrong - it’s that the deniers never bothered to read it properly.

No, the world isn’t moving on from renewables - quite the opposite. Renewables are growing fast because they’re cheap, clean, and getting smarter every year. Australia will catch on - but hopefully not by clinging to outdated talking points that confuse nostalgia for wisdom.

" it built a whole framework around climate policy, legacy feed-in tariffs, and infrastructure upgrades. "

Yes that's what I said. When you look at the entire cost of the so-called renewable revolution, the move to renewables becomes more expensive than the alternative. Again, when you plot a country's electricity costs against their level of renewables (I showed you this before but it clearly went over your head) you see that more renewables means more cost. Its rather simple and simple to see but alas....

"over $7 trillion in 2022, says the IMF"

I'll leave you to go and research how that number is arrived at and then you can come back at offer your mea culpas. (Hint: most of that number is about supposed climate change costs and the rest is primarily oil rich countries providing cheap fuel to their citizens)

"You've distorted early, worst-case projections. "

Yes, the sky-is-falling crowd now tell us they were worst case predictions - now that they've been proven wrong. But at the time NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and HadCrut were all on board with the scare. That nice Mr. Gore won a Nobel and several hundred million dollars based on the scare. As with all such scares, all the cognoscenti believes them until they fail to happen.

" Arctic sea ice is vanishing ".

Minimum sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres...

2007...4.17
2012...3.41 (still the lowest ever - hence the scare)
2020...3.92
2024...4.28

Vanishing?

mhaze,

Cherry-picked graphs, revisionist history, and the classic “you just don’t get it” routine? You need a new MO.

Anyway, let’s take it from the top...

Yes, countries with strong renewable adoption have higher electricity prices in some cases - but causation isn’t that simple. You’re folding in decades of infrastructure decisions, market structures, and taxes unrelated to renewables. Germany didn’t just “go green” and suddenly pay more - it made a national policy choice to transform its grid, support early-stage tech, and phase out nuclear. Blaming renewables alone is like blaming your grocery bill on the bag of apples and ignoring the champagne.

Now onto the IMF’s $7 trillion figure. I have read the breakdown. It includes externalities like pollution-related health care costs, environmental damage, and artificially low energy prices in many countries (which, yes, include direct fuel subsidies). You’re not disproving the number - you’re just upset that real-world costs were finally put on the tab.

As for the “worst-case projections” on Arctic ice, that’s exactly what they were - edge-case scenarios, not universally accepted timelines. Scientists model a range of outcomes based on different emissions levels and feedback loops. Deniers love to grab the most dramatic possibilities, pretend they were guaranteed forecasts, then claim victory when reality doesn’t match the headline they misquoted.

That’s not scepticism - it’s gotcha theatre.

The actual consensus has always pointed to mid-century for the possibility of ice-free summers under high-emissions pathways, and even that’s coming worryingly close.

You posted four cherry-picked data points and stopped. But trends are measured across decades, not anecdotes. The long-term downward trend is clear - and backed by every major climate monitoring agency on the planet. Sea ice is thinning, volume is decreasing, and multi-year ice is disappearing. “Vanishing” doesn’t mean “gone entirely,” it means rapidly declining, and your own numbers - starting from a historic minimum - don’t disprove that.

Al Gore making money doesn’t invalidate physics. The Nobel Prize wasn’t for flawless predictions - it was for sounding the alarm early. And given where we are, the alarm was worth sounding.

Try again.

JD,

These are data from over 70 countries which, far from the cherry-picking you claim, takes everything into account so that cherry-picking is eliminated. Sorry you can't see that. But try to keep up.

So you pick on Germany alone as though its the exemplar. Why you cherry-picked it when no one had mentioned it is somthing only you can answer. But what about Denmark? Or Italy? Britain? Spain? Netherlands? All with high renewables and high electricity costs. What 'special' case can you fabricate for them?

The fact is that when ALL costs are accounted for, renewables are the most expensive form of power generation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN_ARfPY9rY&t=350s

_______________________________________________________________

80% of the IMF figure is notional costs. These aren't subsidies. Governments aren't paying someone $7trillion. Its a made up number to sucker in the gullible. They'll be pleased to see it works. BTW do we count the environmental pollution involved in making solar batteries as a subsidy?

____________________________________________________________

"The actual consensus has always pointed to mid-century for the possibility of ice-free summers under high-emissions pathways, and even that’s coming worryingly close."

If you say so!! Perhaps the 2010's is too far back for you to remember but back then the consensus was for a near term ice free Arctic. Where are the IPCC, NOAA, HadCrut saying that Gore et al were wrong to predict 2013. Only after it failed to happen did they come out saying they never believed. The whole green movement is like that - make prediction that fail and then deny the prediction was real. Dams won't fill. Perth will be a ghost town. NYC will be under water. Tuvalu also. All predicted. All wrong. All now denied. And those of a certain learning fall for it every time.

" The long-term downward trend is clear". If you say so!! But the data might disagree with you. Data? I showed you the data - you showed your chutzpah to deny it.

mhaze,

You’re confusing data with conclusions. Citing numbers from 70 countries doesn't eliminate cherry-picking if you’re still drawing simplistic conclusions from a complex dataset.

The relationship between renewables and electricity prices is multifactorial - you can’t just throw up a scatterplot and pretend it’s gospel. Policies, energy imports, tax structures, and legacy infrastructure all influence cost. Correlation isn’t causation, no matter how many countries you plot.

As for Denmark, Italy, Spain, etc. - yes, many have high electricity prices. But that’s not solely because of renewables. These countries often carry layered costs from early investments and policy choices. Meanwhile, places like Portugal, Ireland, and Chile are rapidly scaling up renewables while seeing falling wholesale electricity prices. Context matters.

And the IMF figure? No one said governments are writing $7 trillion cheques. It’s about implicit subsidies: underpricing pollution, ignoring climate impacts, and artificially cheap energy. These are real-world costs, just not itemised on a receipt. That’s not “made up” - that’s economics 101.

Lomborg’s clanger doesn’t say what you think it says either. He flat-out admits - in plain language - that solar and wind are “technically” among the cheapest sources of electricity in the world. His gripe? They’re only cheap when the sun shines or wind blows. That’s not a revelation - that’s how variable energy works. The solution isn’t to give up - it’s to invest in grid storage, demand management, and complementary baseload - which is exactly what’s happening. His framing only sounds like a “gotcha” if you ignore how energy systems function.

Now climate predictions. You claim the consensus predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2013, but you’ve shown no evidence. Gore’s documentary isn’t the IPCC. One bold researcher in 2007 doesn’t equal global consensus. The IPCC reports showed ranges, scenarios, and uncertainty. You’re rewriting history and hoping no one checks.

As for your sea ice “data” - four cherry-picked years from a historic minimum isn’t a trend. Every major climate agency - NASA, NOAA, NSIDC - confirms Arctic ice is in long-term decline. That’s not debate - it’s denial.

"Citing numbers from 70 countries doesn't eliminate cherry-picking if you’re still drawing simplistic conclusions from a complex dataset."

Lot's of words looking for a coherent thought.

Valid conclusions aren't simplistic just because the only viable result isn't to your liking. The data is clear, and , as your hand-waving shows, unassailable evidence that more renewables means higher costs.

Ireland/Portugal/Chile? Struth, tell me about cherry-picking again. How's Botswana going?

"One bold researcher in 2007 doesn’t equal global consensus." Wow you real have managed to memory-hole that period haven't you. Gore said it. NASA scientists said it. An international consortium of scientists said it (they were the basis of Gore's claims). Show me where the international science community was decrying Gore's claims or that he won a Nobel based on what you now say (once it became inconvenient!) wasn't accepted by the science community.

This happens all the time in the climate world. Wide predictions are made. They get touted as The Science. The followers of The Science fall for it. Then they fail to happen and the followers of The Science move on to the next soon to be failed prediction. NYC was going underwater in 2020 except when it didn't happen they declared they never beleived it. Tuvalu has been going under for 50 years and never quite gets there. Perth was going to be a ghost town by now but now we are told no one thought that. Claim after claim is made, the gullible declare the sky is falling, then forget the claims once they are proven wrong. Welcome to Climate Science, although its more a case of welcome to the Climate Cult.

"...we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Schneider

How ironic that the champion of Albo's mad bill is now a mad champion of IBM proportions. As Mel Smith observed, "None of this is true though is it Johnny?". As for Bronny, the anti-nuke arguments presented are so dishonest and discredited that even IBM has used a few of them. Not that having arguments discredited matters to studious pseudo-scientists, as one bs story can easily be replaced with another.

Now, here is a comparison for the rainbow chasing Luddites to think about:

In the 1970s there was an oil shock. In response to the popular catastrophist tales of the Mad Max world humanity was headed for, France decided to source all energy from nuclear fission and Denmark decided to develop windmills. Fifteen years later France was supplying 150% of its electricity needs with nuclear and stopped the build. The build restarted in 2022 and France currently produces 70% of its electricity from nuclear and exports about 100TWH of low carbon electricity per year.

All the while Denmark developed windmills. After half a century of development, windmills and solar supply 28% of Denmark's electricity. Denmark has the most expensive electricity in Europe and relies on imports for 18% of its demand. And IBM thinks the Danish example the one to follow.

Out of interest, Australia's ISP has been junked. It seems the plan was riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods. Right up IBM's alley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4z65FswjHw

Given up trying to refute my rebuttals now, mhaze?

//Lot’s of words looking for a coherent thought.//

You’re just sneering at complexity because it doesn’t serve your prefab conclusion. That’s not clarity - that’s shortcutting your way into confident ignorance.

//Valid conclusions aren't simplistic just because the only viable result isn't to your liking.//

Cute, but you’re again mistaking “simple” for “correct.” You’ve boiled a complex, global energy transition into a single slogan - “more renewables = higher costs.” In reality, electricity pricing is shaped by policy, legacy infrastructure, taxation, market design, and timing of investment. Your so-called “unassailable evidence” only works if we ignore all of that.

//Ireland/Portugal/Chile? Struth, tell me about cherry-picking again.//

They were named precisely because they contradict your rule. That's called falsification - basic scientific method. If a generalisation doesn't hold in key examples, it’s not a rule.

//Wow you really have managed to memory-hole that period haven’t you. Gore said it. NASA scientists said it…//

No, some scientists made bold projections. Gore quoted them. That’s not a consensus. The IPCC reports at the time offered ranges and confidence intervals. NASA didn’t issue a press release saying “ice-free Arctic by 2013.” You’re conflating headlines and advocacy with consensus science. Again.

//Tuvalu… NYC… Perth… all predicted. All wrong. All now denied.//

Tuvalu is literally losing habitable land. NYC is spending billions on flood defences after increased storm surges. Perth had a water crisis severe enough to reshape its entire supply strategy. These were warnings - not prophecies - and many worst-case outcomes didn’t happen because mitigation worked. That’s effectiveness, not failure.

//So we have to offer up scary scenarios… make simplified, dramatic statements…//

Ah yes, the infamous Schneider quote: clipped, stripped of context, and waved around like a smoking gun. He was reflecting on communication challenges - not confessing to fraud. He also dedicated his life to responsible science. Which, ironically, is what you’re trying to discredit.

You’re not engaging with the science at all - you’re simply constructing a narrative, dodging complexity, and leaning hard on “gotcha” lines you hope no one checks.

Try again...

"Tuvalu is literally losing habitable land."

False...oh dear. But if you really want it to be true... http://tiny.cc/ph4g001

"These were warnings - not prophecies "

No they were prophecies right up until they became wrong. Then they got retrospectively downgraded. It like the cultist who predicts the end of the world on a particular day. Even after he's falsified his loyal followers continue to believe and will believe his next prediction just as fervently as the last.

"Schneider quote: clipped, stripped of context,"

Ahh! Standard JD there. Everything he doesn't like and can't refute becomes 'cherry-picked' or 'out-of-context'. But his ASSERTIONS are never explained - never shown the context he wants to believe or how its cherry-picked. Just making the claim is good enough, apparently.

" they contradict your rule."

Who said it was a rule?. Its evidence. Almost all evidence has outliers. They don't disprove the conclusions. Picking a few inconsequential countries where the conclusions don't precisely apply is just childish. I wonder how renewables are going in Botswana? Struth.

No, not false at all, mhaze.

Did you even read the article you linked to? It's not the “gotcha” you think it is.

It discusses how some Pacific islands like Tuvalu have grown in land area due to natural sediment shifts, not because sea levels aren’t rising. In fact, the article reaffirms that climate change is real, and the islands remain vulnerable.

Tuvalu’s government is already relocating populations and investing in adaptation because of rising seas, saltwater intrusion, and disappearing arable land. A dynamic coastline doesn’t cancel out real climate pressure - it just complicates how it plays out.

You’re pointing at a side effect and pretending it disproves the cause. It doesn’t.

Whoops!

//They were prophecies right up until they became wrong. Then they got retrospectively downgraded.//

No, they weren’t prophecies - they were projections, published with ranges, caveats, and confidence levels. You just treated them like prophecies so you’d have something to mock when your worst-case caricature didn’t come true. That’s not scepticism - it’s bad-faith gotcha theatre.

//Everything he doesn't like and can't refute becomes 'cherry-picked' or 'out-of-context'.//

You quoted half of Schneider’s comment about balancing public communication with scientific rigour and cut off the part where he says: “I hope that means being both.” That’s not me claiming it's out of context - it’s the literal rest of the quote. If that’s cherry-picking to you, perhaps it’s because your rhetorical diet is built on it.

//Who said it was a rule? It’s evidence.//

So now it's just “evidence,” not a rule? Your whole claim was that more renewables = higher prices. I showed counterexamples. If the pattern doesn't hold across cases, it's not a general rule - it's a correlation with caveats. Dismissing Portugal, Ireland, and Chile as “inconsequential” doesn’t change the fact they contradict your claim. “What about Botswana?” isn’t a counterpoint - it’s deflection with a punchline.

Still no response to the wholesale vs. retail pricing gap in Denmark, I notice.

Back you go. Try again...

Fester,

Yes - sneers, Mel Smith quotes, and “rainbow-chasing Luddites.” Because nothing says “serious energy policy analyst” like snark, name-calling, and 1970s bedtime stories.

//France decided to source all energy from nuclear... Denmark decided to develop windmills.//

Apples and oranges. France pursued nuclear for baseload electricity - effective, no doubt. But Denmark wasn’t trying to race France. It focused on diversifying energy sources, decentralising generation, and developing exportable wind technology - which it now sells to countries worldwide. Different goals, different strategies. Pretending there’s one right path is a fantasy.

//“Denmark has the most expensive electricity in Europe…//

Retail prices, yes. But you conveniently left out the part about Danish wholesale prices being among the lowest in Europe. Taxes and levies that fund social programs - not wind turbines - make up the difference.

But why let nuance get in the way of a worldview-reinforcing narrative?

//And [John] thinks the Danish example the one to follow.//

I used Denmark as one of several examples that contradict your claim that more renewables always mean higher costs. It’s called falsification - basic logic. Ignoring counterexamples doesn’t make them disappear.

//Australia’s ISP has been junked… Right up John’s alley.//

The ISP wasn’t “junked” - it was criticised and is being revised, like all major policy models eventually are. That’s not scandal - it’s process. The video you linked is wrapped in drama (“officially dead,” “nails in the coffin”) and light on neutrality. Even its strongest critiques focus on modelling assumptions and unrealistic targets - not a call to abandon renewables or the energy transition entirely.

//One BS story can easily be replaced with another.//

Ironically, that’s exactly what you’re doing - replacing substance with spin, and hoping no one notices.

Speaking of which, I don't suppose you have any examples of discredited arguments I've used, do you? Or are they as imaginary as these mysterious "inconsistencies" and "falsehoods" of mine that you frequently mention, but can never seem to point to?

My arguments are 'dishonest' and 'discredited'? Really? Says who? That thing festering away in a very dark corner ... quick to throw around cheap insults ... but with no capacity whatever to offer up any intelligent rebuttal.

"You’re pointing at a side effect and pretending it disproves the cause. It doesn’t."

I never talked about the cause. I simply said that there were claims that it would disappear and those claims have been shown to be wrong. There's that comprehension problem again.

Very predictable stuff from you again, mhaze.

//I never talked about the cause. I simply said there were claims that it would disappear and those claims have been shown to be wrong.//

You cited an article about Tuvalu’s landmass expanding and posted it in response to me saying Tuvalu is losing habitable land due to climate change. That wasn’t just an innocent observation - it was clearly intended to cast doubt on the broader climate warnings. Now that the article doesn’t say what you hoped it did, you're retreating into “I never said that” - which is telling.

Also, saying an island was “expected to disappear” without referencing who said it, when, and in what context is just hand-waving. Climate science didn’t predict Tuvalu would vanish by now - it warned that rising seas, saltwater intrusion, and erosion were serious threats. Which they still are. You’re pointing to shifting sands and pretending it’s a gotcha.

//There's that comprehension problem again.//

Right - duck, weave, then blame said ducking and weaving on the comprehension skills of the person who exposes it. For best results, fail to appreciate the sheer irony in doing so.

You posted a link in response to a point about climate impacts on Tuvalu’s habitability - not its tectonic shape. The article you shared doesn’t disprove sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion, or displacement - it simply notes that sediment movement has altered coastlines. That’s not refutation - it’s contextual detail, and it doesn’t undo the core climate concern.

If you want to argue against climate science, do it directly. But don’t smuggle in implications and then act surprised when they’re unpacked.

Bronwyn,

When you come here and tell lies, you insult not just me, but everyone on this forum. To tell lies here also shows contempt for the forum itself. I'll start with one of your lies:

"10. Children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk of leukaemia, lymphoma and other types of cancer."

Really? How so? Based on dishonesty and lies I would guess. And I hope that you don't follow Johnnie's view that it doesn't matter if a claim is debunked as you are never short of other nonsense to support your crank opinions.

You need to apologise for telling lies.

Festering ...

<< When you come here and tell lies, you insult not just me, but everyone on this forum. To tell lies here also shows contempt for the forum itself. >>

I can substantiate every statement I’ve made. If you disagree with something I’ve said, you're welcome to present an opposing argument and support it with some evidence.

Regarding children living near nuclear reactors developing cancer, this is a trend which has been observed for many years and multiple studies have confirmed that there is indeed a correlation … https://www.mapw.org.au/where-is-the-mature-debate-on-radiation

Bronwyn,

Wow, so you are a liar. Caught out. Correlation isn't causation as you know. You have as much integrity as the Wakefield cranks.

How about you provide evidence for your claim. Not too hard for you is it? Here is your statement again to prompt your memory:

"10. Children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk of leukaemia, lymphoma and other types of cancer."

Again, you show contempt for me and everyone else here when you tell such lies, and you do little to redeem yourself by getting nasty when called out for it.

JD,

You said "Tuvalu is losing habitable land due to climate change."

I pointed out Tuvalu isn't losing land mass. I made no comment about climate change in regards to Tuvalu. That Tuvalu's not going under doesn't disprove climate change and I'd wager you could find, if you look hard enough, all sorts of other scenarios which would better support your alarmism. But Tuvalu isn't one of them.

I've never disputed climate change. I've never disputed rising sea levels. (Somewhere on these pages are comments from me about Roman ruins underwater due to rising sea levels.) I haven't even disputed Anthropic Global Warming (AGW). But I have often disputed claims about Catastrophic Global Warming. Claims that lead to idiocy like Tuvalu going under, or Perth being a ghost town, or the dams never filling, or NYC going under, or an ice free Arctic.

I find it mildly amusing that my simply pointing out the easily demonstrated fact that alarmism over Tuvalu is misplaced elicits a frenzied response.

Climate change alarmism has a poor history of failed predictions. Yet the adherents to the cult remain convinced that somehow, someday, some way, their alarmism will eventually be justified. The sky is falling... some day.

mhaze,

Now, now - let’s not pretend you were simply making a calm geological observation.

You didn’t just say “Tuvalu’s landmass hasn’t shrunk” - you dropped that claim in response to me saying Tuvalu is losing habitable land due to climate change. That’s saltwater intrusion, crop damage, freshwater contamination - real, lived impacts already displacing people. Pointing out shifting coastlines as if it undermines that is like saying “the house still has four walls” while it’s knee-deep in floodwater.

As for your sudden insistence that you’ve never denied climate change, sea level rise, or even AGW - well, if that’s the case, why the constant sneers about “alarmism” every time someone takes those things seriously?

The whole “cult” routine is a convenient rhetorical trick. You don’t have to prove a prediction wasn’t grounded in science - you just label it “alarmist,” roll your eyes, and move on. But inconveniently, many of the things climate science warned about are happening - record heat, coral bleaching, ice melt, extreme weather, mass displacement. If anything, the predictions have often been too conservative.

So no, my response wasn’t “frenzied.” It was direct. You tried to downplay Tuvalu as a climate case study and got called on it. What’s “mildly amusing” is that even when your misframing is pointed out, your instinct is to shift goalposts and declare victory anyway.

Your tactics might’ve worked on others in the past - and I’m sure they give your supporters something to hold onto when when you're flailing - but they don’t work on me. The sooner you realise this, the sooner we can both save ourselves a lot of time.

Oh dear John, such arrogance.... "they won't work on me"?

But what doesn't work on you is your level of misunderstanding and misconstruing of my points. You construction these strawmen about what you suppose I think and the laud yourself for having knocked down the strawman. Such arrogance.

The whole Tuvalu issue started with me pointing out that it was one of the myriad claims from the alarmist community that has been proven wrong. Tuvalu isn't sinking below rising seas and I pointed that out. And you've not denied that, just tried to deflect. Not playing.

"As for your sudden insistence that you’ve never denied climate change, sea level rise, or even AGW"

Sudden? I'd invite you to go back and look at any of my many many posts over many years on this to see the truth. I doubt you will though.

" why the constant sneers about “alarmism” every time someone takes those things seriously"

As usual you miss the nuance. Its perfectly possible to accept AGW etc without accepting the myriad scare campaigns. I accept that warming has occurred, that man has played some part in that. But I don't accept that its a problem requiring the upending of society and the world economy and I do think that the large number of failed predictions shows that. In fact I think the warming to this point has been beneficial for mankind.

"You tried to downplay Tuvalu as a climate case study"
No I didn't try. I showed that Tuvalu isn't a climate case study by providing a link to actual science. I'm always amused that the follow-the-science crowd always demur when the science shows things they'd prefer weren't true.

mhaze,

If pointing out that recycled tactics don’t work on me counts as “arrogance,” then I’m afraid you may see a lot more "arrogance" from me yet.

You've accused me of deflection, yet it was you who responded to a point about Tuvalu losing habitable land - due to saltwater intrusion, crop damage, freshwater contamination, and population displacement - with a link about landmass change. That’s not clarification. That’s changing the subject, then calling it victory when I don’t follow you off-topic.

//Tuvalu isn’t sinking below rising seas and I pointed that out.//

Sure, but who claimed it would? Because the whole “Tuvalu will disappear” line you’ve been pushing has always been a caricature. The IPCC never predicted full submersion by 2024 or 2050. What climate science has said, consistently, is that Tuvalu is highly vulnerable to sea-level rise and that this will increasingly impact livability, not just geography. That’s the actual case - and you haven’t touched it.

//I showed that Tuvalu isn’t a climate case study by linking to actual science.//

That’s not what you were doing. You were trying to use Tuvalu as an example of a failed climate prediction, and by extension, to undermine the credibility of climate science more broadly. Only now, when the article you linked doesn’t support that conclusion, you’re trying to recast your goal as something smaller and more reasonable. That’s not a correction - it’s a retreat.

//The alarmist community said…//

That’s another retreat. If this prediction is so central to your argument that it disproves a major thread of climate science, then you should be able to name a source. Was it the IPCC? NASA? A peer-reviewed study? Or are you just pointing to media exaggerations and activist slogans, then smearing all of climate science by association?

You’re not pointing out a weakness in the science - you’re attacking marketing material, then pretending it invalidates the field. And when you’re called on that, the story changes again.

It's like a game of Whack-a-mole with you.

Festering ...

Causation around radiation is difficult to prove definitively, but there is definite correlation. Multiple studies have proved that children living near nuclear reactors suffer higher rates of cancer than those that don't.

You're a nasty piece of work and I'm not wasting my time responding to you again.

Bronwyn,

Yet another lie and more abuse from you. Let me expose your dishonesty and contempt.

The idea has a history which is well summarised in this review from 2014, after the idea was debunked in a paper published in Nature.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4146329/

That an additional radiation exposure of 1/200th natural background radiation causes no harm is no revelation, yet it was supported by exhaustive research by many epidemiologists over decades. The authors of the review concluded:

"Regardless of the results of the future studies it can already be responsibly asserted that a lifetime residency close to a normally operating modern NPP does not pose any specific health risk to people, and certainly that IR emitted thereof cannot cause cancer. What’s more, even the greatest nuclear accident that happened in 1986 at the Chernobyl NPP, accompanied by the massive release of radiation and radionuclides to the environment, has not resulted in the increased incidence of leukaemia and other neoplasms (with the only exception of thyroid cancers in those who were below 18 years of age at the time of the catastrophe and accumulated >100 mGy of radiation from I-131 in their thyroid glands) among the populations of even the most contaminated regions of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, including the local children who were exposed to radiation before and after birth (UNSCEAR 2008)."

Like IBM, I suspect that you do not value truth and share his contempt for the forum and its members.

Fester,

You accuse Bronwyn of lying. But the only dishonesty on display here is your own.

You claim the idea of increased cancer risk near nuclear plants has been “debunked,” and cite a paper that does nothing of the sort. It discusses documented childhood leukemia clusters near multiple nuclear sites. It treats those clusters as statistically significant and worthy of continued study. It questions causation, but explicitly acknowledges the observed correlation Bronwyn referred to:

“Children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23429#398653)

That’s not a lie. That’s a documented trend - one your own source acknowledges. She didn’t say “caused by radiation,” and she didn’t pretend it was settled science. You either misunderstood the article or hoped no one else would read it.

Instead of correcting her, you went straight to abuse. You accused her of lying, compared her to Wakefield, and claimed she was insulting the forum. That’s not intellectual debate - that’s moral theatrics built on a selective reading of your own evidence.

You don’t get to wrap yourself in the flag of science while misrepresenting it. You don’t get to demand “truth” while distorting what was actually said. And you certainly don’t get to call someone dishonest for referencing a well-documented correlation that even your hand-picked article doesn’t dispute.

The only apology due here is the one you now owe to Bronwyn.

John,

You are a shameless pathological liar. Is there an increase in childhood cancer and leukemia around the Lucas Heights reactor? Why aren't childhood cancers elevated around every nuclear reactor? That is what you would expect if the statement were true. They were cancer clusters, and was no link to radiation as a cause. And how many did Fukushima kill for that matter? I'm with Monbiot on the nuclear question and not with unhinged and deranged people. Here is a classic debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p0d05M5JpY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb5HItRpDY8

Keep up your incoherent and deranged drivel IBM.

Fester,

You called Bronwyn a liar for stating that “children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk of leukaemia, lymphoma, and other cancers.” You then linked to a paper that explicitly acknowledges multiple leukemia clusters near some reactors. It questions whether radiation caused them, but it doesn’t deny the correlation. That’s exactly what Bronwyn said.

Now you’re moving the goalposts again, so let’s address your frantic list:

//Is there an increase in childhood cancer and leukemia around the Lucas Heights reactor?//

Not that we know of, and nobody claimed there was. Localised cancer clusters near some plants do not mean it should happen everywhere. That’s not how epidemiology works. So this question is irrelevant.

//Why aren't childhood cancers elevated around every nuclear reactor?//

Because not every reactor has the same emissions, design, monitoring, population density, or local environmental. Some plants are newer. Some are inland. Some are better shielded. Again, no one said it happens around every plant.

//...there was no link to radiation as a cause.//

Incorrect. There’s no proven link to radiation as the cause, but that’s not the same as “no link.” Scientists have said the cause is uncertain and still being studied. That’s the difference between science and spin - you’re doing the latter.

//How many did Fukushima kill...?''

Fewer than you might think so far - but again, no one claimed otherwise. Thyroid cancer rates rose dramatically among exposed children. Evacuation, trauma, and long-term exposure risks are still being studied. And even if fatalities are lower than Chernobyl, “less bad” is not the same as “harmless.”

As for Monbiot, he argues that nuclear is safer than coal, not that it’s risk-free. He acknowledges radiation risk. He just believes it’s manageable. That’s a reasoned position - not a license for you to shout down anyone who disagrees.

You’re not debating. You’re dodging behind noise and rage. You call others dishonest while cherry-picking evidence, distorting what was said, and ignoring your own sources.

This isn’t about facts for you. It’s about trying to punish people for disagreeing. And the more you shout, the clearer that becomes.

Thank you, John!

Hats off to your patience ... and to your razor-sharp rebuttal ... a real pleasure to read!

"It's like a game of Whack-a-mole with you."

And you keep fabricating moles and failing to whack 'em.

John,

Your repeated distortion and lies on the forum are just grubby and tedious. Zero honesty. Zero integrity. 100% grubby.

The nub of the matter was that the radiation exposure was about 1/200th to 1/1000th of natural background radiation in Germany, way too low to cause harm. The result prompted many studies in other nations which gave no clear or consistent indication of harm. Further, the kikk study results were negated if one of the reactors was excluded, and further analysis showed that there was a higher childhood cancer rate around the reactor site before it was commissioned. There is a discussion of the study's shortcomings in the following vid along with an expose of an antinuclear activist who even makes Bronwyn seem rational and balanced:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vr7QmbSZZ8

But that brings up another of Bronwyn's lies:

"9. Nuclear industry workers suffer increased risk of cancer, heart attack and stroke."

Yes, you would think that they would be dropping like flies given all the kiddies being killed, yet nearly all the research suggests longer and healthier lives than the general population. Lucas Heights reactor workers have been monitored since 1958. The authors of a paper from 2005 found and concluded:

"Results: All&#8208;cause mortality was 31% lower than the national rates; all&#8208;cancer mortality was 19% below the NSW rate. Of 37 specific cancers and groups of cancers examined, statistically significant excesses relative to NSW rates were observed only for pleural cancer mortality (SMR=21.11; 95% Cl 8.79&#8208;50.72).
Conclusions: The observed increase in the risk of cancer of the pleura was probably due to unmeasured exposures, given the lack of an established association with radiation exposure and the strong link to asbestos exposure."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020023048082

Fester,

You keep throwing out accusations of lying, but once again, your own sources don’t back you up.

Bronwyn made a general statement about increased risk - something documented in multiple studies, especially involving long-term or high-level exposure. You responded by pretending she claimed nuclear workers are “dropping like flies,” then cited one cherry-picked cohort to “debunk” her. That’s not evidence. That’s deflection.

The Lucas Heights paper doesn’t say nuclear workers are universally healthier. It says that in this one cohort, all-cause mortality was lower - but also found a significantly elevated rate of pleural cancer, likely due to unmeasured asbestos exposure. And the authors themselves say the findings should be “interpreted with caution” due to the small sample size.

That’s not a clean bill of health for the nuclear industry. It’s one data point with multiple caveats. You know that. Or at least, you should.

Pointing to a low mortality rate in a specific cohort doesn’t invalidate the body of research into reactor radiation exposure as a whole. There are studies showing increased risks for certain groups - especially in earlier decades. The industry bodies don’t pretend the risk is zero - they manage it because it exists.

And as for your latest YouTube video - it’s just another screed against Helen Caldicott. Critiquing her rhetoric doesn’t erase legitimate concerns raised by scientists and medical organisations about long-term radiation risks. It certainly doesn’t justify calling Bronwyn a liar.

You keep piling on volume, rage, and distractions. But you still haven’t disproven a single one of Bronwyn’s claims. You’ve just shouted past them.

John,

Bronwyn claimed:

"9. Nuclear industry workers suffer increased risk of cancer, heart attack and stroke."

The burden of proof is with the person making the claim. Disproving the claim merely requires an example of where the claim is false. The Lucas Heights data shows lower mortality with the exception of asbestos related cancers, clearly contradicting Bronwyn's claim. Nor did I claim that Lucas Heights workers lived longer and healthier lives, but the data does not suggest otherwise.

Fester,

You’re misunderstanding how burden of proof and statistical evidence work.

Bronwyn’s statement was general: that nuclear industry workers suffer increased risk of cancer, heart attack, and stroke. That’s a claim about population-level patterns, supported by multiple studies and medical bodies over time.

You posted a single cohort (Lucas Heights) with lower overall mortality, but even that study had statistically significant elevation in pleural cancer, and the authors themselves urged caution due to the small sample size and unmeasured exposures. That doesn’t “disprove” Bronwyn’s point. It just shows that some nuclear workers, in some conditions, may have lower risks - which no one contested.

And yes - you did claim nuclear workers live longer and healthier lives. You said “nearly all the research suggests” exactly that, and then linked the Lucas Heights study as your proof. If you’re walking that back now, fine - but let’s not pretend it wasn’t said.

Finally, “disproving” a general health risk doesn’t mean finding one dataset that contradicts it. It means refuting the broader trend. You haven’t done that. You just cherry-picked a favourable outlier, ignored its limitations, and then declared the debate over.

If your argument hinges on one carefully selected study, that’s not science. It’s spin.

John,

"Bronwyn’s statement was general: that nuclear industry workers suffer increased risk of cancer, heart attack, and stroke. That’s a claim about population-level patterns, supported by multiple studies and medical bodies over time."

Okay, so where are these studies and what is the current stance of overseeing bodies like nuclear associations? My understanding is that nearly all studies show the workers suffer no health risks from radiation exposure.

So where is all this evidence that you speak of? If you think the claim valid then you would have evidence seeing as you have such a deep understanding of the scientific method.

Thanks, Fester. I thought you’d never ask. Here’s a small sample to get us started:

INWORKS study - the largest pooled study of nuclear workers to date (308,297 individuals across France, UK, US) found a clear linear association between low-dose radiation exposure and cancer mortality:
http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26487649

UNSCEAR - their reports have long acknowledged that occupational radiation exposure, especially in the mid-20th century, led to increased cancer risks. They’ve never claimed the risk is zero.
http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2000/UNSCEAR_2000_Report_Vol.I.pdf

IARC - confirmed that ionising radiation is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen - the highest category. That includes low doses over time. This isn’t disputed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK570341

BEIR VII Report (National Academy of Sciences, 2006) - concluded that no safe threshold of ionising radiation has been established, and risk accumulates over time:

“The committee concludes that the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.”
http://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11340/health-risks-from-exposure-to-low-levels-of-ionizing-radiation

So no, Bronwyn’s statement wasn’t “grubby” or dishonest. It was consistent with the findings of every major body that studies occupational radiation risk. The Lucas Heights cohort is an outlier, not a disproof.

And let’s not forget - you claimed “nearly all research” shows nuclear workers live longer, then tried to walk it back when it didn’t hold. That wasn’t science. That was spin.

John,

"And let’s not forget - you claimed “nearly all research” shows nuclear workers live longer, then tried to walk it back when it didn’t hold. That wasn’t science. That was spin."

Yes, nearly all research does show lower mortality rates and longer lives for nuclear industry workers than the general population. That is true. It isn't spin. What the research suggests is that radiation is not a great risk to health and that other factors like diet and lifestyle factors are far more significant. As a point of interest you might have looked at the latest UNSCEAR report. It included this observation:

"71. In the years since the UNSCEAR 2013 report, no adverse health effects among
Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation
exposure from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident. The updated
estimates of doses to members of the public have either decreased or are comparable
with the Scientific Committee’s previous estimates. The Committee therefore
continues to consider that future health effects directly related to radiation exposure
are unlikely to be discernible.14"

So in effect, the doses are so small as to have no measurable effect except for small groups of workers with very high exposures (this would not happen in current times). That makes Bronwyn's scaremongering statements false.

You never quantify things, John.

Fester,

So… after demanding studies, you’re now ignoring the largest one in the world (INWORKS), downplaying findings from BEIR and the IARC, and citing a single paragraph from UNSCEAR about Fukushima residents - not workers residents specifically.

Let’s be clear: “no adverse health effects among Fukushima residents” is not a blanket statement about all radiation exposure. It doesn’t refute Bronwyn’s point. It doesn’t refute the INWORKS study, which explicitly found a dose-response relationship between cumulative exposure and cancer mortality in nuclear workers. And it certainly doesn’t undo decades of data on early nuclear industry risks.

You keep invoking “lower mortality” among workers as if it’s radiation that’s keeping them healthy. It’s not. It’s called the Healthy Worker Effect - a well-known statistical phenomenon where employed populations, especially in high-screening environments like nuclear facilities, tend to have lower mortality than the general population regardless of exposure. You know this - or you should.

As for your claim that I “never quantify” - I listed cohort sizes, risk relationships, publication years, and institutions. You replied with a single paragraph, stripped of context, and no data. If anyone’s being vague, it isn’t me.

Bronwyn’s comment was consistent with documented occupational risks across decades of research. You responded by misrepresenting that history, cherry-picking studies, and declaring victory over an argument no one had even made.

At this point, your replies are less about facts - and more about protecting a narrative. But if the narrative were that solid, you wouldn’t need to keep dodging the data.

John,

What a silly rant. More befitting a medieval cleric decrying heresy, and like a medieval cleric based on upholding the faith, in your case the linear non-threshold model. As a workplace health and safety measure I am all for it, but as a predictor of harm it tends to fail below annual exposures below 100 millisieverts. You might also note that the average radiation exposure of nuclear industry workers is now often less than background radiation (about 2.4 msv), and has fallen by about 99% since the late 1940s. Fukushima provides yet another example of the failure of the model for low dose exposures.

Bronwyn's lies are based on the lnt model. They are not supported by real world observation.

Fester,

Resorting to “medieval cleric” analogies might sound clever, but all it shows is that you’re out of counterarguments and now lobbing metaphors instead of facts.

Let’s unpack what you’re trying to do here.

You’re claiming that Bronwyn’s point - and decades of occupational health research - is invalid because it relies on the LNT model. That’s the same model still used by:

The International Commission on Radiological Protection

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The World Health Organization

The National Academy of Sciences

These institutions continue to apply LNT not out of faith, but because it remains the most evidence-aligned framework for managing uncertain risk at low doses. Even critics of LNT don’t deny that radiation causes harm - they just argue over dose thresholds and risk curves, which doesn’t erase the documented historical risks Bronwyn referred to.

Your other move - saying exposures today are lower than in the past - isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is. No one said nuclear workers currently face the same risks as in the 1950s. Bronwyn referred to increased risks full stop, not “in 2024 at Lucas Heights.” Pretending that current safety standards erase past health impacts is like saying lead poisoning is a myth because we don’t put it in petrol anymore.

So no - Bronwyn didn’t lie. You just keep redefining the context so that whatever she says becomes “false” by your own shifting standard.

And when the evidence doesn’t cooperate, you swap the subject, attack the model, or accuse people of religious fervour.

That’s not a rebuttal. That’s deflection in a lab coat.