It is no surprise to me that Dr. Green is critical of material posted on the Uranium Information Centre website. I would urge him, in the interest of public debate, to make his observations concerning the UIC public. That way the UIC would have a “right of reply.

Anti-Green, I second that. Let Doctor Green make public his criticisms of the UIC.
John Busby, don't you see the irony in your position? We'd better start building some more new nuclear power stations pretty quickly if your figures are correct. And make them breeder reactors...You still haven't answered my query about your own energy consumption.
Are you connected to the grid or not? If you are, you should not be, since most of the electricity you are consuming is produced by fossil fuels or nuclear, and you are against them, by your own admission.
Anyway, the future will tell. There are many nuclear power station projects in the pipeline- 23 being built, 39 on order or planned and 107 proposed.

Froggie
Where are the nuclear power stations you mention - new, under construction or proposed.
Give us details so we can check out the costs of construction and operation.

Rossco please go to the following link:
http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm

Re: request for critique of Uranium Information Centre, the industry-funded propaganda outfit, I can't post the entire critique because of the 350 word limit for these postings. Here are a few random snippets.

The UIC claims that “No nuclear materials such as uranium from the civil nuclear fuel cycle have ever been diverted to make weapons.” (<www.uic.com.au/introduction.htm>). Rubbish. Civil nuclear programs (all involving imported technology, facilities and materials to a greater or lesser degree) laid the foundation for the nuclear arsenals in Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa and possibly North Korea. Civil programs have been used as cover for nuclear weapons research and/or production in over 20 countries.

Iraq’s ‘shop til you drop’ nuclear program was another spectacular failure of the nuclear industry and its ‘safeguards’ system. Contrary to claims from the UIC and other such bodies, the Iraqi weapons program involved safeguarded facilities as well as separate, clandestine facilities.

Just in the past year South Korea has been forced to reveal that many illicit weapons-related research projects had been carried out despite its status as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. No-one can be sure whether Australian-obligated nuclear materials were used for these illicit projects.

The UIC states: “In fact the worldwide application of those safeguards and the substantial world trade in uranium for nuclear electricity make the proliferation of nuclear weapons much less likely. (<www.uic.com.au/nip05.htm>). Huh? Spreading the facilities and materials required to produce nuclear weapons makes proliferation much less likely? Have we missed something?!

Simplistic view from a point of cost-economics analysis is a path to nothing:

<Where are the nuclear power stations you mention - new, under construction or proposed.
Give us details so we can check out the costs of construction and operation.

Posted by rossco, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 12:16:04 PM>