Uranium deals with China are possibly the clearest indicator yet of John Howard’s short sightedness. It shows our Prime Minister sees the world in only dollars and cents and is incapable of comprehending the larger picture.

I would also go further in saying that Mr Howard’s crusade for democracy does not stop at China's border. I think he's crusade has ended here. A tighter concentration of media ownership is yet again on the cards, electoral 'reforms' making corporate donations harder to disclose, draconian anti-terror laws, all of this indicates to me that John Howard’s definition of democracy is extremely narrow.

He may well genuinely believe that what he is doing is the right thing for Australia (It's certainly the right thing for Rio Tinto, BHP and their shareholders) but John Howard’s actions, particularly since last July demonstrate that he is not on a crusade for democracy, but on a crusade against it.

R I P Democracy. You served us well for a while but greed has sucked the life out of you.If Democracy is run by the people, for the people, and of the people, what do you call a system run by (big) business?

aspro,
You call it the right wing of the Labor Party, or the Liberal Party, there is not a great diffence between to two.

We should be selling our advances in wind and solar power, not uranium. Whole trouble is it's free, so untill companies can figure out how to continue to slug us after the initial purchase, we are doomed. Still they have managed to sell some of us bottled water, ring tones for mobile phones, so who knows corporate Australia maybe humming away working out how to charge us for alternate energy.

Uranium is the only mineral we can take out of the ground that can both produce power, and accidents in power stations, and also produce a neclear weapon. But don't worry JWH has it all under control, he will sell to China, and also China's enemy, Taiwan, isn't he a clever little fellow, please in 2007 let's return to a progressive government, not a conservative one.

The price of Uranium has quadrupled in the last 5 years. Why not leave it in the ground a bit longer. If oil really runs out the price of Uranium will go through the roof.

We are already running a surplus, how much money do we need for tax cuts and pork barreling? Lets leave something for our kids to sell.

gusi,
Not the tories mate, sell, sell, sell, greed, greed, greed, that's their one and only policy. Who cares if the world blows itself to pieces, we {the wealthy} will be long gone, "buggar you Jack, I'm all right" is their motto. Corporate Australia Government, let's replace it with one sympathetic to humans, and humanity, rather than profit!

Like too many of our Online group, no worries much now about the future, no worries about what sort of world our great grandkids will inherit.

No worries about the past either because they are all caught in this crazy modern phenonomen that this is the way to go. A few of us that have received credits in our old age, even overseas in International Relations, getting Honours in Third World Problems, are virtually called Pedlars of old Pap.

Thus we find younger ones, not even giving a stuff about past history, especially about going way back to Socrates who seemed to have the answer to many of our problems of today. Try to be very true, think deeply and take the overhead view. But also as Socrates would go on, while up there in mind, out with the Gods and in with the Good.

So with Middle East problems, be simple about them and take note of Mubarak of Egypt some time ago when asked by a journalist his opinion of Middle East problems. Mubarak made no bones about it when he swore that such problems are largely the result of Western intrusion and injustice. Maybe we could cut it a bit finer and agree these days, that Western should be changed to American. We might also add Americana's Anglipholic allies, us and the Brits.

Goodness me! All this gnashing of teeth over uranium sales. Tut-tut.

Why don't you people come out of the Twentieth Century into our modern times? Nuclear hysteria is very old-hat. It went out of fashion along with the ALP, Democrats and Greens decades ago. This Christine Milne doesn't seem to have realised it yet.

Ah yes, I see. She is with the Greens. Now that explains it.

And Shonga, excellent idea about getting ourselves a government who is sympathetic to humans, and humanity, rather than profit, but from where are we going to get one of those? No such thing exists or ever has existed in the entire history of the planet.

The Nuclear Age has arrived, the 'bang' will be next week.When humans with their usual anything you can do I can do better start comparing their reactors, bombs and weapons the race will be on.
And the first fool to push that button will most likely be the surviver.
There will be no winners.

Not only is there the threat of a large scale nuclear disaster whether warfare or accident -what about the chinese workers who will be exposed to radioactivity? These people work for slave wages now in atrocious conditions. It is wrong to sell to nations that have no safeguards for their workers. Of course, for the Liberals workers are just a resource. China today Australia tommorrow.

Christine Milne repeats the tired old mantra of the Greens. Uncritically copied from one anti-nuclear rant to another.. “But nuclear power is not the answer. It is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous, and generates waste with no safe disposal.”

What does it mean “too slow?”
“Too expensive?” is that not a matter for investors and design engineers? Clearly the empirical evidence is against her. Else why is it that world wide, that new reactors are either being planned or are under construction?
“Too dangerous?” I wonder what Christine has to say about the published safety record of the nuclear industry (see Uranium Information Centre, Briefing Paper 14)?
“Generates waste with no safe disposal:” Really, for some 60 or so years the nuclear power industry has handled and transported its waste with out major incidence. Of course it is well appreciated that any suggestion to build a permanent, or safe depository for nuclear material, will always generate the strongest irrational opposition from the Greens.

“Renewable energy wins on all counts: speed, cost, safety and effectiveness.” If Christine believes that piddle power will save the world, she will believe anything.

Don’t be too hard on them Maximus, it is difficult sometimes.

The simple answer is: If Australia did not sell uranium, and then China will buy it somewhere else. The weapons grade issue, well they have thousands of nuclear weapons anyhow, you can only destroy the planet once, and with all the Nuclear weapons and its proliferation, with but perhaps two exceptions, a deterrent from mutual destruction and that is guaranteed no matter what anyone says.
I am amazed at the ignorance of Nuclear energy and its advantages, I can remember producing an essay in grade 8 high school on Uranium Isotopes and Nuclear energy into the future, such is an inquisitive mind, but it seems to have become an Anathema to even get the basic science out in the New World of Controlled indoctrination now days.
Most should study Nuclear Physics even in its basic form, and understand its principles before ranting Leftist programmed automaton, total ignorance by coercion and design. Irony is: No that’s enough.

Well if we don't sell it to China,someone else will.Remember "Pig Iron Bob Menzies"? So why all the hand wringing and pontificating about the morality of uranium sales?

Aparently Aust is on the verge of developing the technology for recycling nuclear waste,so when the technology improves,so will the safety.

We have no choice,either we murder two thirds of the world's population and go back to the horse and cart days,or use our minds and technology to progress to hopefully a higher plain of consciousness.

Maximus

I must say your view of humanity is extremley pessimistic.
I suppose the American abolisionisits were in it only for the profit, the allies in WWII and Nelson Mandela as well? Sure there was some self-interest involved im not denying that, but if everyone in the history of the planet had your doom and gloom view of the world we probably would have destroyed ourselves already.

Obviously there are few survivors here of the fifties, when we had a widespread fear of being nuked out of existence. Back then, people actually built themselves personal fallout shelters in their garden, primary schools held nuclear attack drills where the kids had to dive under their desks, and Canada had a nation-wide "Tocsin B" trans-Canada evacuation plan.

"I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."

"But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'."

(apologies to Monty Python)

We had poor communications back then - no internet, no blogs, no CNN - and as a result, everbody feared the worst. After all, fear of the unknown is a very powerful emotion, and leads to all sorts of irrational behaviours.

Now, with the inexorable march of globalization and the ability to communicate ideas and news across the world at literally the speed of light, it is all out in the open.

The incentive to push the button is at its lowest historical point, and unlikely ever to move higher. There are too many economic interconnections, too real a possibility of the destruction being total rather than partial, and greater visibility of any arms programme development - heck, it won't be long before we can all do our own individual search for weapons of mass destruction using Google Earth.

And the fear of nuclear power is even more irrational, given the safety records of the coal and oil industries over time compared with nuclear power.

But it is all good righteous stuff for the we-know-what's-good-for-you brigade.

Pericles
Such an optimist!

You don’t have to be a survivor of the fifties to recall the “widespread fear of being nuked”; I can recall a time in the early eighties where the possibility of nuclear destruction was topical and to me seemed very real.

You rationalize why we wouldn’t use nuclear weapons but fail to apply this same argument to their production. If those in power see the need for having nuclear weapons surely a day will come to use them? Human nature is what it is, we have always returned to warfare regardless of how horrific the last war was and used as a matter of course the best technology available, including nuclear weapons.

The realities of geological instability, governmental and corporate incompetence, corruption, human fallibility etc. make it very likely that the nuclear accidents of the past will continue; more nuclear reactors equal more accidents. The disastrous consequences of a nuclear accident illustrated at Chernobyl all but rule out for me nuclear energy in my backyard.

Solar is the real alternative to nuclear – for goodness sake the sun, wind and tides have been expending significant amounts of energy from the dawn of time and will no doubt see our little race out so why cant we choose the safe and sensible path of solar energy instead of the perilous path of nuclear energy?

The point is not the bombs. It is the price! You don't need to be a nuclear scientist to work out that the price of uranium is only going to go up. Unlike coal there is only a supply of uranium for 50 years or so of nuclear energy (at least that is what we are told).

That means that we could sell the uranium at a premium in 10 or 20 years time. Might pay some of the pensions of the greying population.

No surprise here. The short sighted view prevails. The rich get richer at the expense of the poor.

So, Howard, sell your Australian uranium to China, but don't think for a minute that China is your friend.

Patty Jr,when the poor learn about contraception and have the discipline to learn and work instead of practising lawlessness/corruption,they too will progress.

There is a price for everything and you don't make the poor rich on handouts.It is an evolutionary process experienced by the west and now it is China's and India's turn.

So let's dispense with the handwinging and look at practical solutions.

"...when the poor learn about contraception and have the discipline to learn and work instead of practising lawlessness/corruption,they too will progress".

Unlike us. Being superior, we just elect a properly qualified government to do that for us. In return, that government will fortify the myth that our pathetic lawn-mowing, paper shuffling, gridlock-negotiating, insurance marketing, mortgage paying, TV soaked, resource-wasting, cling-wrapped efforts are somehow worthwhile.

What a lovely symbiosis. Which pray is the tree and which the mistletoe? Maybe we are all parasites.

We will never see the natural resources like solar,wind and tide power being pushed as desirable. There's no profit in them. Far better to dig up big chunks of the Earth at great cost and sell it for a greater cost with tidy profit margins built in.
You cannot sell stuff that come's for free.

Selling yellow cake to China is a poor man's recipe for staying poor.
Australia is riding a wealth boom now, but as it is relegated to a simple mining province, pressures will be put on profits by larger countries like China and the US.
The fact that China is doing its own exploration within Australia's borders is a foretaste of things to come.

An alternative is to value-add Uranium and ship it as pebbles for pebble bed reactors (PBRs). This gives Australia better returns on its Uranium and renders bomb making a very difficult downstream option. It also promotes PBRs, which are Best Management Practice for nuclear fuel use and eventual disposal.

Australia does not have the populational leverage to afford nuclear power stations at this time. However it does have the wherewithall to produce value added pebble fuels for PBRs rather than just shipping yellow cake. It would also make it easier for Australia to become nuclear powered with latest technology at some later point in time.

First there was Pig-Iron Bob. And now ... Yellow-Cake Johnny.

Seems appropriate some how.

To Carl,

Respect mate, most sincerely. Good for you that you still have belief in them, the politicians. But I beg you to take a deeper and fuller look at the reality of it all. There's not a one in the entire trail of history that wouldn't have run a cold blade of steel through your soft underbelly had you ever stood in their way.

The John Howards, the George Bushs, The Tony Blairs, the Bob Hawkes, the Paul Keatings, the Kim Beezleys, the Julia Guillards, the Hillary Clintons, the Helen Clarks and the Peter Costellos - they'd all gladly put the blade into you should you ever dare to stand in their way. Not literally, you understand, but by means, they'd get ya. Oh yes they would.

Like they got Pauline Hanson. They and their media. They got her. If you confront them, they'll get you.

Mind you, that's not to say I am or was ever a Hanson fan. But it is the truth. They got her because she dared to stand up and she pulled credibility amongst the voters. She called their bluff. The media and the political system shut her down fast and then they rubbed her nose in it, putting her in jail with a publicly humiliating trial and sentence. They put the cold blade of steel into her, and bilaterally too.

And to Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464,

Mate, your cynicism is completely correct, you're very smart and you're clearly a very intelligent person. I hope you will not loose heart. But don't go subversive on us. Go full frontal and take the fight up to them, legally and properly. You know what's going on and someone's got to challenge them. I can't do it all alone. You take care. You're wise and they won't like that.

Maximus, I agree with most of what you say, except for the Hanson part.

Hanson was always a construct of the media and was used to generate money for them at every stage of her "career".

They actively promoted her, then fed off her during each phase of her subsequent decline, imprisonment and release.

It's just another example of creating something out of nothing (or somebody out of nobody) in order to sell newspapers and get TV ratings. Sort of an early version of "Australian Idol" but with less talent.

My comment was meant as a cynical look at the situation. We as a global civilisation have had the technology to develop renewable resources for decades. The power structure of the world saw no profit in it. Why do humans always have to destroy and poison. Despite what the nuclear proponents say about the technology there is enough fear and waste disposal problems to prevent it from ever becoming a true power source.

As to the poor ever becoming rich, ignorance walks hand in hand with poverty. The education of women is the only hope poor people have of ever becoming more or having more.

Until there is profit in educating women, the global power structure will continue to exploit the poor for profit and that's the way the world works now and throughout history.

Am I cynical? Yes, what do I do about it? I make choices on a daily basis that support my beliefs

Thanks Patty for your post and bringing the thread back to the topic.

Selling a non renewable product for less than the annual profit from Australian cheese exports is as ludicrous as it is irrational (source ABC Radio National).

While I agree with you vis a vis education of ALL women - this is not really the appropriate thread for that debate. While equality of women is a worthy goal, I don't know if it will make much difference to sales of a highly and indefinitely toxic product right now. (Maggie Thatcher didn't make a shred of difference to the well being of women and children and I bet she would've approved of the sale of unranium - being a short term specialist).

Our renewable fuel industry would do well to join with China in the production and installation of sustainable energy sources - this is a much better long term strategy.

We are living at a time when severe damage has been done to the planet through exploitation and damage is still being done. A couple of weeks ago there were reports in the media that radiation created by the plutonium reinforced bombs used in Iraq was making it’s way to Europe. The use of plutonium reinforced weapons being another example of technology which has gone wrong with life threatening consequences for innocent people.

The Greens were promoting the idea of the Green House effect years before it was accepted as more than a hypothesis. It has taken many years later for the Green House notion to be accepted, partly due to it being a notion having a severe impact on profit making. Do we go by the notion that any profit made is good; and don’t worry about any negative environmental impacts which threaten the life sustaining systems of our planet?

The uranium sent to China may not end up being used in weapons; however, there is no absolute guarantee that it will not happen. It is not long ago that a nuclear war between India and Parkistan was imminent, and that was in the 21st Century. Mr Howard nor anybody else can guarantee that the alliances now in existence will prevail in the future. Because we are now in the twenty first century it does not suddenly mean the uranium is now safer than it was last century.

China is a country with a poor environmental record; the effects of their last major chemical spill is yet to be determined. Uranium needs to be treated in a fail safe manner; where are there examples of this having occurred. Russia, Britian and USA provide examples of where major incidents have occurred. A facility might be safe for 30 years and then some kind of threatening incident could happen.
In relation to uranium there need to be absolute guarantees; this is not possible.
Ant

All-

I have a degree, majoring in applied Nuclear Physics, and work in the minerals sector. Thus, I can say with some degree of confidence, that nuclear waste is NOT safe, it is NOT stored in an accpetable mannner, and the Greens are right to be critical of the issue.

China in particular has an appaling record on nuclear storeage, often dumping waste at sea. Undergroound storage facilities are not designed to last the 10,000 years for most high level, enriched waste to reach its half life. Geological activity can can the rocks it is embedding within, change ground water courses, etc...

To say that we who argue against the wide scale use of nuclear power has been indoctrinated, is silly. I was once very pro-nuclear, due to its high efficiency. Now, after studying the physics and engineering of the industry, I am happy to speak out against it - with the Greens.

Unlimited clean and affordable energy source awaits us all. And with it, cheap transport, manufacturing and food production - desalinated water piped all the way to the back of Burke – possibly a new lush Australia (and Africa), free education and child care …

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/24/content_4341563.htm

The real world is not based on absolute guarantees. After all who can guarantee to morrows sunrise. As an aside: philosophers have for centuries questioned the validity of inductive reasoning.

No the real world is based on pragmatism and opportunity and making the best scientific and political judgment from the available facts. My judgment is that it is ok to trade with China or India in regard to uranium. By the same token I welcome any growth in nuclear power. This of course includes a facility in South Australia of which I heard talk on yesterdays ABC radio.

I accept that none of us has all the facts so there is room for different opinions. My reading of the media is that the pro-nuclear forces are gaining traction with public opinion.

Not quite, Seeker.

Electricity generation from nuclear fusion has been only 20 years away from commerialisation for the last 40 years and may remain so indefinitely.

It is possible that, sooner or later, a tokamac design will be developed that generates more energy than it consumes. However according to an assessment that appeared in March in the prestigious journal, Science, reported at http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/nuclear/dn8827-no-future-for-fusion-power-says-top-scientist.html "Even nuclear fusion’s staunchest advocates admit a power-producing fusion plant is still decades away at best, despite forty years of hard work and well over $20 billion spent on the research".

The report adds that Miklos Porkolab, director of the Plasma Fusion Center at MIT, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, "concedes that a functioning power-producing fusion reactor is probably 50 years off, and that is too far in the future for any reasonable conclusions to be drawn on its economic viability. 'It depends on what the price of oil is going to be 50 years from now,' he says."

I am less pessimistic than ChrisC about solving the engineering problems of disposing of nuclear waste, but political problems are another matter entirely. Preliminary work began on the Yucca Mountain waste facility in Nevada 28 years ago and it is still not functional (current target date is now 2020).

In a new twist introduced by the War on Terror, activists opposed to Yucca Mountain are fanning concerns that trains carrying waste to the site may be attacked by terrorists and the nuclear material stolen or released.

Meanwhile America's existing reactors are producing 2,000 tons a year of waste, stored in dozens of sites all over the US. Ironically, China is perhaps the only nuclear power with capability to get a secure waste storage facility operating quickly PROVIDED it chooses to do so. The government has capability to quell popular dissent and bypass the political problems that democratic countries face.

There has been a belief well back in history, that there is an advanced guard, earlier more spiritual, but in our modern times, much more intellectual. These individuals are never very popular with the ruling caste, especially a conservative government which abhors any notion that such a government is doing the wrong thing, especially if they are likely to lose votes through it.

A serious problem with the Avant Garde getting a message to the public, is that in today's Avant Garde there are so many who are over reckless, in other words looking like the typical hangers-on, only in it for the excitement, or just getting a kick out of changing the world.

Unfortunately, as we even note from our more conservative Onliners, how they are now adding cheer to a government that
is now virtually accepting the Kyoto backed argument about global warming. etc, but entering the fray with fanciful modications, which though getting an already dumbed down public in, the argument from whom we might call the ever-couragous Avant Garde, is still there, honest, truthful and all.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Last Update: Saturday, April 8, 2006. 10:44am (AEST)
Private sector considers building SA nuclear plant
As the debate over uranium exports continues, plans have been floated for the development of a nuclear power plant in South Australia.

[see ABC site local news section]

The report that aggie refers to is at http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1611696.htm

Nobody has expressed serious interest in progressing this. According to a separate report at http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/olympic-gold-silver-copper-and-uranium/2006/04/07/1143916716521.html the Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine now owned by BHP consumes 10% of South Australia's entire base load electricity production. There are expansion plans that would quadruple that consumption, so before it even leaves the mine, uranium is responsible for squirting a hefty dose of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (not to mention the mine's appetite for diesel fuel for trucks and mobile machinery).

The additional electricity required by mine expansion could be perhaps met by a nuclear plant. There is another consideration as well. There is insufficient water available at Olympic Dam to support planned mine expansion. A $700 million desalination plant is being discussed. This will also require a large supply of electricity.

Even if a nuclear plant were to prove economically feasible, whether the political problems can be overcome is another story.

Incidentally anyone who thinks that nuclear power is pollution-free, has failed to account for energy used to construct mines and power plants, extract and refine uranium, dispose of nuclear waste securely and eventually dismantle and dispose of the plants themselves.

Since we have yet to see this life cycle completed anywhere in the world, we have yet to know how polluting nuclear energy really is.

Technology is always evolving: As you can see here: http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=2116
It would be better to be well informed of the benefits and in the longer term, drastic reductions in fuel burning. The waste generated is over a period of time, and it is not that great in volume.
I would not think it is the be all and end all, but until future break through in the Plasma fusion reactors, and the harnessing and development of electro magnetic technologies, until then, there is no point in peddling backwards.

The simples and easiest way to understand the disposal method is here:
http://www.nei.org/documents/Safely_Managing_Used_Nuclear_Fuel_Part1.pdf
http://www.nei.org/documents/Safely_Managing_Used_Nuclear_Fuel_Part2.pdf

Sorry the Greens are near pathetic Luddites on a mission only they could describe, encased in Pseudo science and babble.
Having a degree in Physics , you would well be aware of that already Chris.

Gusi speaks the truth on this. Where is the hurry?

The uranium will go up in value after all, and Australians are relatively well off at the moment. It seems the equivalent of selling stocks just as they begin to rise in value.

Moving from the financial side of it - to the global politics. Is this truly the best time to sell, or be seen selling uranium? With a breakdown of the non-proliferation regime occuring in India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and (possibly) with the US-India deal. Why pour oil on the fire?

I spoke out against this policy at this hearing. The year is 1988, Dallas, Texas, United States of America. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hearing, public comment on a new policy called BRC(below regulatory concern.) They had to come up with a creative way to dismantle and dispose of low level waste. So they came up with the BRC. Which basically said that if they spread the low level waste back into the consumer stream(they recycled it) it would raise our background level of radiation only another 500millirads which was an acceptable risk. This is the mentality of the people in charge of U.S. Energy policy. How long will it take before our government decides it's killed enough of it's citizens through these policies that have no regard for life and protect the pockets of the energy industry? How many Chinese will die?

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny.
What have you done mate?
First the Iraq war, to "help" the Iraqi people. Yeah, that worked, right?
Now this.
Selling uranium to China, is like Giving a gun to Saddam. Im not saying that China is going to misuse the uranium, im just saying that it is unnessesary, and it could bounce back on us.

Maximus

The respect is mutual. Your thinking is obviously deeper than I gave you credit for, not the ususal 'the world is gonna blow up anyway so lets all make a buck whichever we can'.

Yeah, they'd stab me, without an ounce of remorse.

And if the greens magically gained the parliament, they'd take Rio Tinto donations and stab me too.

But at this point in time the greens are the only ones who are talking about a world where multinatioal corps. dont hold govts. in their pockets at the expense of the environment and democracy.

So in this instance Senator Milne has my support.

A very interesting array of Posts, and it seems many are against the selling of our uranium to China.

1. As Gusi points out, we are not really in need of the income right now.

2. If it is true that Australia has the bulk of the world’s available uranium, methinks we are in a critical position as far as China’s future political ambitions are concerned.

3. Looking at China historically, there is no reason at all why China should have much love for the West. It is really not far back in time to the Boxer Rebellion, when China in anger over the way she was being exploited mostly by Britain, revolted in the Shanghai district. Anger was returned from Western nations with the invasion of China with Tientsin captured and the capital Peking sacked, China going close to being declared perpetually under Western hostage, but was finally let off to pay costly reparations over many many years.

Why shouldn't we sell uranium to China, nuclear program or not? China is exempt from the Non Proliferation Treaty, as it should be. It has every right to develop them.

Do some here feel uneasy that a non-Western country is developing nuclear weapons? That is a mighty quaint notion.

Sorry folk, elida has a flash coming on, many of you will bejoinin'Homar Simpson' in his job at 'the plant' working for 'the old miser himself' and you thought coal was stuffin' up the earth, bigger things to come.

Even though they have not signed the non proliferation treaty it will be ok to sell uranium to India.....they play cricket....China doesn't...

Two recent reports come to mind. Increasing levels of uranium fallout from Bush's use of spent uranium in weapons in Iraq is being recorded across Europe as far as Britian. A reactor near Chicago has been leaking radioactive waste for ten years. It seems the lessons from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are yet to be learnt.

Bushbred - Part Two.

So there is little doubt that China could very well still have a political axe to grind against the West. And it is interesting that China right now is virtually following the original Marxist Leninist plan to make good use of Western-style capitalism till strong enough to really have her say in the world.

China is in the position right now with supplying the world with incredibly cheap goods, she could have many nations in economic trouble, if she suddenly jacked up her prices like Japan did back in the 1970s.

Although it is said that Johnny Howard was never ever a good history student surely he must know about the above which comes out of most global history books. Howard might be good on his feet, or have the political knack to get his decisions across. But it must be admitted that a a lack of historical acumen was shown by his following G.W Bush like a lamb into Iraq. Moreover, the way he is going he could also have Australia mixed up in a future attack on Iran.

Finally, the concern about John Howard appearing too much like a 19th century British colonial statesman, and never questioning those above him, will certainly make him an interesting character for future historians.

We might also add that an advancing China will also make choice meat for future historians to work on.

Aspro,

Depleted uranium used in tank armour and heavy artillery shells in Iraq has nothing to do with nuclear energy, apart from the fact that, as a byproduct of producing enriched uranium, it has become cheaper than tungsten metal, which used to be used.

D38 (depleted) uranium has a density of 18.97 gm/cc, tungsten is 18.82, gold (which is far too expensive to use in munitions) is 19.32.

It is the weight per cc that not only creates penetrative power in armour-piercing shells, but can be used in armour to withstand those same shells.

D38 uranium is less radioactive than the stuff dug up in uranium mines. However uranium compounds are chemically toxic (in a similar way to lead compounds) and there are concerns about health problems arising in terrain where depleted uranium has been sprayed around. (Naturally, the US Military has not proved enthusiastic about tracking them down.)

Supposedly, depleted uranium is used as ballast in the tails of Boeing B747 aircraft, although accounts vary as to how much.

Leaks from reactors are a different kettle of fish altogether.

But if the Chicago leak you are referring to is the intermittent leak of radioactive tritium (a hydrogen isotope) in the form of water from the Exelon nuclear plant near Chicago, it breaks the law but is hardly a menace to the human race.

There are aspects of nuclear technology to be extremely worried about but neither of these is one of them.

What is the lesson from THREE MILE ISLAND?

The containment building worked as expected. Environmental release of radioactivity was miniscule. In this regard it is worth obtaining the summing up document by Sylvia H. Rambo Chief Judge, Middle District of Pennsylvania. Over 2000 personal injury claims were filed, claiming injury from gamma radiation exposure. These claims were all rejected.
A study from the University of Pittsburgh based on a long term follow up of a cohort of 32,135 exposed subjects. Overall cancer mortality was similar to the local control population. Talbot EO et al. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2002;111:341-8. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5662/5662.pdf

What is the Lesson from CHERNOBYL?

The latest information can be downloaded from the Chernobyl Forum: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

This was a moderate industrial accident with fatalities. The details should be well known. The design faults in the existing RMBK reactors have been corrected. The lesson is; no new reactors of this type will be built. The new generation of reactors are safe. You can find a plethora of useful information on the Uranium Information Centre web page.

In summary: The safety record of the civil nuclear energy industry is exemplary.

Bushbred wrote, "China... could have many nations in economic trouble, if she suddenly jacked up her prices like Japan did back in the 1970s."

Oddly enough, Bushbred, the US government does not share your concern.

In fact, US Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham are threatening to impose a punative 27.5% tariff on Chinese imports to the US if China does not lift prices substantially by revaluing its currency (the yuan) against the US dollar.

Your surmise, Bushbred, is correct though, as any international trade economist will tell you. The US, Australia and NZ are living far beyond their means, running up potentially ruinous international debt.

Schumer and Graham think this is because Chinese prices are too cheap. In reality it is because Western consumers (in those three countries in particular) are too greedy and continue to spend more than they can earn.

On a purchasing power parity basis (what's that? The Economist newspaper explains at http://economist.com/markets/bigmac/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4065603 ), the Chinese economy will soon be the second largest in the world.

The Chinese, despite low incomes, are some of the world's most determined savers. Their savings are currently being lent to the US and other countries to fund extravagant lifestyles, overpriced homes and fuel-guzzling 4WDs.

You are right, Bushbred, to sense economic trouble ahead, but for reasons other than you suggest. Charles Dickens's Mr Micawber put his finger on the problem, "Income one pound, expenditure nineteen shillings and sixpence, result happiness. Income one pound, expenditure one pound ought shillings and sixpence, result misery".

In fact in Australia's case, the trade deficit is around 8%, which is "expenditure one pound one shilling and fivepence".

Comment by Mike Clarke – Page 1

The arrogance, stupidity and blind faith in the renewable energy myth are all part of Ms. Milne’s argument. Let’s dissect her argument under those headings of arrogance, stupidity and blind faith in renewable energy.

Arrogance: The Greens, The Democrats, the ALP and for that matter the Australian Liberal Party have no influence over China in terms of human rights, environmental performance or their method of government. We can be individually appalled (Bob Brown’s favourite word) at China’s record on human rights and the environment, but in reality our concerns mean no more than farts in our own underpants, so why keep harping on these points in terms of international relations/trade.

Stupidity: China has enough uranium to make all the bombs that it could ever possibly need, and further enough uranium to power all it existing and planned nuclear vessels for hundreds of years to come. In fact they have around 50,000 tonnes at a cost of less than $40 USD/tonne (by comparison Australia has greater than 1,000,000 tonnes or 30% of the World’s resources at less than $40 USD/tonne), on OECD/IAEA figures. What China is looking for is reasonably priced and readily available nuclear fuel supply for its rapidly expanding civil nuclear industry. China can buy from Australia, with its strong use and dissemination regulations, or from Kazakhstan, Canada , South Africa, Namibia or others.

China is looking to have about 40 by 1000 MWe reactors in service post 2020. The total fuel requirements of these reactors will be around 8000 tonnes per year; this being a non sustainable drain on China’s indigenous uranium supply. If China were to build 40 by 1000 MWe coal fired power stations instead of nuclear plants, the coal demand would be around 100 million tonnes, which would translate into around 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Since China is already planning to expand its coal fired power generation capacity, using its very considerable coal resources (resources greater than Australia’s), any reduction in China’s coal demand should be welcomed by those concerned with anthropomorphic greenhouse gas generation.

Comment by Mike Clarke – Page 2

Blind faith in renewable energy and an obsession against nuclear energy, the mantra of Professor Ian Lowe. The following paragraphs seem to be taken out of one of the many speeches by Ian Lowe, “nuclear power is not the answer. It is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous, and generates waste with no safe disposal. Renewable energy wins on all counts: speed, cost, safety and effectiveness”. Nuclear power has matured to where its installation and commissioning can match that of coal. The new Finnish power station is scheduled to take four years, and provide a very useful 1100 MWe. The cost, capital and operating – inclusive of fuel and decommissioning, is compatible with coal and the Finns will be getting a secure and greenhouse friendly base load generation facility for their Euros. It beats renewable energy in terms of energy security, availability and price. As to safety, the western civilian nuclear programme has an excellent safety record, and since China will be using western technology, the same safety regimes will apply.

Nuclear waste disposal and fuel recycling should be the responsibility of the seller. Australia should be looking at selling enriched nuclear fuel elements, being high value elaborately transformed manufactures, as against low value yellow-cake. We should further take responsibility for the waste as well a fuel recycling. By taking this extended interest in our nuclear fuel, we will be assisting the World with improved nuclear security, and ourselves with an improved national income.

Will Australia take this opportunity for going beyond just being an energy/coal quarry? If the Milne’s, Lowe’s and Brown’s of this World have their way; NO, but perhaps there are more sensible heads in the next generation. Not having nuclear profits will cost us dear.

Lets put it this way for all the profit driven loonies, coal is no good for greenhouse, uranium is the only mineral we can mine that can be made into a nuclear bomb and dropped on us by the country we sell it to, it is the only mineral to be known to overheat in the power station, and explode, remember Cherboble? Alternate energy is the ONLY safe way to go, we should sell our technology in the areas of solar, and wind generation and also hydro electricity, thank you one and all.

There are some interesting points made in this thread. Money now, money later vs the risk of nuclear bombs and waste.

The simple facts are that China already has the bomb. They have Uranium enrichment facilities. How many more bombs would they make? Should we not see iron-ore to China because it ends up in the bomb casing. Should we not sell gold because it ends up it the microchips that control the bomb functions. No logical argument in that.

Reactor Safety. Well, they are not safe. There is no such thing as a safe level of ionising radiation. But it is all around us. Radon gas, a natural byproduct of Uranium decay exists in our houses. Sunshine is full of Ultra-Violet light. Contrary to popular belief, Chernobyl did not go critical - It just leaked.

Waste. Now here is where the problem is. Until someone comes up with a means to stabilise (stop leaching) of Actinides (such as Plutonium, Americium etc) then there is no solution. Ceramics, such as the CSIRO's Synroc go someway, but stabilisation and neutron criticality events are only guaranteed not to occur for up to a mere 1000 years. Some of the waste isotopes need 400,000+ years for it to be safe. Longer than Homo Sapien has been around for, letalone any civilisation.

MikeC refers to, "The arrogance, stupidity and blind faith in the renewable energy myth".

While nuclear energy may become a viable part of the energy mix, it would be more helpful, MikeC, to discuss the renewable energy reality rather than the myth.

The New York Times reported yesterday, "With big Boost From Sugar Cane, Brazil Is Satisfying Its Fuel Needs":

QUOTE
... less than three years after the [petrol/ethanol] technology was introduced, more than 70 percent of the automobiles sold in Brazil, expected to reach 1.1 million this year, have flex fuel engines, which have entered the market generally without price increases...

For each unit of energy expended to turn cane into ethanol, 8.3 times as much energy is created...

Brazilian producers estimate that they have an edge over gasoline as long as oil prices do not drop below $30 a barrel...

Some [sugar] mills are now producing so much electricity [from burning bagasse] that they sell their excess to the national grid.
END QUOTE

Brazil expects to become energy self-sufficient this year, no longer depending on importing oil.

Like nuclear energy, there are a whole lot of complications with ethanol energy, not the least of which is land hosting rainforest or crops for human consumption being hijacked to fuel cars.

Somebody once observed that for every complex problem there is a simple solution - and it is always wrong.

This is as true of nuclear technology as it is of renewable energy options.

MikeC could usefully try a little less arrogance and blind faith himself.

Be concerned because the Chinese communist regime is a liar and very unstable. Not less than 2 days after the nuclear treatment pact was signed by Premier Wen in Australia, Dow Jowns news (see below) released news that Chinese regime sold nuclear missiles to Iran who were testing them --- the 3rd one that week.
Short-sightedness is not Mr Howard’s problem. Its his greed and willingness to give up world peace, throw away hard won freedoms of democratic rights here in Australia and kowtow to brutal dictatorships. One of his closest advisors is Mr Downer who has been secretly working for the communist regime well before he got into power.

China Insists Its Arms Sales Are Lawful

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

BEIJING (China insisted Thursday that its arms exports are lawful amid reports that it sold torpedoes to Iran, which test-fired them last week.

"China has normal, conventional military trade with other countries which abides by China's policies and law and agreements China has signed," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a regular briefing.
Iran said Wednesday it had successfully test-fired its third missile within a week. The test follows that of two other missiles and two torpedoes since March 31.

The test come as tensions are high over its nuclear program. The United States and France have accused Iran of seeking enrichment as a part of a secret program to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear ambitions are confined to the generation of electricity.

China is one of Iran's long-time allies and trading partners.

Washington has in the past sanctioned Chinese companies or individuals, accusing them of violating American or international controls on transfers of weapons technology to Iran.

There is no talking sense to these communist brutal dictators for they don’t listen or apply even the most basics of Human rights to their very own people. The Howard Govt does not listen either and his mentors are the Chinese communist regime. So what hope do have of them honouring any agreements.

Your concerns are being addressed Jana Banana, at this very moment.
USA, Japan, India, Australia. Etc.
Your view of Marxisised minds is 100% spot on target. Welcome aboard.

JaBa,

I see nothing in the Dow Jones quote you supplied that indicates that missiles that China sold to Iran contain nuclear devices. Sale of non-nuclear missiles is perfectly legal (if deplorable). I believe that the US is the largest manufacturer and vendor of such weapons.

According to a report on ABC radio this evening that I have not been able to independently verify:

QUOTE
It's fascinating to see how much space the Australian media has dedicated to the prospect of selling Australian uranium to China. But one issue has been conspicuously absent from the coverage of Premier Wen shaking an array of important hands, even though it holds far greater prospects than uranium for both increasing export dollars and for reducing greenhouse pollution.

Slipping through almost unnoticed in the acres of newsprint was the revelation that, the same day as the uranium deal, a joint enterprise called Roaring Forties, involving Hydro Tasmania, signed a 300 million Australian dollar deal to build three 50MW windfarms in Eastern China.

Those windfarms are part of China's plans to expand its wind industry to a huge 30,000MW by 2020 in order to meet its legislated target to meet a full 15% of its energy from renewable energy sources by 2020. Over that same period, uranium's salesmen say nuclear power may meet perhaps 5% of China's energy needs...
END QUOTE, from http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1614652.htm

If that report is correct, then China is doing far more than the US or Australia to establish an greenhouse-friendly regime for energy supply. According to an ABC report last September, http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2005/s1467365.htm , Roaring Forties is a Tasmania-based company jointly owned by Hydro Tasmania and Chinese company China Light and Power.

Dear MikeM,

Have you been to China lately?? The smog is so bad that they are going to ban cars and factories from running their stacks in Beijing for at least 3 months before the games begin in the hope that this may enable the athletes to perform. In other words shut down a whole city for 3 months.Only an extreme brutal regime could do that.

The Chinese Communist regime does not believe in preserving or cleaning up the environment. The cleanup was strongly recommended by the Olympic committee when it was there on its inspection for the 2008 Games.

The only reason they are looking for uranium is further their nuclear weapons programme for future use against USA and all western democratic societies.

This is a brutal regime who also has a space programme. They are selling missiles and have been testing their own nuclear bombs in East Turkestan now for over 10 years. 200,000 East Turkestan residents Muslims I might add have died thru these tests.

And why is Osama Bin Laden and his like not standing up for his fellow Muslims??
Why is he not terror bombing China?

Because the communist regime has been helping extremist Muslims for well over a decade now because their goal is common - to Wipe out USA and democracy and rule the world with communism.

And if the communist regime wins this take over then they too will kill all Muslims .
Well that’s their plan… but I believe that this wont happen.

The Chinese everyday people want their freedom and there have been too many uprisings in the last few years. 75,000 up risings last year. 10 million have resigned from the communist regime since Nov 2004 .

And it all started with an editorial series called the 9 Commentaries.

Here is the link check it out. http://ninecommentaries.com/

The communist regime’s days are numbered. And the world will be a far safer place with them gone.

JaBa,

The Epoch Times, which brings us "The Nine Commentaries", is not generally regarded as a balanced newspaper of record, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

It may indeed report news from China that other media ignore or fail to capture, but it mixes this with biassed opinion and exaggeration.

According to a report from the ABC's correspondent, John Taylor, in Beijing last Friday, http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1610868.htm

QUOTE
Sandstorms regularly sweep across Beijing; construction sites dotting the landscape throw up massive amounts of dust.

Then there's car emissions. Last year 1,000 new cars hit Beijing's roads every day, bringing the total to 2.6 million. That figure is expected to top 3.5 million by the time of the Olympics.

Ensuring that the 2008 Beijing Olympics aren't ruined by worsening pollution has been a major concern of organisers. For the past few years authorities have been greening the city, and moving away polluting factories and power plants.

Now they've announced they're planning to take a number of drastic measures.

For a two-month period around the Games, all construction work will cease, remaining polluting factories and power plants will be closed down, and roads will be sprayed with water and swept several times a day...

There's one measure though, that car-owning Beijingers may find hard to swallow: car restrictions.

A key proposal is to force hundreds of thousands of drivers to leave their cars at home for a two-month period starting before the opening ceremony, and ending with the close of the Paralympics.

For most of this time, about only half of all projected cars will be allowed on the roads. During the Games itself, the number will be slashed to less than a third.

Not everyone's going to be happy...

Officials are considering offering paid holidays and public transport free passes to affected motorists. But if they choose sticks over carrots, being a one party dictatorship can help to get things done.
END QUOTE

Beijingers buying 1000 new cards a day: how brutal is that?

Dear MikeM

Wilkipedia can be edited by anyone. So for the article written on The Epoch Times to make you question their credibility - how do you know that it wasn't edited by one of the 30,000 internet Chinese spies.

As to your question How brutal is that??

Only a regime with such controlling powers could make the edict that this will be so. Can you imagine our western democratic countries being told by the Governemnt "that you can't drive to work and we'll give you all free bus passes" being obeyed??

Also give a thought as to why the pollution is so bad over there and prompting the question why this isnt being cleaned up as we speak instead of waiting for the 2008 Olympic games to show a good face to the world??

The Chinese communist regime is all about showing a good face and denying, lies, slandering, and controlling every thought in every chinese citizen.
There is no rule of law over there only rule of Man --communist regime law.

I'd like to ask you a question Mike I dont know where you live and I wont ask. But if you had to make one choice between liviing in China or Australia, where would like to live??

Jaba,

I live in Sydney and have spent time in Seoul, Bangkok, Singapore and Hongkong. Shanghai? On company assignment I wouldn't mind at all. Beijing? No. Seoul is bad enough in Jan and Feb when the sandstorms blow in from the Gobi Desert.

Chinese might find it strange that Sydney's eastern suburbs people have been forbidden to drive across the city anymore. Roads have been blocked to stop them. Instead, they must use public transport or pay a toll of $3.50 each way to go through a tunnel.

The Chinese government denies every inconvenient truth.

The Australian government is far more ethical. It denies only the most convenient ones: children overboard; Pacific solution to avoid being swamped by Muslims; Australian Wheat Board bribes to Saddam? never...

The Chinese government is engaged in a balancing feat that has never before been attempted: how to move 1.3 billion people from totalitarian state to market economy. East European formerly Communist bloc countries are achieving this with some success but they are smaller countries.

The Economist newspaper reports this week:

"A study by the Vienna Institute for Comparative Economic Studies, a think-tank, and Bank Austria Creditanstalt paints an encouraging picture, at least for the eight ex-communist countries that joined the European Union two years ago... [they] look set to keep their edge against their Asian competitors in the EU market..."

Russia, most commentators consider, has made an evil mess of the process. A few billionaires have snared the most worthwhile companies, bought for a song. Russia's totalitarian instinct by some accounts now trumps China's.

I don't discount criticism of China's chancy legal system, capital punishment, fragile property rights and sometimes highly "convenient" interpretation of commercial and international law.

But the practical question you need to ask is, how best can this country get from where it is to where it and the world at large want it to be?

JaBa, if you are smarter than the present Chinese government and can do that better than them, why don't you move to Beijing and show them how?

MIkeM

Because I would be arrested and thrown into a forced labour camp or worse put into a psychiatrict hosptal and injected with mind altering drugs to transform or shall we say reeducate as the regime says to make me give up my belief in Falun Gong which practices truth compassion and tolerance.


There are 100 million chinese people practising Falun Gong in CHIna and they have a better way of life to show the communist regime that can enable China to move from brutal dictatorship and suppression of all basic Human rights for China to return to its rich culture and and move forward to show the democratic west how to behave with dignity and honour and respect.

The Communist regime have been slaughtering Falun GOng since 1999 and now there have been witnesses coming forward veteren miltary docters etc who have been working in organ harvesting concentration camps. Falun GOng area limitless supply of organs as they mean to wipe us out complelety and Why??

Because we practise truth compassion and forbearance which is a direct threat to the communist regime.
Falun Gong practtioners are being slaughtered each day with Jiang Jemins edict to financially destroy them, ruin their reputations and phyiscally destroy them . THis is the Holocaust of FAlun Gong in China.

The people of china will be liberated and soon. And the world will be alot better safer more humane place after the chince communist regime is gone. The Chinese people want this with 75,000 uprisings last year and 10 million resigned from the communist regime.

PLease dont make the mistake of defending a brutal commuist regime and condemming all that is best in humanity Falun Gong thru ignorance

MIkeM

Becasue I would be arrested and thrown into a forced labour camp or worse put into a psychiatrict hosptal and injected with mind altering drugs to transform or shall we say reeducate as the regime says to make me give up my beielf in Falun Gong which practices truth compassion and tolerance.

There are 100 million chinese people practising Falun Gong in CHIna and they have a better way of life to show the communist regime that can enable China to move from brutal dictatorship and suppression of all basic Human rights for China to return to its rich culture and and move forward to show the democratic west how to behave with dignity and honour and respect.

The Communist regime have been slaughtering Falun GOng since 1999 and now there have been witnesses coming forward veteren miltary docters etc who have been working in organ harvesting concentration camps. Falun GOng area limitless supply of organs as they mean to wipe us out complelety and Wh??

Because we practise truth compassion and forbearance which is a direct threat to the communist regime.

The pople of china will be liberated and soon. And the world will be alot better safer more humane place after the chince communist regime is gone. The Chinese people want this with 75,000 uprisings last year and 10 million resigned from the communist regime.

PLease dont make the mistake of defending a brutal commuist regime and condemming all that is best in humanity Falun Gong thru ignorance

Jana Banana, it is awful what the Chinese government does to its own people ! Especially that Falun Gong is a peaceful art of meditation. This demonstrates the monstrous power of the communist government.
However, how will the sale of uranium to China stop democracy ? Premier Wen Jiabao has always been a communist and is unlikely to change if Australia withholds uranium from it. There also are other countries that will provide at the right price.
It is difficult to point a finger at Mr Howard. He is doing what any democratic country would do and use its choice economic vehicle, capitalism, to make money.
Mr Howard is not naive enough to think that Wen Jabiao is his friend. This is a business decision. Mr Howard is looking after Australian interests. By selling to the Chinese, he is not selling out democracy, he is protecting it. Wealth protects democracy.

Dear Cay

I would say the morality honesty compassion justice protects all people. Democracy is not the issue. I do not see that coming from this Governemnt who know what the communist regime does to its own people/ You can't take money with you from the earth to your next life here on earth or to heaven or hell. But you can take your goodness or your evilness. That is a choice all humans have to make continually in every moment of this life on earth..the choice to be good person or a bad person.

I don't see sacrificing human life by trading with a despotic regime in the hope that they will one day stop doing what they are doing.If you trade and deal with devils you become one.
When the commuist regime falls (and it will fall soon) the Chinese people will still be there to trade with except the terms will be different and justice and Humanrights will be accpeted norms in China. To trade with evil before that happens says much about our Government in Australia and our future.

I see what you are saying Jana Banana. It is the behaviour of the government that matters and not their politics, be it communist or democratic. You say that if the government upheld human rights and the bona fides you list, the type of government would not matter. You recommend not trading in uranium at all regardless of the government. I agree with you on the matter of government behaviour.
I disagree with the sale of uranium only on the grounds that it is to be used to create WMD and who knows, in China's case, it may be against it's own people.
Shonga spoke earlier about selling our advances in renewable energy. This needs to be marketed well so that more people believe in it and thus create a demand for it. Prices will then go up for renewable energy and we'll be saving ourselves in our eagerness to make money and develop our nations.

I read all of your comments with great interest and would like to share the view that I have, so far, based on the information I came across on this topic. The reason I am reading this discussion is to open up my thoughts and to share points of view, and also to learn from others:

Part 1

I am against the Australia-China uranium agreement because it is not safe:

* Restrictions on Australian uranium mining will probably be lifted. New uranium mines will be needed to satisfy China’s demand. Australian uranium production is already more than 10,000 tonnes annually and will increase with the expansion of the Roxby Downs mine in South Australia. Clearly, no new mines would be required to satisfy China’s demand.

* The only 'significant' commercial use for uranium is to fuel nuclear reactors for the generation of electricity.

* China need not subject any Australian uranium to safeguards inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

* China can use the Australian uranium in nuclear weapons without breaching the terms of the agreement. In theory there would not be a net transfer of nuclear material to un-safeguarded facilities (and potentially to weapons production). However, Australian uranium could easily find its way into Chinese weapons. This contradicts foreign mnister Downer’s claim that the agreement “establish strict safeguards arrangements and conditions to ensure Australian uranium supplied to China is used exclusively for peaceful purposes.

It is far from certain that there will be a transfer of nuclear materials such that there is no net contribution to China’s stockpile of non-safeguarded nuclear materials. It would be naïve to take the secretive, militaristic and murderous Chinese regime on good faith.

Part 2

It is also doubtful that IAEA inspections could ensure that a transfer to a safeguarded facility took place, or that it was not subsequently transferred to military use. As a nuclear weapons state, China can choose which of its facilities are safeguarded and which are not. It can also decide –on national security grounds- to remove facilities from safeguards. Even if IAEA inspections take place, errors are inevitable. China could decide at any time to pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and no longer subject any of its facilities to IAEA inspections.

The uranium export agreement contains no provision for Australian government representatives to inspect and monitor exported uranium or the facilities in which it is used. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) can be expected to be as negligent in tracking uranium exports to China as it has been with wheat sales to Iraq.
In any case, DFAT’s monitoring of exported uranium (and by-products such as plutonium) amounts to nothing more than checking the sums in records compiled by China and the IAEA.

Howard did not make as good a trade over the sale of uranium to China as he could.

He could have sought an undertaking that Australia would not be targeted by Chinese ICBMs in the event that a conflict arises over Taiwan–remember we have several American military communications bases in Australia and our ports and airfields are used by nuclear weapon carrying ships and planes. Since it is almost certain we would be an allied with the U.S it would be likely they will be targeted regardless of any agreement, but just in case we don't buy into another US folly and maintain our 'one China' stance it might help avert a strike.

A few retorts:

Pericles:
the "incentive to push the button is at its lowest historical point"

I'd suggest that there is a very high chance of nuclear bunker busters being used in Iran see Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?060417fa_fact

and also this article www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=10071

So it can't be the lowest point.

While Australia has a lot of the worlds uranium as gusi mentioned it may only last 50 years. The concentration in some mines is getting low and the amount of low grade ore that needs to be processed is increasing and therefore the energy needed to mine it.

MikeM is quite right:

"so before it even leaves the mine, uranium is responsible for squirting a hefty dose of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere…mine's appetite for diesel fuel for trucks and mobile machinery)."

and

"Incidentally anyone who thinks that nuclear power is pollution-free, has failed to account for energy used to construct mines and power plants, extract and refine uranium, dispose of nuclear waste securely and eventually dismantle and dispose of the plants themselves"

This is spot on.

Advocates of nuclear power how would you feel if the total nuclear power cycle used more energy than it produced?

Renewables require energy to be put into place, it might take all of the remaining oil and a good deal of the coal to bootstrap the process but it may be our only chance.

Howard did not make as good a trade over the sale of uranium to China as he could Part 2

Did I hear that China wished to have a hand in building new uranium mining facilities in Australia? Does this mean the equipment will be built in China and shipped here? Does it mean a Chinese construction and mining workforce in Australia? Is this Howards vision for value adding?

Can anyone calculate the size of a solar photovoltaic array that could be built using the energy required to mine the uranium destined for China or from the resource taxes raised?

How much does the taxpayer hope to gain vs the mining companies and shareholder? What proportion of the shareholders are Australian?

It strikes me as absurd that Tassy Hydro and a Chinese company can produce wind turbines for Chinese use and our pathetic governments can't produce a renewable solution for domestic use.

Great points, Deus!

I also want to mention that no government seems to take the Aboriginal people’s opinions and views in those remote areas seriously, however valid they may be. A typical arrogant out of sight-out of mind policy! Out of who’s sight and mind?

Not only are they concerned for their own wellbeing (think about water contamination, tailings or wastes management, including run off, and health and safety) but they will also be concerned that something that in fact comes from their well-loved land -the area they connect with and are one with- can potentially do serious damage and cause death in other parts of the world.
The same goes for all the people who will suffer in developing countries. Where are their rights?

Are all the dangers connected with nuclear energy *really* worth it for such a depletable supply –remember it is anticipated to give us a supply for just 50 years at the most? BTW the world’s electricity usage only accounts for 16 percent of our total energy use! So uranium could never give us more than 16 percent, even if ALL our electricity would come from nuclear plants!

We have the sun and the dessert, we have the wind and the waves, and so much power can be obtained from those natural sources if we only set our mind to developing it properly. Put the money towards research and development of technologies like CSP (Concentrating Solar Power) for instance using solar dish-engine systems. This is in my view, a much better and safer solution than developing nuclear energy, which will be insufficient to even supply the full 16 percent of electricity the world needs.

Ever seen nations create wars over a breeze, bomb the sun, or bribe a few waves of the ocean? These sources will be available to every country. No more dependability but self-sufficiency and more peace for every one!

Why are we so scared about the fact that China will use the Australian uranium to develop a nuclear bomb,which they have the right to. Their not the ones who used it for unjustified purposes just so they don't lose WWII....hmmm ayyy.

Dear Concise you obvioulsy do not know anything about the history of the Chinese communist regime. I suggest you read the 9 commenteries
at http://ninecommentaries.com/

Since the publication of this editorial series which is a expose of the brutal violent history of theri rise to take over power and what they did to maintain their rule up to today over 10 million chinese poepol in China have resigned from the communist regimes party. About 20,000 each day resign . Theirdays are numbered...

They have killed 80 million of theri own people in the 56 years of their rule in so called peace times in China.
And it has never stopped the killing continues each and every day with the worlds largest Genocide lastiing nearly 7 years masacaring Falun Gong practitioners harvesting their organs for world supply of organs etc. PLease read at least one chapter of the 9 commentaries and you will see why we are so concerned about selling urnanium to the Chinese regime.