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.