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".