O dear. Check out the comparison between Philo’s last two posts.

In one he prattles on about “illinformed leftwing greens, who want to take us back to the beginning of time when they believe the Earth was pristine and no man inhabited this planet.”

What ??

In the other, he makes a not entirely unreasonable suggestion that tidal power could play a part in meeting out energy needs, presumably as part of an alternative package to nuclear power.

This seems like a pretty full-on leftwing greenie subject to raise to me.

What a bizarre contradiction !! !!

Billwells
I do wish we had some protection against specialists in the world.
I wish we could have some "geophysiologists" who would be the equivalent of the old GPs, but would have a broad understanding of the physiology of the planet.
It is necessary to realise that humans are only one of the life forms on this planet. We know what happens when there is a population explosion in other life forms and yet we keep thinking that the same result will not apply to humans.
Using up the natural resources of the planet and hoping for new technology to save us is not a very sensible way of looking at things.

I for one most strongly welcome the renaissance of nuclear energy. Yes Australia should mine uranium and sell it to India, China and eventually Indonesia. Yes, again to an international nuclear repository in Australia. The safety record of nuclear power is exemplary and the safety methods and transport of nuclear material have been explained again and again. For instance read the IAEA Safety Series, or the UIC Briefing papers.

It should be clear by now that the Chernobyl accident was a one off situation, due to the design and operation of the RMKB reactor. Again and again it has been explained that these faults have been corrected. On any objective scale of industrial accidents, Chernobyl comes in about the middle of the list. I mention just a few examples here: Bhopal, India, methyl isocyanate release, 15000 deaths, 150,000 to 600,000 injured; Machu II, India 1979, hydro-electric dam failure 2500 deaths; Durunkha, Egypt,1994, fuel depot hit by lightning, 580 deaths, Warri, Nigeria 1998, oil pipeline leak and fire, 500+deaths and many more .

The problem of psychological and social disability in the Chernobyl population was due in part to the poor management practices in the old USSR. There is no doubt in mind that the deliberate alarmist and misinformation circulated by the anti-nuclear warriors has augmented the sense of anxiety reported in this population

This article is incorrect and misleading and has no credibility. The author does not even know the difference betweens the Greens and a former "Green-Peace" member. One is a political party and a movement for Government, the other is an environmental action group.
The myth that there is an abundance of nuclear energy is incorrect. It is probable that we will run out of high grade nuclear energy within this decade, worldwide. Low grade nuclear power produces just as much greenhouse gasses as fossil fuel does, and you also have the problems of radio-active waste, health problems, security problems, and the expense of storage to the end of time as we know it.
The other incorrect statement is that nuclear energy is the cheaper option. Some European countries including France and Sweden heavily subsidise nuclear power at tax payers expenense. This is just to keep it relatively safe, containable, secure from terrorism. Denmark has the cheaper and therefore has the better option that produces no greenhouse gasses or radioactivity: they use windmill power, and this does not require ongoing hefty subsidies from taxpayers.
Economic rationists argue for nuclear power because they believe, or want us to believe, that this is the cheapest way, and argue that it is cleaner for greenhouse gass management. They forget to put into the mix all the expenses, government subsidies, and risk to health, environment and security. When we have to move from high grade uranium: due to run out within years, to low grade uranium, we have a dirty, expensive, dangerous and unhealthy situation. Not to mention the risk of terrorism.
Uranium power is the most expensive option and no Green, to my knowledge, in Australia, have, do, or will ever support this lie.

You appear to have all accepted the environmentalists' line that increasing levels of carbon dioxide are heating the planet and disturbing the world's climate in unpredictable but negative ways. Apart from the fact that there is no genuinely scientific evidence to support it, you should be aware of the following:

1. The scientific consensus rates water vapour as at least as important a greenhouse gas as CO2. Dr Vincent Gray (an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]) has calculated that water vapour accounts for as much as 92% of the greenhouse effect.

2. Many of the main assumptions underlying the IPCC mathematical models are simply invalid. Carbon dioxide has been growing at nothing like the one per cent per annum postulated by the IPCC, and methane is actually reducing. Some models assume that Rwanda and Mali will be more prosperous than the USA and that coal production will increase eleven fold by the year 2100. Both of those assumptions are truly wild.

3. The IPCC predictions have not been amended in the light of actual data and those models have not yet been successfully run backwards.

4. The summaries of IPCC reports are politically inspired, and are not supported by the reports themselves.

LKG