So Anti-green's definition and example of an "agenda" is:

1. The construction of a nuclear reactor must be stopped

2. An undergraduate prank of members dressed as dustbins visiting Lucas Heights.

3. And a video of a hypothetical scenario of a plane crashing into a nuke reactor.

Since Anti-green has avoided the bleedin' question I now have to reiterate that question:

What is the agenda of environmentalists and Greens and how might they profit from that agenda?

Dickie

I will offer you this explanation. The Greens are an alliance of four groups of people.

GROUP 1-THE ROMATIC GREENS. Their origins can be traced back to the eighteenth century and possibly earlier. Nature was to be revered and enjoyed. The early greens saw and experienced the dirt, grim and horrors of industry. They were not interested in science and technology. Progress became a “dirty” word.

European man raped and pillaged the earth where ever he settled. The romantics yearned for a golden age, long past where the simple, rustic village life could be enjoyed. Rousseau conferred nobility on the people of far indigenous lands. Some would like to return to a pre-agricultural existence of the “hunter gatherer.” Ignored are the terrible famines that hit medieval Europe, high death rates for young and old. Pregnancy was often followed by the death of both mother and baby.

The romantics were and are against industrialisation, scientific and technological innovation. The romantics are always on the look out for perceived “victims” such as the poor, aboriginal groups, Palestinian Arabs etc.

GROUP 2- THE UNREPENTANT COMMUNIST. When in the mid 1950s it became more and more apparent that the old USSR was a slave labour camp. Anti-communistic feelings became extreme when the Red Army savagely squashed the Hungarian revolt. Western communists, Marxists need a new image. An alliance with the romantics suggested it self. Now they could continue their war against capitalism, free markets, and globalisation under a new “flag.” As a Green the former Marxist could continue to hate America and its leaders as the symbol of capitalism and free enterprise. Thus we see forming the vision of the Green Socialist State. (Continued)

What the *##*? "Marxists"? "Unrepentant Communist"? "Romantic Greens"? "Green Socialist State"?

What froth and rant, Anti-green. I understood we were discussing Australian environmentalists and greens whom, I am sure, have no desire to return to the 18th century hunters and gatherers era, as you so inanely purport!

Small greens do not support the Green Parties in all particulars, however, most support the four pillars philosophy of:

Social justice, sustainability, grassroots democracy and peace and non-violence.

There is often distinction amongst Green Parties of other nations also and perhaps you are unaware that the Greens in Australia were not formed until 1972 when a Tasmanian Green politician summed up the Party:

"We are neither left or right but forward"!

That just about sums it up for me. And "forward" does not include leaving a legacy of H/L radiation for future generations to deal with as you are recommending!

And it is precisely the backward, obsolete and arcane propaganda you are dishing up which encourages disillusioned voters in Australia to sympathise with the Greens and to also form "greenie" environmental groups.

Many people, with half a brain, realise that the current state of the environment,(which is encouraging nuclear debate) is at least partly a result of governments and their environmental agencies gleefully and greedily trashing the environment. Their ongoing, irresponsible condonation of industry polluting this fragile planet tells me very clearly that these cowboys have well and truly "missed the bus"!

So Anti-Green in writing is "4. There were 134 cases of documented acute radiation syndrome (ARS). 28 deaths were reported in 1986 due to ARS. About 19 further deaths in this group occurred between 1987-2004. These 19 deaths were from various causes".

Does this mean you lied when you said there was 9 deaths?

And how long do we have to wait before you come up evidence misleading, often badly informed comments came from from environmental and Green groups, especially regarding The Chernobyl accident and not The Nuclear Industry?

So the lessons you need to learn anti-green again is before replying again, check facts, do research and don't say something is not relevance say Chernobyl, when you are the one going about Chernobyl.

I can now continue my observations on the “Greens.”

GROUP 3- THE MIDDLE CLASS TRENDOIDS: The doctor’s wives or a Bob Geldof’s pop concert are a good example of this genre. A small donation every now and again to an appropriate charity, or a green vote at election time will solve world hunger etc. I expect that that under this heading is a small group of affluent people with feelings of guilt because of their wealth.

GROUP-4 THE EXPLOITERS: Groups 1-3 consist of the credulous and the gullible. They are open to exploitation by any individual or group that seeks political power for their own selfish ends. I include such historical personalities as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Fidel Castro and many more.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Further comment to Kwv:
No I was not lying. I was correcting a statement in relation to the long term follow up of cases of thyroid cancer cases. The following is from page 16 of the Chernobyl Forum.

“….fifteen deaths related to the progression of the disease (thyroid cancer) had been documented by 2002.”

Thyroid cancer is a stochastic effect and is in no way related to the 134 workers who suffered the acute radiation syndrome (ARS). ARS is related to the absorbed dose in Gy units and is therefore a deterministic effect.

I will take Mark Diesendorf's suggestion and use my real name. For people that do not know me, you can find out a great deal about my background with a simple Google search or by visiting my blog (Atomic Insights Blog), web sites (Atomic Insights and Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.) or podcast (The Atomic Show).

One part of my background that is that I served as a nuclear submarine engineering officer. I have spent the equivalent of about 2 years sealed inside a small ship underwater within 200 feet of an operating nuclear power plant.

That is the basis for my initial comment. Nuclear power plants are not only carbon free, but they also do not produce or release any nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, micro particulates, or mercury. All of their residues are tightly controlled and remain sealed inside corrosion resistant metal cladding.

When it comes to the fuel cycle and the construction cycle, many of the emissions assumed by Van Leeuwen and Smith’s report would disappear if the electricity supply happened to be nuclear power plants. The enrichment done in France is a good example. I think I have seen Diesendorf quote from the excellent study done in Europe called ExternE (http://www.externe.info/) when he wanted to talk about the external costs of coal; however he seems to have ignored or discounted that study's results with regard to nuclear energy.

He also seems to have overlooked the rather substantial secondary market for nuclear power plants in the United States and the fact that those plants are often being run by companies that are not regulated monopolies. As generating companies, they sell their power on an open market for a competitive price. Over the past five years the average nuclear plant in the US has run at a capacity factor of very close to 90%, and during the past several years their operating cost has been slightly above hydro, but well below coal, gas and oil. (Though oil is a fairly small percentage of our power, that portion is still more than 3 times larger than wind and solar power combined.)