ChristinaMac,

I think you would be surprised at what I've read. I am certainly no advocate for nuclear energy. I am dead against this poisionous technolgy and can see no value (other than medicine) in using it - for anything. A CT Scan requires nuclear material. The patient recieves about 1mSv = 500 chest x-rays = 3.5 years of normal background radiation. 1 in 2000 people that recieve an Abdo CT Scan WILL as a direct consequence contract a fatal cancer (US FDA).

I am researching and actively campaining against recent government reports such as the abuse of Australia's Cold-War WMD Veterans at the hands of an uncarring Veterans' Affairs department and RSL. According to the Government and the Uni of Adelaide, nukes are safe!! - http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/2006/nuclear_test/index.htm

It is unhelpful in the extreme when people sprout absolute rubbish that they obviously know little about. If Jim spoke about actinides rather than DU in terms of waste I would at least given some credibility. The inability to stop actinide leeching and criticality events in ceramics through neutron absorbtion failure is far more relevant to the current discussion but completely by-passed by the pseudo-intellectuals.

The reference to text books was a remark about Jim's "PhD" in the history of a building complex rather than what the complex does and how it does it.

In answer to your question, Jim, yes the nuclear issue could be driven by a miltitary agenda.

But, having been engaged in many hundred of conversation, the major agenda is somewhat less sinister. Most people pushing for nuclear, from Mr Howard down, genuinely think 1) that we have to satisfy energy demand whatever. 2) This being so, only nuclear energy seems big enough to do it - given the problem of climate change.

(For the Howard goverment there is also a little matter of economic opportunity.)

The fact that nuclear energy simply can't deliver the goods in terms of preventing climate change seems not to matter.

Even amongst groups of committed environmentalists it is impossible to get away from the 'technological 'fix' brigade - the devotees of one particular energy-supply technology or another.

This fixation on supply-side remedies is a cultural disease.

Sure, the nuclear issue is locked hand-in-glove with military applications, but I think the bigger, albeit more subtle, driving force is not that at all.

We just can't get past the futile psychology of trying to solve problems by making things bigger and meaner.

Narc.

It was not the FDA ;) It was:

National Academy of Science released their 7th report on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII), this showed 1:2500 people in the US will die of ionising radiation caused by CT scans. A similar report in the UK put the figure at 100-120 people per year.

We don't want to play with this stuff, leave it in the ground and sell coal and gas.

I thought your readers and the Aussi energy dept, would be interested in looking at these energy technologies:

Aneutronic Fusion: Here I am not talking about the big science ITER project taking thirty years, but the several small alternative plasma fusion efforts.

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems

Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion

He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts

Dear Dr Green

Why don't you run as a State or Federal Candidate?

I would love to be able to vote for a person with your honesty and integrity.

Any advice on who I should vote for?

Why are our "elected representatives" haggling over expending OUR taxes on nuclear power anyhow? Smell the roses people!

It is time our elected representatives take some initiative and provide their people with SUSTAINABLE POWER SUPPLIES!

Solar Power, Wind Power, Tidal Power, Wave Power, Geothermal Power.
All proven, all limitless.
All safe, all non polluting.

Leave the poison in the ground.

Restore Sanity!

Having just read the preface and introduction to ‘Nuclear Power is not the answer to global warming or anything else’ by Helen Caldicott, all consideration that I may have had about a place for nuclear power in Australia has well and truly vanished.

Leave the poison in the ground!

Oh uh, there’s a ‘but’……….

But what of our defence capabilities in globally expanding nuclear weapons regime? Where will Australia be in a world where many countries have nuclear weaponry, and might like to take over vast sparsely populated us? How will be prevent countries from virtually taking our uranium, and other resources, for a pittance if they really want it, regardless of what we say…if they have the power to seriously threaten us if we don’t oblige?

Is there any sense in developing a nuclear defence regime?

There is no sense at all in developing a nuclear power regime by itself. But if there is merit in a nuclear defence strategy, could this make the economics and practicality of a nuclear power regime meritable?

Horrible thoughts.

Please fellow posters, pleeaaase tell me that there is NO sense whatsoever in us getting into nuclear in any way!!