Well said, Danny Kennedy!
We certainly need the kind of alternative media that is provided by this forum, because these facts and opinions don't get much of an airing in the mainstream media.
The secretive nature of the nuclear industry means that the public is largely unaware of the essential link between "peaceful" nuclear power, and the weapons industry. We can rightly worry about nuclear bombs, and nuclear terrorism, but what about the continued production and use of depleted uranium weapons? Used in both Gulf wars, depleted uranium continues to affect both Iraqi civilians, and the U.S. troops who used those weapons. Recent news items reveal that the U.S. has supplied depleted uranium weapons to Israel.
Australa should not follow John Howard this folly of uranium enrichment and nuclear power.
Nuclear as the cure for global warming? What an absurdity, seeing that nuclear power stations in Europe and U.S. are currently not operating due to hot weather! Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

For starters, I'm quite convinced Howard doesn't actually want a nuclear power plant built in Australia - I suspect he's just put that notion forward, so an enrichment program doesn't sound so bad by comparison, which is what he really wants.

Uranium enrichment can vastly increase the profits generated by Australian uranium mines - so a greatly increased profit can be had by extracting a lesser amount and enriching it.

I don't agree that that is the way to go, I'm just pointing out a key aspect, though somehow I don't think the federal government would reduce exports just because they are making more money.

There is of course the argument that we would have to accept nuclear waste from our export countries if we have an enrichment program - that isn't necessarily the case, though politics being the way they are it would only be a matter of time before a politician decided there was great profit to be had by dumping it in an out of the way part of the outback. No doubt they'd be envisioning all the good those funds could do for education, but we'd still be storing toxic waste. Future generations wouldn't be happy.

The federal government repeatedly dismisses renewable energy reserves - I'm not so sure they can't be used - they won't be a majority contributor to our power supplies for many years, I can acknowledge that, but we need to start somewhere. Britain is, why can't we?

The nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives. It saved the allied prisoners of war, who would undoubtedly have been killed, together with a large percentage of the Japanese nation, who would have died in a last ditch stand against the allied forces. Any study of the casualties at Okinawa and Iwo Jima shows conclusively what would have happened if there had been an invasion of the mainland.

The main effect of the atomic bombs is that they were so overwhelming that the Japanese could surrender (for the first time in their history) without excessive loss of face. However even after the second bomb the Japanese cabinet was deadlocked on the issue of surrender, allowing Emperor Hirohito to give his casting vote for surrender. For this reason alone I think the allies were correct in not prosecuting him as a war criminal.

Since 1945 nuclear weapons continued to save lives by preventing war between the allies and the Soviet Union. Instead we had a cold war which was eventually resolved without significant loss of life. The proxy wars fought during the cold war were always restrained by the need to prevent nuclear war, because the West and the Soviets shared one thing - neither wanted to die. Today we face another enemy who is quite happy to die, and we have a far greater problem.

The most significant underlying cause of most of the world's problems today is population increase, which of course is never mentioned. Coupled with the end of the age of cheap oil, we face an interesting period, as there obviously needs to be a significant cut in the standard of living.

The only enduring, unchanging factor is human nature, which has evolved over the last million years. As Shakespeare put it "The main interest of youth is stealing, fighting, and getting wenches with child".

I think Australia should enrich and reprocess uranium and store waste products. This not only to value add exports but also control possible diversions. If a country imports X amount of enriched uranium that same amount or its decay products have to be returned or accounted for within normal cycle times. Otherwise no more uranium from Australia, Canada or other influential exporters.

Or you might think we can do without nuclear energy. In case you hadn't noticed the climate is changing from coal burning and oil is running out.

There are nuclear weapons in the world. The first two were used in anger 61 years ago, none since. There are also many nuclear power stations, of which only one has had a major fatal accident - a far better record than any other major energy source.

I agree that nuclear weapons dissemination is a major threat, that some of those seeking weapons now may be less contrained than those who have held them for decades (cf Iran). But I do not see this as a significant argument against nuclear power. In my view, that argument should be based on economics, taking account of the pollution involved both in that industry and in alternative energy sources. Global warming or not, world energy demands will increase over the next 50 years, low-pollution energy sources can provide only a small amount of requirements, and nuclear may well be the best option.

I've looked at the arguments for more local processing of minerals, wool etc, and there are generally sound reasons why it takes place closer to (generally within) major marhets. We can not assume that uranium enrichment in Australia would be viable, it's an empirical question. As for arguments that if we produce it, we should take back the waste products, that makes no sense if it is not a requirement of the purchasers - unless we want to keep potentially fissile materials from particular buyers. But there are good reasons, such as geological stability, for Australia offering waste disposal facilities. Surely better deep below the sparsely populated remote deserts of Australia than in the densely-populated countries of Europe and Asia?

I have no doubt some of the commentators who support the nuclear industry are genuine, thinking that it can offer a substantial response to climate change.

Unfortunatly facts don't bear this out. Fissile uranium (of sufficent grade to be economically processed) is a scarce resource.

If all the electricity now generated by burning fossil fuel was
replaced by electricity from nuclear power, there would only
be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the
reactors for between 3 and 4 years. And for this temporal advantage we are happy to produce 24,000 years of radioactive wastes!

Let's face it folks, we are energy junkies. Like any other addicts, the prospect of withdrawal - from our lavish lifestyles - is so frightening that we frantically look everywhere for a quick fix. Any fix. We would murder our grandchildren rather than face reality.

I appreciate that many commentators on this subject are genuinely concerned people. But let's get real with facts. Nuclear energy is a flash in the pan, not a solution.