Plersdus - for starters I debate the necessity of dropping atomic bombs on civilian cities, and your point about population growth would be a moot one if the third world nations had the same quality of life as the first world - it's easy to blame population growth for the worlds problems and completely ignore the fact that the population of first world nations aren't growing. Australia in fact, is declining, or haven't you been paying attention to Costello's baby message?

I agree nuclear power isn't a sustainable solution, though perhaps it is a viable temporary one, until renewable resources can contribute a majority of our power - the problem is, we're not really taking renewable power seriously. We should be.

I am one of those who marched against neutron bombs, ss20s, cruise missiles and the like when living in Holland in the 70s. In those days the thread of the whole world being blown up seemed more real than it is now. Perhaps the likelyhood of a couple of bombs going off is higher but the MAD concept doesn't seem to be a threat anymore.

There is so much spin on the nuclear issue now that you just don't know who to believe anymore. Let's not forget that Hiroshima and Nagasaki have not been turned into 50,000 year uninhabitable wastelands, they are thriving cities today.

James Mortlocks book Gaias Revenge makes interesting reading. Again we are confronted by the issues. Just how much nuclear waste is generated? Less then 1000 tonnes a year according to JM, millions of tonnes according to others.

With the MSM controlled by the right and the blogs leaning towards the left, objective truth like a non-spinning top has fallen over and is nowhere to be found.

Why do people think Iran is anymore likely to use nukes then say Pakistan.

Well, Gusi,

Yes there are conflicting opinions on the facts. But don't forget that vested interests have a major stake in minimising the apparant risks. With respect, I suggest that you find out who funds the researchers and writers before taking them as gospel.

In relation to wastes, the UK's radioactive inventory alone - from its current nuclear programme - amounts to 470,000 cubic metres of materials. This has been 'temporarily stored' until they can work out what the hell to do with it. There is no secret about that volume. Britain is now going through a debate about geological burial because something has to be done with it before they can even consider building new nuclear plant.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, these are jusst the wastes that can be shipped somewhere. Then there will be the retired reactors themselves, which will have to be entomed, on site, in concrete forever after.

When you grapple with these stats you wonder if all this grand insanity is really necessary in order for us to fry our eggs and bacon and warm our toes.

My word, another emotional rant emitted from the heart of Greenpeace. Wilfred Burchett may have painted a vivid word picture. Objective and scientific accounts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be found in the web pages and publications of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF). I know of no satisfactory calculus that can weigh one act of war against another.

Accounts of Burchett’s life are to be found in Wikipedia or on the ABC media report of 3-Nov-2005, [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/mediarpt/stories/s1495777.htm]. Crittenden suggest he was Involved with the KGB and a communist sympathiser.

Robert Manne in the same program details his reporting of the Korean War as indicating a strong pro-communist bias. Likewise his reporting of the Stalinist show trials was, according to Crittenden review of Burchett’s book, The Peoples Democracies:A Factual Survey, “an apologia for Stalin’s Europe,nothing more,nothing less.”

Burchett can not be described as an objective observer,he died in 1983. In the context of the world war a case can clearly be made out that the bombs saved allied lives (see “plerdsus” above). I find it very understandable that allied commanders placed the preservation of their own men above that of the enemy.

Greenpeace and its supporters may worry as much as like about nuclear bombs and nuclear terrorism. I do not care if the anti-nuclear people amuse themselves by invent more and more phantasies. The important point is that nuclear technology is finding increasing application in industry, science and technology. Hopefully, Australia will open up more uranium mines, and in the years to come will build and operate nuclear power plants.

I believe that the progess and growth of Western civilisation requires plentiful energy. To warm toes and much else.

Kenny asked:

Why do people think Iran is anymore likely to use nukes than say Pakistan?

I think that the answer is that the president of Iran has stated that it may be a good thing if Iran is martyred. He is not worried about a large percentage of Iran's population dying. Look at the way the Iran-Iraq war was conducted. Is it any wonder that most western countries are extremely anxious to prevent Iran gaining nuclear capability. They don't want to die.

Gecko claims that existing uranium supplies could only supply the world for 3 or 4 years. Although I would agree that Uranium is only a limited energy source, most authorities quote a life of 50-70 years at least for existing supplies. If the spent rods are recycled, it could be much longer. The only long-term answer is nuclear fusion, which is fail-safe, produces no nuclear waste, and uses sea water as its raw material. We can only hope that fusion power is widespread before that, and that the world's first fusion power station, currently under construction in France, proves a success. There is no going back to the past. The only way we could go back to a low energy lifestyle would be to reduce the world population to nineteenth century levels.

As far as waste storage is concerned, we have areas in Australia that were used for nuclear tests 50 years ago, and which are uninhabitable. These areas would seem ideal sites to store nuclear waste, as they are useless for anything else. Once we get fusion working we will have the energy to dispose of the wastes permanently by shooting them off into the sun.

I would be interested to know how TurnRightThenLeft would have brought ww2 to a conclusion? A massive invasion of Japan (actually scheduled for November 1945) that would have killed perhaps 5 million allied troops and 50 million Japanese? (Figures scaled up from Okinawa). And you think the bomb was a bad thing?