Deary me, Anti-Green,

I do believe you have spun yourself into a web.

If you were truly anti-green you could not support nuclear power, because Johnnie Howard has verily declared nuclear power to be Clean and Green.

In any event, there is no need for you to support nuclear power, because the continued use and expansion of fossil fuels will destroy the Earth’s atmosphere altogether, which, as an anti-green, should please you greatly.

But here is your real dilemma. Years ago, greens were warning that greenhouse gas emissions would bring on global warming. As a principled anti-green, you were, of course, in flat denial, saying they were just a bunch of doomsdayers.

But now that climate change has gained almost universal acceptance, even by those of your fellow travellers who were in flat denial, where does that leave you?

Tell me, anti-green, have you parted ways with your fellow travellers? Or could it be that your views are governed by a simple pragmatism, keep shooting the messenger regardless of fact?

The future of nuclear power will not be like the past. By 2100 it is possible to have 10,000 safe, clean reactors in operation which will burn all their high level waste as they go. There will be enough fuel for 1000 years and then another 1000 with Thorium.The UK already possesses enough fuel for several hundred years but plans to bury it as waste.
This is one technological way forward for humanity. Unfortunately, it will require wisdom to run such a system and wisdom is very very rare. For details read my article, 'Uranium - What is to be Done?' on this web site:
cestar.seas.ucla.edu/docs/URANIUM1.PDF

Gecko,

500k m3 of nuclear waste is a 50x100x100 m block. All from 50 years of nuking in the UK.

The annual global CO2 output if frozen solid was (IIRC) a mountain 10 miles high and 4 miles across.

Which is more dangerous? The former is poisonous for thousands of years to come, which may be of academic interest if the world overheats and we become extinct.

Is all of the waste dangerous for that long? No one is forced to live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now yet thousands (if not millions) do.

There are a few fervent technological devotees out there and I wish you well.

Science can be real, but it can be deeply religious too. As blind in faith as any religious fanatic can be.

Piling on more and more technology, to save us from the the hazards that hard technoloigy has brought us in not intelligent.

I love elegant technology, and technology can be used to create a more sustainable world. But I have little faith in the masculine power-hungry techno solutions that are being put forward.

As Albert Einstein once said "You can't solve a problem with the same mentatility that created it in the first place".

It's time to get real. Maybe we should communciate again, folks, in about 20 years time, when I will be glad to accept your humble apologies for getting it so wrong!

“If you were truly anti-green you could not support nuclear power, because Johnnie Howard has verily declared nuclear power to be Clean and Green.”

MR. HOWARD IS THE CORRECT FORMAT. I FIRST BECOME INTERESTED IN NUCLEAR POWER 25YEAR AGO AT A SCIENTIFIC MEETING IN WASHINGTON

“In any event, there is no need for you to support nuclear power, because the continued use and expansion of fossil fuels will destroy the Earth’s atmosphere altogether, which, as an anti-green, should please you greatly.”
PURE SPECULATION.

“But here is your real dilemma. Years ago, greens were warning that greenhouse gas emissions would bring on global warming. As a principled anti-green, you were, of course, in flat denial, saying they were just a bunch of doomsdayers.”
CORRECT!!

“But now that climate change has gained almost universal acceptance, even by those of your fellow travellers who were in flat denial, where does that leave you?”
NO PROBLEM- FASHIONS COME AND GO.

“Tell me, anti-green, have you parted ways with your fellow travellers? Or could it be that your views are governed by a simple pragmatism, keep shooting the messenger regardless of fact?
No need to shoot the messenger.”
NO NEED TO SHOOT ANYONE- THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

A 1996 UN Resolution banned DU (more accurately known as Uranium235 enrichment waste munitions) as a WMD; the UN Human Rights
Commission 2002 stated that US/UK use of DU violated The Hague
Conventions, the Geneva Protocol, the Nuremberg Principles, the
Charter of the UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, etc.

Dear all,

My name is Adam.
I first heard about the U235 enrichment waste munition issue when I attended the UNHRC in Geneva 2000 and also heard Doug Rokke talk with Carmy in Freo.
I now live in an Indonesian Moslem village with my Islamic wife. I have Clerics in the family and am sponsored to be here by same.
If I understand correctly, whilst Islam allows for war under certain conditions, THE LIMITS must not be exceeded.
To cut a long story short, since I have been talking with the clerics about genocidal england & america's use of uranium weapons, the prevailing opinion appears to be that there will be no end to militant Jihad (which is not the only form of Jihad) as long as those responsible continue to kill and mutate not only the combatant, but everyone else exposed aswell.

They're very unhappy and have requested further info. I am going to put together a DVD.

Personal opinion: Only evil, psychopathic little cowards kill women & children.

May the crown be tried for Genocide and its servants imprisoned.
May sovereignty be restored to the Original People.
Bring on an Australian Republic.

...Adam...