Well, I wasted my time reading this article, because it says nothing of substance.

Sylvia.

If Australian's manage to reduce the green house gas production by 50% this equals a reduction of 0.5% of the total of the worlds green house gas output.

I made the observation to my wife only yesterday that her aged parents support nuclear power for Australia only because John Howard thinks it’s a good idea.

While I am politically conservative and have had some admiration for John Howard until recently, I most certainly do not agree with everything he does and says. So, despite the fact that I go for the Coalition as the least bad of a bad bunch, I believe that the Government is under pressure from the nuclear lobby and miners, who see the public panic and bullswool about climate ‘change’ as a way to enrich themselves, and to hell with the consequences. We have cheap coal – which can be cleaned up - and the possibility of our entire electricity needs being supplied from the centre of Australia via solar power.

Comparison with the nuclear generators used by other countries, without our advantages of natural resources, is pure humbug. Add the inflated price we would be paying for electricity – even when prices for coal have been artificially increased to make nuclear power “cheaper”, plus the dangers that we would be idiots to allow people with great wealth in mind for them to gloss over, and the whole idea is idiotic.

John Howard is keen on saying that so-called alternatives can provide only a small percentage of our power needs – never a base supply; so too can nuclear power NOT make a worthwhile difference to CO2 emissions.

This is one lunatic proposal that is just too dangerous to allow the dummies in Canberra to get away with.

Strangely I agree with most of what this article says but not the conclusions. I believe that several key 'wedges' (Scientific American Sep 2006 p.32) won't deliver. Geosequestration for older coal plants is unproven but nuclear is. Therefore nuclear gets a more reliable wedge. Renewables should get more investment dollars under a carbon cap but I bet they will still ask for substantial government handouts on top. If you include electrification of transport it comes down primarily to coal vs nuclear and I'd prefer nuclear even if we have to wait.

The Great and the Good assert a self-contained climate - stable and benign until disturbed by people burning fossil fuels. All we can expect is IPCC's implausible-sounding projection of just more warming in future - WITH NO COLD PERIODS. Then, of course, nuclear will be vital to meeting Australia's energy needs. But if ours is an ever-changing climate with an external (solar/planetary) driver, the future timing of inertial, resonant and electromagnetic influences can be calculated. If we sceptics are right, the next Little Ice Age cold period - doubtless bringing great human misery - will be obvious by 2020. Then, Australia's big reserves of low sulphur coal will be a vital resource for Australia and the world. On the other hand, China has much high-sulphur coal (in Szechuan) which should no longer be be used for power generation, in any case - now that nuclear technology has moved on. I spent time in Tsinghua University's nuclear department (accessing their PRC energy statistics). They are pushing the development of "inherently safe" gas-cooled reactors where the fuel is disseminated in ceramic balls. But if the mainstream is wrong, and ours proves not to be a people-driven climate (the giant 1997/8 El Nino may be the warmest point between the start of the Maunder Minimum in 1650 and the end of the Landscheidt Minimum in 2050), let's forget nuclear power for Australia. Just export uranium to those nations who still need nuclear power. Why not think before we jump?

Good stuff Fosbob. A few more points.

1. "Clean green nuclear" takes no account of the fossil fuel input to make the fuel rods for the reactors, nor the problem of disposing of the waste, and the dismantled power plant at the end of its life. Yes pebble bed reactors, laser enrichment of uranium, may change the equation, but they might create new problems too, and still do not fix the disposal problem.

2. Who is going to insure these 25 new power plants? The Insurance Industry in the US, the UK Lloyds, and the EU won't. The poor old taxpayer will pay again I suspect, just as in the US.

3. As well as helping China with cleaning up its high sulphur coal, we could also focus on the small coal briquettes most urban chinese use to cook and heat their homes with, with horrible urban air quality problems. I read recently the air pollution index in Beijing hit 400 for the first time last week, the top of the scale is 500, where breathing the air presumably will kill you. No signs of the clean up for the Olympics they keep promising.

Richard42

It does seem to be a baseload race between coal and nuclear, assuming continuing uselessness from Canberra on solar thermal and hot rocks. If not for the unsolved waste problem, i'd shut my eyes to proliferation, EROEI (incl. decommissioning) and limited resource concerns on nuclear and go for that, but as it stands coal+geosequestration seem best. We're going to burn it all anyway, just have to do it in least possible impact way.

Peter Bradford may speak for a section of the anti-nuclear lobby. In my view the anti-nuclear people have lost the argument. How else to account for 440 power reactors operating in 31 countries? How else to account for a world total of 2.626TW/h of electricity generated in 2005?

About 30 reactors are under construction in 11 counties and according to the UIC Briefing paper No 19 of August 20006 it is anticipated that at least a further 60 plants will be built in next 15 years.

In Australia we have just received the draft report from the Government task force headed by Dr. Switkowski. The hard line anti-nuclear people may not admit the fact, but the committee members were practising experts in the field.

To day a positive House of Representative Report on the uranium industry has been tabled.

Yes, the anti-nuclear people have lost the argument. This does not mean they will just fold up and go away. No they will try to cause as much delays as possible. Continue to demonstrate and make as much anti-nuclear noise as possible. In the end the industry has the force of logic behind it and therefore it will prosper.

A good example of a battle lost by the anti groups is the fact that the new Lucas Height OPAL reactor is now operating at full power.

My own support for the nuclear industry is based on its demonstrated exemplary record in the field of worker health and safety. Compare this with the coal industry or the hydro industry and loss of life from dam failure. Even wind turbines are not fatality free see
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/
and then click on accidents.

Could our greenfarce mouthpiece please explain why they continue to describe the above market price of wind power as one that needs a carbon tax to make viable. Yet, the same sort of above market price of nuclear power is described as a subsidy.

Well then, if the (industry funded) Uranium Information Centre says its boom time, then how can anyone doubt them? I hear real estate agents are positive about the outlook for new housing starts too, go figure.

If "the industry has the force of logic behind it", does that mean they wont need to gouge the taxpayers for more handouts & insurance cover, and wont need planning edicts from federal ministers over-ruling the States (then why is Min.Campbell running an amendment thru putting such decisions under his discretion via the EPBC Act?)

The marketing is for nuclear power but the real goal is to have reprocessing and dumping in Australia.

Why else do people think that Howard suddenly changed his tune while being feted by Bush. It is the US State Department's plan for Australia, not Howard's. Immediately prior to the subject meeting with Bush, Howard was an outspoken opponent of nuclear power for Australia.

Immediately after being feted by Bush, Howard turned up in Canada suggesting a nuclear reprocessing industry for Australia. It was an odd public address and no-one at the time could work out why he was talking about nuclear issues at that time and in that place. It was apparently coming from left field and this was noted at the time by the Canadian news media.

Howard's unexpected backflip caught Costello and the remainder of the government front bench wrong-footed on nuclear energy and they were months trying to catch up with the new order. It was a real mess. This should be proof enough that government policy on nuclear energy was decided outside of Parliament and most likely, outside of Australia.

Bush's problem was the eternal one - that nuclear waste is piling up and there needs to be somewhere outside of the US to dump it. What better target than Howard to softsoap to volunteer the Oz backyard as the rubbish tip for the US and all comers? It appears that Howard is willing to bend both backwards and forwards to accommodate Bush.

I believe that Howard's stance on the nuclear option is just political posturing.

He's as much a captive of the coal lobby as any of his predecessors and this is just empty talk. There has been no committment made to actually do anything except to talk about it.

It will go the same way as Sydney's second airport - everybody seemed to agree that we needed it but now (especially since the original one has been privatised) nobody will ever be able to do anything about it.

In fact I'll be surprised if anything changes in the next five years.

I'll support a nuclear power industry if the waste could be stored somewhere inside Parliament House.

I personally believe that nuclear power may not be the safest option for Australia as such, however we can learn on everyone's mistakes. The key here would be the safety and the positioning of the plants. It would be silly of us not to consider this as an alternative for coal power plants. Howard may have changed his opinion after meeting with Bush, don't we all change our opinions after getting to hear both sides of the story? We may have large deposits of coal but there is still a limit to that supply. The sooner we convert to nuclear power the sooner we will be able to perfect and learn. It would be a shame if such a great contry had fallen behind the rest of the World. We are distanced from everything as it is. We should not make rash decisions that would see us making more miles away from better solutions and technological improvements. At this stage I must say that I don't entirely agree with the article. Nuclear power should be considered along side all other options.

I would have to agree with Sylvia that the article by Peter Bradford was a non event. It is absolutely amazing that all the knockers of nuclear power seem to be very deficient in useful alternatives. They are a bit like the Labor party under Kim Beazley.

I might also point out to Richard and Liam that the waste problem was solved years ago. (Read http://www.uic.com.au/nip49.htm ) Australia should not be exporting yellow cake, it should be exporting fuel rods and then storing and/or reprocessing them. Value adding is the name of the game.

Clean coal fired power stations seem to be a possibility in the not too distant future, but you must realise that technology also comes at a cost, so whichever way we go, we will be paying significantly more for power. We don't want to put all our eggs in the one basket though.

Even if Australia is a dry continent, we still have the potential to generate a lot more hydro electricity. The stupid Greens seem to be all that is standing in the way of that happening too.

I agree with the main thrust of the argument - a carbon tax on polluters and let the decision be on the basis of the most effective technology. But engineering specialists will provide the major input on what is to be used. We may still come out in favour of nuclear depending on how successful the alternatives work out.

Is there a "Dummies Guide to Nuclear Power"? If not one is urgently needed. The knowledge of the average greenie on the subject is abysmal. Some still confuse a power ststion with a bomb.

"My own support for the nuclear industry is based on its demonstrated exemplary record in the field of worker health and safety" says Anti-green.

I have an extensive documented argument to disprove Anti-green's statement.

Can he support his argument with something more substantial, please? He will need to include uranium mining and its environmental and health impacts as well, since that industry is part of the fuel cycle for functioning nuke reactors.

Dickie,
Before you present your evidence please consider the philosophy, limitations, and nature of epidemiology. {See Chap 5, of BEIR VII).

The best evidence is from randomized intervention trials (RIT). Generally and for reasons of ethics radiation human RIT is not possible.

Cohort and case controlled studies are available. Both can be either retrospective or prospective. In retrospective trials not all data may be available. The Japanese atomic bomb trial is a prospective cohort study in that it started about 1950 and is still ongoing.

All types of studies are subject to bias. For instance selection bias (choosing study and control groups); information bias (obtaining data for subjects and controls); memory or recall bias (especially in questionaries type studies); confounding bias (for instance role of infection, smoking, or chemical pollution in population studies).
There are many factors which can bias studies and also the literature, including publication bias.

Ecological studies which lack individual dosimetry are frequent in this area. They can never be defining. However, ecological studies may be hypothesis generating.

Then you must comment on statistical methods used by authors. A common problem is lack of statistical power.

Even worse then ecological studies are small studies based entirely on anecdotal evidence and not published in reputable scientific journals.

I would also point out that the methodology of the Oxford Survey on intra-uterine radiation is heavily criticised in ICRP 90.

While the various papers put out by “Green Audit” such as cancer surveys near nuclear power stations in North Wales have been demolished by COMARE*.

You ask me to support my statement. The recent draft report issued by Dr. Switkowski is sufficient justification.

*COMARE= Committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment.

Yes Dickie, let us see some references to support your argument. They will need to be published in reputable journals with good referees, otherwise they will have no scientific justification.

While we are on about alternate forms of energy, it has been starkly brought to our attention that the forest fires in Victoria are currently producing a vast amount of wasted energy.

This seems to happen increasingly, but let's be conservative and say that it happens on a ten year cycle. How much power could we generate, if instead of just letting it burn in wild forest fires, we harvested ten percent of it yearly and used it to burn in clean power stations. We would be getting a win-win-win situation. The regrowth would be absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, the sequestered CO2 would not be liberated into the atmosphere and the danger from these wild fires would be minimised.

Anti-Green

COMARE in the UK may have attained real progress in their findings of cancers in children, if they had allowed their findings to be used by other researchers.

What a pity that in their zest for recognition, COMARE released its paper to the press without any peer review.

This paper could hardly be called conclusive, given that COMARE have yet to investigate radiation cancers in adults where many cancers have a latent period, without symptoms and these periods can exceed 20 years.

Interesting also that COMARE is supposed to be "independent", when its secretary works inside the Department of Health and likes to hang out at the National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB)which is notorious for its reluctance to regulate and its eagerness to "advise". COMARE is also notable for its failure to challenge NRPB's appallingly unscientific view on health detriments from radioactive pollution.

In the Notice of Motions in the House of Commons on 29/3/06, thirty members supported a motion which included the following excerpts:

"This House notes that the NPHS Wales and COMARE have accepted a Report from the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit, denying the reality of a serious excess of childhood cancer and leukaemia around the Menai Strait in Nth Wales. The WCISU stands accused of recklessly using false data for populations in the study area with the effect of minimising the risks apparent in the cancer cases observed, despite having been warned of an exactly similar error in 2001. COMARE's endorsement of WCISU calls its epidemiological expertise into question and we call on the government to replace COMARE with a committee on the health effects of ionising radiation with a neutral chair, a full-time civil service secretariat and a budget sufficient to permit independent research, representative of all shades of relevant scientific opinion."

Cancer is the biggest killer of children in Britain today and brain tumours are knocking off a cool 16,000 victims annually.

Since you have failed to support your claim on the nuclear industries' "exemplary health and safety" record, would you like me to respond with some Australian and international data?

Dickie,

A cursory glance at the qualifications and experience of the COMALESARE membership list should make it clear to you that that it is a body of high scientific standing. I contrast this with your thirty or so anonymous MPs.

I appreciate that there are members of the anti-nuclear lobby who regards all opinion, no matter how well founded and resourced, that is contrary to their ideas as part of a “world wide conspiracy” directed at furthering the aims of the nuclear industry.

By all means present your data.

“I was very interested in your statement: Cancer is the biggest killer of children in Britain today and brain tumours are knocking off a cool 16,000 victims annually.”

So I checked the Mortality Statistics in England and Wales for 2005*

From table 2.2 on page 32. For ICD-10 code C69-C72 Malignant Neoplasms of eye, brain and other parts of central nervous system.

All ages males 1816; females 1251

Under 1y; males 0; females 3
1-4y; males 14; females 1
5-9y; males 22; females 16
10-14y; males 12; females 12
15-19y; males 10; females 10

I look forward to learn how you obtained your estimate of 16,000 victims annually. I also refer you back to my previous post on some of the pitfalls in interpreting epidemiological papers.

For the year 2005 all deaths in England Wales, from all causes and both sexes, ages 0-19y totalled 5586.

* Reference:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Dh2_32/DH2_No32_2005.pdf

Anti-Green

Apologies that my statement on childhood cancers and brain tumors was confusing and poorly written - perhaps a result of too much Xmas fare! Following are the corrections and sources:

"Cancer including Leukaemia is now the biggest killer of children in the UK." Source: House of Commons Hansard 12/07/05. 45 signatures from Members of Parliament by 18/7/05.

"16,000 cases of brain tumors are diagnosed each year in the UK."
Source: Brain Research Trust - fund-raising arm of the Institute of Neurology, University College of London.

I would hardly describe MPs or Hansards from the House of Commons as "anonymous" as you claim, particularly when decision making on additional nuclear power stations is a political one decided upon by Members of Parliament.

Please advise me of any scientific body which has peer reviewed COMARE's papers.

I remind you that COMARE conceded in its contradictory report that there was an increase in cancers in children living near the Sellafield and Dounreay nuclear plants where they advised that this finding requires more investigation.

The International Commission for Radiation Protection (ICRP) UK, which was set up, and is funded by the nuclear industry, is also a self-appointed, self-perpetuating body which publishes unchallenged and without peer review.

For you to accept as accurate, findings by committees simply as a result of their community and academic status reveals that you have had little experience in dealing with bureacrats and their use of compliant academic "experts."

I advise that I have had considerable experience from being appointed to an advisory environmental committee, set up by a state government. This experience left me with no doubt, that departments and government were merely seeking "ill-informed puppets" to maintain the status quo, in support of pollutant industries, without regard for the health of citizens or the environment.

I believe that senior personnel of this department were surprised to find that we were capable of interpreting and accessing relevant scientific evidence to support our arguments.

Data supplied on the Australian nuclear fuel cycle and Lucas Heights in the near future. Cheers, Anti-green.

Dickie,

You started the discussion by talking about mortality and mortality death rates. You have now switched to either incident rate or prevalence of brain tumour. If prevalence you must state the period of observation. The best source of incidence data is from cancer registries

I do not have your references to hand nor do I have the time to try and search them out.

You continue to discuss “deaths”. I do not have comparable data for UK, but according to the ABS [Health of Children 2004] leading causes of death age 1-14 in Australia in 2004 is as follows:

Injuries and poisoning 229 children or 37% of all deaths in the age group.
[105 of the injury deaths were due transport accidents]

Malignant Neoplasms 118 children or 19%. In this subset you are correct Leukaemia and Brain Tumours predominate.

Surely, you are not making the claim that all cancer deaths are radiogenic. In fact you would be hard pressed to prove any were of radiogenic origin. Especially, in the case of leukaemia, given that infection is thought to be an important aetiological factor in this disease.

My sympathies are with the government scientists in their attempt to inform a lay committee composed of anti-industrial, anti-development environmental zealots. It is not the function of regulators to make it so difficult that industry can not function.

Although I appreciate, that as an environmentalist you would like to shut down one industry after the other. To hell with the consequences: If Workers lose their jobs and families suffering from unemployment. Consumers being denied the fruits of industry and so on.

I have been a user of radioactivity for the greater part of my professional life and I always had friendliest of relationship with state and/or federal regulators. In fact on many, many occasions their expertise and professionalism was invaluable to me.

Anti-green

Typically, you have again failed to address my claims and continue to sidestep the relevant issues.

Why do you refuse to advise me of any scientific body which has peer reviewed the findings of COMARE? After all, it was you who raised COMARE's reports to support your argument.

And typical of many pro-pollutant industry representatives, which are hellbent on profits at all costs, you continue to raise the tired old incredulous accusation that enviromentalists want to shut down industry. However, let's return to the subject at hand:

1. "Reported incidents of trafficking and mishandling of nuclear material worldwide doubled between 2000 and 2005 according to the US Department of Homeland Security. The department received 215 reports of nuclear trafficking and related criminal activity worldwide in 2005.

"The number of trafficking incidents recorded by the Dept. of H/Security incidents was more than double that reported in August by the IAEA. The UN nuclear watchdog received reports of 103 incidents in 2005." Mmmmmmmmm? Source: West Australian 28/12/06

2. "Nuclear power is a costly option. Nuclear power has only been viable where there is substanial government support. Nuclear power does not address its contribution to greenhouse gases. Current structure and regulatory environment of the uranium mines have had repeated minor accidents involving radioactive waste into the environment." Source: Public Health Assoc. of Australia to House of Reps. Standing Committee on Industry and Resources. Parliament House Canberra.

3. "Greenpeace believes industry should always prove a substance is harmless before releasing it into the environment. If there is scientific doubt; or a substance has not been tested, it should not be released" Source: Greenpeace

4. "During exposure assessments, we pay close attention to the potential for radon generation. In designing cleanup standards for uranium mill tailings, we targeted radium-226 which decays to radon 222, rather than radon-222 alone. The radium-226 continues to generate radon-222 during its much longer half-life". Source:US EPA

Continued...........

Contd....

Given that radon-222 has a half-life of 3.8 days and Radium-226, a half-life of 1,622 years, the increase in uranium mining will drastically increase the amount of 226Ra and 222Rn. 222Rn is "diluted and dispersed to the atmosphere in large volumes of air" (UIC).

How do you dilute long-life radioactive substances, UIC?

5. Sydney's nuclear reactor has recorded 13 safety breaches in the past 18 months which includes one case where a worker registered an abnormally high dose of radiation. The worker's monitor badge registered a dose of 66 millisieverts and the maximum dose allowed per year is 50 msvs. ANSTO Director, Ian Smith said a radiation leak was the "only explanation."

Anti-green says he supports nuclear energy because of its "exemplary record in the field of worker health and safety." Mmmm.

6. An Australian uranium company last year Anti-green was prosecuted for supplying drinking and bathing water to its workers which contained radiation 400 times greater than the legalised, maximum dose permissible.

7. In the DEH's 2004 report, it was revealed that Roxby emitted 68% of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons covered by the NPI's assessments. Do you know anything about the very carcinogenic PAHs Anti-green?

8. "There is evidence to suggest that ANSTO is an agency which tends to err on the side of secrecy rather than transparency. There is a culture of secrecy and a refusal of accountability". Source: aph.gov.au: Findings by members of the Senate Inquiry into the new reactor proposed for L/Heights.

Since you appear infatuated with experts' credentials as proof of competency, perhaps you should reflect on our currect predicaments, a result of your specialists' "expert" decisions recorded by history.

You would need to reflect on the experts' stuff-ups of our lands by clearing thus, salination; the pollution of our oceans and rivers by industry and the privatisation and uncontrolled pollution of our air; the rapid extinctions of other species; the shambolic Sydney tunnel and a host of other degradations, where ordinary folk have bowed to "experts'" dictates.

You can fool some of the people all of the time Anti-green, but that's no longer sufficient!

Dickie,

I am sure you and your Greenpeace mates put all the arguments in your postings before Dr. Ziggy Switkowski and his expert panel. Having read the draft report it is very clear to me that the arguments prepared by the ant-nuclear groups failed the test of cross examination by experts. No doubt in common with Greenpeace and others you feel hurt and slighted that the anti-nuclear case was so soundly defeated. So be it, life goes on, while the anti-nuclear flat earthers lick their wounds.

The Zwitkowski document is now in the hands of the Prime Minister and Mr. Howard has already let it be known that an Australian nuclear future has his full support. In a short time from now the full cabinet will also come out in support too. Thus I see no value in continuing the debate. The issue is now dead. Your side has lost and there is no more to be said.

The new debate is how and how quickly we can implement the Zwitkowski recommendations? I foresee the school of nuclear engineering being reopened at Sydney. The new OPAL research reactor will prove to be an invaluable teaching aid in addition to its other important duties.

My best wishes for 2007, as I look forward to the Australian nuclear renaissance.

Dickie, you said
"3. "Greenpeace believes industry should always prove a substance is harmless before releasing it into the environment. If there is scientific doubt; or a substance has not been tested, it should not be released" Source: Greenpeace"

I suppose you regard CO2 as being harmless, do you?

I would suggest, that the hazards of nuclear power are part of the price we will have to pay to save the atmosphere of the planet from further pollution from CO2. It is also going to be more expensive to produce power from burnibg coal, if the clean carbon technology ever gets off the ground, so one way or another, energy is going to get much dearer.

Also, although the amount of particulate matter released into the atmosphere from coal fired power stations, has been substantially reduced in past years, what residual emissions there are, also contain the radioactive isotope of potassium, so your beloved coal fired stations are also not that great either.

VK "I suppose you regard CO2 as being harmless, do you?" This puerile statement reveals a poster who hasn't the foggiest idea of what he's talking about.

The latest annual, National Pollutant Inventory revealed that one Australian uranium mine released 72,000kgs of VOCs, 360,000kgs of CO, and 1,200,000kgs of Oxides of Nitrogen.

The Inventory also revealed that one large,Australian coal mine released 21,000kgs of VOCs, 140,000kgs of CO and 2,900,000kgs of Oxides of Nitrogen.

Since you clearly lack any basic knowledge of atmospheric chemicals, I need to advise you that CO2 is the result of atmospheric hydrocarbons. They include VOCs and CO. Uranium mining emits these chemicals!

Atmospheric CO elevates methane and ozone prior to converting to CO2. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)include the very toxic aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons etc.

Oxides of nitrogen are responsible for acid rain and tropospheric ozone.

You may prefer to remain in la la land, however, uranium mining is pollutant and will continue to devastate the environment even apart from the radioactive emissions.

Jim Peacock et al, on reviewing the Switkowski report said that Australia does not need nuclear power to tackle climate change. "The report needs to make clear the reason why Australia should be considering the nuclear option", he said. My sentiments exactly!

And without extensive development of renewable energies, the status quo will remain!

VK, if you wish to debate the prospect of nuclear energy, you and Anti-green need to refrain from very limp, very unscientific arguments to gain any credibility.

No doubt, both you and Anti-green are frothing away and salivating at the "good" news that uranium shares have reached a bumper $US72/pound.

Despite the "good" news, you will both continue to be yesterday's men along with yesterday's technology. The "collateral" damage from increased uranium mining and nuclear energy will expose workers and citizens to a similar fate of those miners who died a painful death from exposure to silica dust and asbestos. These industries continued unabated where past governments and its "regulators" had full, prior knowledge that workers were being placed at great risk!

Does anyone realise the following facts:
1. Clouds and Water vapour contribute 70%+ of the greenhouse effect.
2. C02 contributes to about 5%
3. Most of the CO2 comes from natural cources.

If we eliminate ALL human CO2 producion NOW the effect on global warming would be extremely small.

The whole issue is a Green Left con which has come back to bite them in the form of Nuclear Energy!!

Lets go nuclear and reap the benefits just as many other countries already have.

Atman

Your expert review on the following statements would be appreciated:

1. Over some 10,000 years, GHGs remained relevatively stable until concentrations increased due to the idustrial revolution. Heating and cooling are strongly influential by many factors and water vapor in the atmosphere will alter.

2. Warmer air contains more water vapor which enhances the warming postive feedback.

3. CO2 warms the air and water vapor takes over to further heat it.

4. Greenhouse heating of the earth's atmosphere is partly a result of burning fossil fuels which produce water vapor and CO2 as by-products of burning.

5. Increases of anthropogenic CO2, result in increased warming, amplifying the power of water vapor.

6. Natural fluctuations have been overtaken by a rapid human-induced warming.

7. Ecological degradation also contributes to the rapid climate changes already occurring and predicted to occur as a result of anthropogenic activities.

I understand that there remains many outstanding issues in the matter of water vapor, however, perhaps you and I are agreed that all matters are inter-connected?

The National Pollutant Inventory (www.npi.gov.au)received pollutant reports from 88 coal facilities and the combined average pollutant result for individual facilities for CO, NOx, PM and VOC was an annual, atmospheric 108,068kgs each.

The NPI's report for 3 uranium mines for the same 4 pollutants was an annual average of 1,523,966kgs each of emissions to atmosphere - a grand total of 4,571,898 kgs.

The above figures excludes the emissions of other pollutants, separated by the NPI reports and not listed above. They include the very hazardous benzene, mercury, dioxins and furans, PA hydrocarbons, toluene, chromiumVI, cyanide, fluoride, arsenic, cobalt etc etc.

One need not be a mathematician to calculate the increases of atmospheric CO2 from a resurgence in uranium mining.

In addition, the contribution of carbon and non-carbon releases from the remaining massive metal ore industry have not been addressed in this post.

"If we eliminate all human CO2 producion (sic) NOW the effect on global warming would be extremely small." Atman, kindly supply references to support your innuendo that human induced CO2 is minimal.

Dickie, I must be getting thick in my old age, but could you explain how the pollutants you mention are related to uranium mining.

"The above figures excludes the emissions of other pollutants, separated by the NPI reports and not listed above. They include the very hazardous benzene, mercury, dioxins and furans, PA hydrocarbons, toluene, chromiumVI, cyanide, fluoride, arsenic, cobalt etc etc.

One need not be a mathematician to calculate the increases of atmospheric CO2 from a resurgence in uranium mining."

VK You state: "I must be getting thick in my old age but could you explain how these pollutants are related to uranium mining."

You should clearly see VK, that I was giving a comparison between the coal mining industry and the uranium mining industry where my equations and comparisons were restricted to 4 pollutants only.

The pollutants NOT included in my equations are chemicals which the coal and uranium mining industries also release to the atmosphere.

I understood that I had made myself clear on the separation.

Therefore these other chemicals (benzene, toluene, CrVI etc etc) which I did not assess, have everything to do with the coal and uranium mining industries since these pollutants are released from their operations and are officially documented.

Your query brings to mind a quote of Erica Jong's who said:

"Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn't."

So it's over and out for me and adios to you VK!