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.