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.