.

To dickie

my deepest apologies , I had a finger slip , Canada doesn't have 1 nuclear plant , it has 18

In spite of it's faults , I've always considered the international atomic energy agency to be the first reference when numbers are concerned ,
after all they are the united nation specialized body for all things nuclear

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/RDS2-26_web.pdf

check the numbers yourself and tell me of my errors , please
or tell me if I'm right .

.

It is always good to get assurances from experts who chastise the (allegedly) uninformed for having the temerity to comment where the experts know best what is good for us. They forget of course that this is a democracy and the expertise required to arrive at informed decisions is not restricted to those technocrats with an interest, declared or otherwise.

How many times do we hear that technology has so improved processes as to make 'accidents' almost impossible? Then there are those who assure us that regulators and industry watchdogs would always ensure that processes are safe, agreed management controls are in place and there are regular independent audits thereof.

However in truth this is all bunk where profits and politics are concerned isn't it?

But don't take my word for that, just review the background that led to the fire and aftermath at a chemical works (a toxic chemical waste treatment plant) located a little north of Brisbane, close to highly populated areas and the sensitive marine environment of Moreton Bay. Here is the link:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13811

Having made one hell of a mess of the environment you would think that there would be some cooperation and urgency in the clean-up, especially when regulators and courts have finally got on their tail. But no, guess again, they have to be dragged kicking by a population that forced government to act and then by government regulators who had to get more court orders in the hope of getting them moving. Years later, the saga continues.

Now maybe the experts out there can tell us again how this would never happen with nuke power or with nuclear waste reprocessing.

It seems Randwick and some others are ignoring the fact that ANY exposure to ionising radiation is IN ADDITION to natural background levels. It is also cumulative. There is no safe dose.

Background radiation amounts to around 100 millirems per year, per person. Nuclear workers' "allowable" exposure: 5,000 millirems/year (the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission).

Again, I draw your attention to the fact that 64% of greenhouse gas emissions come from NON-ELECTRICTY SOURCES (such as agriculture, transport and deforestation).

Nuclear power remains the only energy source to fuel WMDs and potential nuclear terrorism, and on this we have one - deservedly emotive - option: prevention. More than reason enough.

Nuclear incidents - a (partial) timeline with references at:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=214632362&blogID=289277470

JudyC Atom1 Cornflower

I have already posted a website full of knowledgeable criticism of Helen Caldicott. Re her regular statement that Xenon is radioactive and highly soluble that is nonsense. Xenon has a zero valency and in consequence has little energy and a low solubility. The radio active isotope would have a higher solubility but it fortunately has a half life of less than 3 minutes.

This is an example of how she twists facts,

The view that the opinion of experts should be discarded because they are biased is common;ly expressed. Tell me, if you felt a sharp pain from your chest, do you see a GP and get a referral to a heart specialist or do you decide that the specialist has a vested interest and instead read an alternative medicine book that recommends herbs?

If the level of radiation around a reactor site is not measurably different from the natural level at similar sites, would you not conclude that the reactor has not changed the radiation level? Our friend tried to ruin a chocolate factory by false claims about increased radiation levels in the chocolate.

I have heard Helen debate on radio with a Professor of nuclear physics about her book. When the physicist challenged her figures she made a great emotional charade about her concern, but could not substantiate her argument. The debate went nowhere because Helen got so offended every tine she was (politely) challenged.

Unfortunatly a debate about nuclear energy has to be by experts with non-experts asking questions. It is the same when you are seriously ill in hospital.

So sweet Country Gal’s suggestion is that PhDs are clever because they had studied many subjects!

PhD is just a piece of paper testifying to acceptance by a particular circle of privileged of a particular person to be in their circle in Australia, where playing English rather than creative abilities is the most.

These days famous eco-advocate E. Berkovich of the States plays a similar comedy in some seemingly over-polluted Western Australian region.

Reading through the postings on this thread, I am reminded of CP Snow and the story of the two cultures. Nearly fifty years ago Snow pointed out an almost unbridgeable gulf between those with a scientific and or technological background and those trained in the humanities and literature studies.

So it is with the proponents of nuclear energy and the one hand and those antagonistic to the technology on the other. Both groups use the English language to express their ideas. Yet the meaning and interpretation of words is quite different. Frequently, this is the case when considering questions of evidence and causality. The two groups have little in common.

Those in the anti nuclear camp discount on principal the opinions of experts. Nuclear physicists, engineers, health experts are all to be distrusted. It is as if they see a vast conspiracy spanning many countries, covering many disciplines as well as the mining and the nuclear electric generating industries. The conspiracy extends to those who finance nuclear projects, governments and regulators.

The irrational fear of radiation, no matter how trivial the exposure, gives rise in some minds to a profound negative emotional state. This has been labelled radio-phobia and is not amenable to reasoned argument.

Like Dr. Caldicott I too have a back ground in health. So I am sure that she would agree with me that phobias are very difficult to treat. In fact there is no known cure for radio-phobia. Fortunately, there a few who eventually grow out of their phobic state.

In the Washington Post of Sunday April 16 2006 Patrick Moore a co founder of Greenpeace describes how he grew out of radio-phobia. Others named in the Moore article has having discarded their radio-phobia include James Lovelock, Stewart Brand and the Late Bishop Hugh Montefiore