Logic, ("What have sea vessels do with a debate on nuclear electricity stations?"), you implied that no reactors other than Chernobyl operated without a reactor safety containment vessel. I'm clarifying that nuclear powered subs also do not, due to the weight that would be involved.

Experts include Dr Frank Barnaby (author and former British Atomic Weapons Establishment physicist), Richard Broinowski (Former Australian Diplomat and author of 'Fact or Fission? The Truth About Australia's Nuclear Ambitions'), Prof Joseph Camilleri (Professor of International Relations, La Trobe University), Assoc. Prof Tilman Ruff (President the Medical Association for the Prevention of War) and Felicity Hill (campaign coordinator of ICAN, led by MAPW).

Randwick, regarding weapons proliferation and thorium reactors:
- Neutron bombardment of thorium (indirectly) produces uranium-233, a fissile material that can be used in nuclear weapons.
- The USA has successfully tested weapons using Uranium-233 cores, and India may have investigated the military use of Thorium/Uranium-233 in addition to its civil applications.
- "Thorium (Th-232) absorbs a neutron to become Th-233 which normally decays to protactinium-233 and then U-233. The irradiated fuel can then be unloaded from the reactor, the U-233 separated and fed back into another reactor as part of a closed fuel cycle." (World Nuclear Association, 2006).
- "No thorium system would negate proliferation risks altogether." (Friedman, John S., 1997, "More power to thorium?", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 53, No.5, September/October; Feiveson, 2001).

A note on U exports:
Only 10 Chinese nuclear facilities (including reactors, enrichment plants and reprocessing plants) are currently subject to IAEA Safeguards (this doesn't mean they will be inspected). Of these, only 3 Chinese nuclear facilities were inspected by the IAEA in 2005 (IAEA 2005 Annual Report) and, as I mentioned, all military nuclear facilities are exempt from the Safeguards system of the IAEA.

"It is clear that no international safeguards system can physically prevent diversion or the setting up of an undeclared or clandestine nuclear (weapons) program."
- IAEA, 1993.

http://www.icanw.org

Logic, are you serious writing such stuff:

"A containment vessel is an extremely strong reinforced concrete enclosure which is strong enough to contain a mishap to the reactor inside.

Toxic waste chemical treatment plants have a totally different performance record (and technology) to nuclear power plants.

What have sea vessels do with a debate on nuclear electricity stations?"

Had you ever heard of a disaster in Manhattan a few days ago caused by heavy rains having flooded subway system absolutely? You think no bypass was available and other preventive construction in New York City, the USA?

And treatment plants are as much comparable to “nuclear power plants” as conservatory to a jam factory.

Perhaps, lacking of linkage between sea vessels and nuke electricity stations is a last straw for attempting to comprehend some topic responses from practical engineering view point.

Nuke power industry is a complex process, but much less life-threatening than imposing the GM crops locally.

logic

Technocrat is the appropriate term for the people we are talking about. If they have managed to make their occupation a derisory label as you seem to think then they probably deserve it.

If you think France is pre-eminent in nuclear technology then so be it. However you should be aware that reported leakage from its waste dumps and lack of audit of what is stored in those dumps are very much in the news. That is precisely what I am talking about: the promises of management controls, supervision, independent audits and appropriate penalties for lapses are quickly forgotten after the industry gets its go-ahead. In France, the legislature has realised that no-one has any idea what is going into those dumps and there are photos abroad of rusting, leaking drums. Some things never change!

You imply that the entrepreneurs, their managers and the technology of the chemical industry are a cut below their equivalents in the nuclear industry. Other than blind faith there is no reason to support that view. The routine fudging of nuclear waste numbers alone would cause anyone to disagree with your assessment. The amount of waste can variously be tiny or huge depending on the technocrat and the day of the week. Tell me, will all of those mothballed nuclear powered naval vessels end up on a beach in India one day because there is no 'economic' way of disposing of them. Maybe with Mr Howard they could end up on a beach in Western Australia.

You haven't dispelled any of my arguments and it is not enough to simply quote a site that criticises (probably unfairly) Dr Caldicott.

Sputniks and part of space-equipment have also made it sometimes to surface-does it mean space discoveries (and simply telecommunication deployment) must be abandoned?

Diminishing the possible negative by-consequences of technology rather than rejecting progress in general is seen to be an achievable task.

Cornflower, you have misinterpreted me. The chemical industry has a completely different risk structure to the nuclear industry. Obviously both industries should be carefully monitored by independent public bodies, as should alternative energy plants.

Are you suggesting that alternatives are all rosy? If the environmental movement would get more practicing technical people into its ranks it would be much more useful. Trouble is that cranks with poor or limited judgment and knowledge and little if any real experience are putting the knowledgeable people off joining.

Newspapers are a great source of misinformation, as they chase popular ratings rather than search for real information. Besides I have yet to meet a journalist with a proper technical background, look at the ridiculous car reviews.

And the site that criticises Dr Caldicott, contains comments by many people with a real background in the subject, it is not the only one.

And Atom1 Dr Frank Barnaby seems to be the only expert on nuclear matters in your group. Let's hear him, I would like more information from those with real experience. Being an author is not a qualification for an expert subject other than writing, you know that.

Michael K, the (majority of Australians) opposed to the nuclear industry are far from "rejecting progress in general" when Australia could become a world leader in sustainable renewable energies- now the fastest growing of all energy industries and worth $54 billion annually.

We could reduce GHG by 15% via EFFICIENCY ALONE (2005 Australian Ministerial Council on Energy report signed off by every State environment minister).

In fact the IEA argues, on a least-cost strategy, almost two-thirds of cuts to global emissions would come from improving the efficiency of energy use. That's twice the savings from nuclear, clean coal and renewables COMBINED. (2006 World Energy Outlook, The Age, 22/5/07).

Australia could supply nearly 10% of its electricity demand from solar by 2020 simply by installing 3kW solar PV systems (ie, solar photo voltaic alone, EXCLUDING solar thermal or gas boosted solar) on just a third of Australian households (Business Council on Sustainable Energy).

Again, we're talking only the 36% of global GHG emissions that come from generating electricity.

Whereas nuclear power - far from being "clean & green" - involves fossil fuels and greenhouse gases at every stage of the fuel chain:
- uranium exploration
- uranium mining
- uranium milling & treatment
- uranium (yellowcake) transport
- conversion
- fuel fabrication
- enrichment
- fuel reprocessing
- reactor construction
- reactor maintenance
- reactor decommissioning
- construction of reprocessing, enrichment & waste facilities
- road construction
- waste disposal
- waste management
- all related transports

http://www.icanw.org