"Dr Frank Barnaby seems to be the only expert on nuclear matters in your group" says Logic, trades assistant, - oops apologies, self-proclaimed engineer!

The hit jobs and smear campaigns on your opponents reveals how ill-informed you are Logic.

Professor Stephen Hawkings, the renowned mathematician said:

"We forsee great perils if governments and society do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and prevent further climate change."

Weapons proliferation is a rather difficult to prevent when the IAEA confirmed that just in the South Caucasus region (including Georgia), between '02 and '06, 481 smuggling incidents of radioactive materials occurred, including weapons grade materials.(Source: Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Analyst).

The following eminent scientists in addition to Barnaby are all outspoken critics of the nuclear industry.

Professors: Alice Stewart, Ing Schmitz-Feuerhake, Ruth Barnham, John Whitelegg, Joshua Lederberg, Linus Pauling, Jim Harding, Sue Roaf (recent vice-chair to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), Wasserman, Schmitz-Feuerhake, Horst Kune, Roland Scholz, Edmund Lengfelder.

Drs: Rajat Gupta, David Lowry, Hofman, Edward Martell, Kune, Diekkmann.

Of course there are many more too numerous to mention Logic and I'm certain that you would agree the numbers are not insignificant.

In Schleswit-Holstein, Germany, the "Investigation Expert Commission" was formed due to the high radiation emissions from the Geesthacht nuclear plants.

Professors Wasserman, Schmitz-Feuerhake, Horst Kune Roland Scholz, Edmund Lengfelder and Drs Kune and Dieckmann reached scientific consensus that radiation contamination was three fold to what officials reported and that the rates of leukemias were unacceptable. It was discovered all victims, diagnosed after 1995, were under five years of age."

On 1 November '04, the entire expert commission resigned, citing government obstruction and concealment of the evidence. Sound familiar? (www.NIRS.org/mononline/nm619)

For more information on how crafty and cunning governments and the nuclear industry are, see Australian Professor Martin's papers, using the following search words:

1. Brian Martin Nuclear Suppression

2. Suppression of Dissent in Scientists.

Similarly, the flawed and often commercially influenced, peer review system is also in need of reform!

.

More on the Non Proliferation Treaty death throes

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSSYD33624220070814?sp=true

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia has ended a ban on uranium sales to India, with senior ministers reversing a policy of selling the nuclear fuel only to signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
the "australian" newspaper said on Wednesday.

also a nice clip from chernobyl 20 years on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=101OEaksU0s&mode=related&search=

Atom1 congratulation on the ANAWA clip it was a pretty good covering of the problem , with an anti nuclear angle

my response is one of the truth they mention ,
As uranium ore get scarcer, poorer grade or hard to reach sites are exploited at a greater energy cost , leading to the terminal point
when all the energy obtained is used to generate it

the same principle apply to coal, gas and oil cost .
As an energy resource is depleted less and less energy can be practically used , some kind of drop in efficiency

This also apply to renewable , how much of their own produced energy it would take to reproduce them , in the case of photo voltaic this is probably never
wind turbine are manufactured using fossil energy not wind

talking about efficiencies is really talking about rationing by massive price increases or authoritarian measures to decrease consumption by the public ,
that's were the saving can come from , not industry , generation or distribution
Try selling this to the public in a democratic society , you would never be elected , people love talking about being green but they still want a modern , socially advanced developed society ,
that's a high energy one , low energy society hold individuals as cheap source of labor energy , they are exploitative and brutish with a lot of priests instead of public servant

you have the energy consumption of the 1920ies , you have the social cover of the 1920ies
the energy consumption of the 1700 , you have the lifestyle of the 1700
the energy consumption of a third world village you have the politics of a third world village

.

Atom1

I viewed the clip that you recommended on Youtube. I thought it to be a very professional and slick presentation. It must have cost someone or other a “pretty penny.”

You are correct in stating that there are two total divergent stories in circulation. There are the arguments advanced by recognised orthodox scientific bodies and organisations such as BEIR, ICRP, UNSCEAR, Health Physics Society, French Academy of Medicine and many others. True on the finer points the bodies disagree, not least in respect to the validity of the “Linear no Threshold Hypothesis” and its application to population studies.

Yet, all these bodies refer to papers and publications in the referred scientific literature and the there is a plethora of information going back for more then a century. Information that any interested person can obtain and critically examine.

My own experience is of working with and handling a variety of radioactive substances over more then thirty years in the health sphere. This does not mean that I claim expert status, but it does mean that I am knowledgeable. My own experience and study is consistent with the orthodox point of view.

On the other hand there are the opinions advanced by the anti-nuclear advocacy groups which are totally at variance with my own experience. In My view the advocacy people are also at variance with the bulk of scientific literature.

None the less the real battle is for Public Opinion. The decision makers in the business and investment community as well as Government have to be persuaded of the value of nuclear technology. In the final analysis no Government will act against the force of public opinion. Fortunately, we live in a democratic society and can freely express our opinions.

For reasons that I have already advanced it is my belief that the pro-nuclear forces are winning the battle for public acceptanc

fyi...
China's Winds of Change (16% renewables target by 2020 alone, vs just 6% nuclear):
http://abc.net.au/foreign/content/2007/s1995352.htm

Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven'

"The idea that the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has created a wildlife haven is not scientifically justified, a study says.
Recent studies said rare species had thrived despite raised radiation levels as a result of no human activity.
But scientists who assessed the 1986 disaster's impact on birds said the ecological effects were "considerably greater than previously assumed".
The findings appear in the Royal Society's journal, Biology Letters".
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6946210.stm

Anti green, to my knowledge the "pretty penny" cost for the Climate of Hope video was funded soley by its maker, WA Greens candidate Scott Ludlam. like myself, no vested interests other than to win the campaign.

And I wouldn't hold in good stead your source of info being the industry-funded UIC.

.
At the end of the third clip , john butler is mentioned , could it be the singer gave some funds ??
In a rather large personal experience with harsh industrial sites ,wildlife put up with any condition , no matter how hostile , and thrive if left in peace, the critical factor is the possibility of raising young in safety , hare browsing meters from jumbo jet taking off , deers
warming themselves in winter to the refinery flare , goldfish prospering in chemical effluent ponds ,
it's beyond belief what living things can survive indeed thrive in .

.

Atom1

"Logic, the emissions and fossil fuel costs for renewables & energy efficiency is negligible or zero, and with an energy payback time for wind (yes, only part of a solution) being just months,"

Did I understand you correctly, or did you mean that you could install a solar hot water system in your house for a negligible cost or at least make a return in a few months? This goes against my own investigations, but I dearly wish it were so.

And please Chernobyl was not a properly made reactor, it was a Titanic, please no one bring it into the equation. It is irrelevant when discussing properly engineered plant.

dickie, I tried to ignore your remark but do you wish to see my CV and Degree Certificate? I could e-mail both of them to you. As long as you agree to send me your CV and accreditation.

If you all want more wind turbines you will need to convert the people who refuse to have them on their back door. They are your chief problem.