Dr. Helen Caldicott’s anti-nuclear fantasy is well known. Many times in the past she has referred to the element plutonium. She now writes. “(Less than one millionth of a gram of plutonium is carcinogenic and it has a half life of 24,000 years - radioactive for 500,000 years.)

Lots of different materials are more potent cancer inducers then Pu.

Perhaps the good physician can explain the following:

1. According to Prof Jaworowski one time chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on effects of atomic radiation and chairman of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. 2.8 tons of Pu-239 was released into the atmosphere as result of atomic atmospheric bomb testing. (International Herald Tribune December 24 1996 letter).

2. Voelz and colleagues have followed up for 50 years the medical history of 26 heavily contaminated Pu workers from the Manhattan Project. Medical examinations were carried out every 5 years. Estimates of activity in Bq and effective dose are published. 19 were alive after 50 years. 7 deaths 3 due to cancers (lung, prostate and bone). Standard mortality rate compared to USA white males is low 0.43. The overall cancer incidence in this small group was not elevated. (Health Physics 1997; 73; 611).

3. A British study of 14,319 Pu workers at Sellafield.
“For no cancer site was there a significant excess of cancer registrations compared with rates for England and Wales.” (Brit J Cancer 1999; 79:1288).

4. A study of 15,727 workers employed with the Manhattan project (Los Alamos).
“The results indicate that overall mortality among this cohort was quite low, even after 30 y follow up. No cause of death was significantly elevated among plutonium-exposed workers compared with their unexposed cowowkers.” (Health Physics 1994; 67:577).

Perhaps our learned physician would care to rank some of the known cancer inducers: Cigarettes, alcohol, Certain infective agents (EBV, Hep B, Hep C, Papilloma Virus, H.pylori etc.) Influence of diet, certain chemicals with infinite or long half lives i.e. asbestos, arsenic, benzene, dioxin, DDT etc.

This woman is a liar and a deceiver!

There is one type of proposed reactor that has a sodium blanket but there are many others that don't.

Nuclear power can be as safe as we wish to make it.

People who stand against nuclear power are anti-human genocidalists!

The great thing is that we'll know within a decade or two whether the other low carbon alternatives actually work; I'm talking clean coal, baseload solar thermal, hot rocks geothermal and so on. I've got a horrible feeling we'll be tightening our energy belts to breaking point while China, France & co. seem to do OK on Aussie uranium. Even after a national Carbon Cops workover I think we will probably need around 20 gigawatts of continuously available electric power. Note that we will probably also be driving mains charged plugin hybrid cars before long due to liquid fuel shortages. If this can be done long term without nuclear or squandering our gas reserves UK style then that's great. Let's just see what happens.

plantagenet said: "Australia has the right to defend itself with its own indigenous nuclear weapons."

So much for nuclear non-proliferation. That will really endear us with other countries in the region and in the world.

Can you give a scenario where having the bomb will help Australia? Iraq? Against terrorism? Against anyone who steps on our shores? To nuke refugees?

Tell us too where and at what cost bunkers and command posts will be built for our politicians and military brass who think they ought be saved (above us) when the big bangs happen.

The bluff of being able to wipe out half of humanity is not much value when others will immediately retaliate to do the same.

Of course we'd only use nuclear weapons in self-defence. Remember, it's the Ministry of Defence, not the Ministry of War.

Everyone only wants them for self-defence. Really. Honest. We want to spend billions of dollars and never use them!

Yes I agree

Nuclear weapons are a coward's weapon.

If some one wants to fight they should do it one on one- with an equal and willing opponent.

But nuclear weapon's kill from a distance and as well kill many innocent bystanders.