How pathetic all we get is the veiws from these people making their own agenda.
Just like labor in NSW with their desalination plant, for the people NA.

Water takes and capture at homes also solar.
Dont worry we will spend billions to solve this problem when the problem can be reduced by spending and creating grants,loans to power our rooftops.

This will also provide jobs and help reduce our inpact.
It will not stop the changing climate as this happens but to be able to have smaller electricity bills or none and to be able to say ,now i really can do my bit.

States dont want solar they will lose money.
but then again since when does the states concern themselves about money.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

Sorry - anti-green I misread the thing - it was Jellyback who wrote those silly insulting things about
Dr Caldicott.
Without attempting to answer your attempts to minimise the health dangers of radioactivity, I would like to still make a couple of points about your argument.

1.the fact that cigarettes, dioxin, asbestos and so on are all very unhealthy does not make ionising radiation healthy.

Other people than Dr. Caldicott have battled, with some considerable success, to have these products banned.
Dr. Caldicott has the courage to take on an equally unhealthy product,nuclear radiation at a time when it is being portrayed as "clean and green"

2. If nuclear power is so safe and so OK, why are such huge precautions being taken everywhere by the nuclear industry itself? If we are truly interested in clean energy, with no hazards to health or to increase global warming - then wind, solar etc look like clear winners. And - what's more, technologies which, along with energy efficiency, have investors ready and eager to go (which is more than can be said for nuclear)
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

.

some people have those spooky ideas about radioactivity ,
Wake up there is radioactivity everywhere , it's NATURAL
it's like some Midwest housewife of the fifties freaking about GERMS !
there is radioactivity everywhere on earth , and radiations everywhere in space too , the sun is radioactive , you want to switch it off ?
so what exactly is your phobia ?
smoke detectors , concrete buildings , modern medicine ,Tasmanian granite , people have radioactive potassium in them
look at your hand it's irradiating you

.

RANDWICK

So i take it you are quite happy to have it in your backyard.
The waste can go in your backyard as well.

Energy will be able to be created elsewhere and safetly but looking at least another 10 years.

So what is the problem with free energy on our own homes.
Viable,safe and will provide jobs, or is that the problem.

Reliance of the people to better provide for themselves seems to be the problem with some.
Big people stomping on the little person to keep them in place.
So if Labor gets in who will be running our power industry, which ex premier and the same with liberals.

Its about time some of you spat it out and say what you mean, instead of hidding behind the party crap.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

Christine

You must quantify the risk and if you read the (and of course believe) the medical and scientific literature. You will find that the risk coefficients for all cancers as given by ICRP 60, indicate a very small risk for exposures below say 50-100 mSv per year.

You will also find that the risk decrease for low dose rates. That is, if the dose is given over a period of weeks or months rather then as a “blast.”

The small increments of risk at low dose means that epidemiological studies lack the sensitivity to detect the excess risk, or else the findings are inconsistent.

Another thing if you are making several comparisons such as looking for several different types of cancer or in multiple types of questionnaires you can expect 1 in 20 answers to be positive on say a “T test.” This is on the basis of chance alone. Hence you need to adjust the critical level downwards.

If the "alpha" level is set at the conventional 0.05 and you make 4 comparisons the probability of one or more significant results is 0.2. A simple correction would be to set the rate of a type 1 error at 0.05/4 = 0.0125 for each test. There are several alternatively procedures known to statisticians.

I have had no formal training in statistical methods but you can find a reasonable simple explanation in “Basic & Clinical Biostatistics 2nd Ed. By Beth Dawson –Saunders and Robert Trapp . 1994 Appleton and Lange.

"Wake up, there's radioactivity everywhere. It's NATURAL."

What are you trying to say, randwick?

Lead is everywhere too. So is arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury etc. Are you happy to be exposed to those NATURAL metals?

Like radionuclides, they too are cumulative. That's where the danger lies.

Humans already have to cope with constant exposures to radiation from a background source. To top up the natural source of exposure, humans are then directly or indirectly exposed to radiation from human use by the mining of uranium and the subsequent use in the nuclear industry.

The facts do not emanate from a "midwest housewife's phobia." The facts are scientifically established as Madame Curie had begun to realise when many of her colleagues died at a relatively young age from cancer. She too finally succumbed to aplastic pernicious anaemia, from the cumulative effects of radiation.

The nuclear industry is well aware of the lengthy lag times between exposure to radiation and for health symptons to emerge, often making the source of the illness difficult to prove, which suits the industry's agenda perfectly.

Perhaps you should obtain a manual on environmental toxicology to learn how Australians may, in the near future, be further utilised as cannon fodder in their government's maniacal quest for a more radioactive planet.