I agree that Australia is morally bound to deny uranium that may be used for weapons. With 40% of world uranium resources Australia can exercise considerable leverage. We would have both more control and value adding if we were involved in other facets of the nuclear fuel cycle such as enrichment and waste disposal. However I'm not sure that India really has adequate alternatives to civilian nuclear power, given for example that India's steel industry already uses Australian coal. Therefore they must pay the price for the position they have taken. This will send a clear message to the other countries that are thinking of going nuclear (eg Jordan, UAE) or reviving a stalled nuclear industry (Italy); the message being that Australian uranium is only to be used for power generation.

the actions of politicians are designed to help themselves, their internal and foreign policies must first present some personal advantage.

promises made by one politician have no power over his successor, who often sees profit in overturning promises.

consequently,the honor among nations ruled by politicians is the honor of politicians, empty.

the purpose of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is to restrict this military power to those who already hold it. it was sold to the world as ethical by the 'promise' of the nuclear powers to disarm. the hypocrisy is so old as to be unremarked, but it so real as to disarm all discussion. the reality is, those that don't have atom bombs are at the mercy of those that do. the only rational response is to get this power, or ally the nation with someone who has it.

rudd is a politician, not a saint, or even an ethical person. he will pursue policies that advantage himself and his party. anyone who imports moral imperatives to the political process is not merely naive, but actually dangerous to society: such a person is telling children to play in the street.

During the cold war the term "realpolitik" was used to describe negotiations to reach a compromise a good deal away from ideal, but far better than with no negotiations.

Rudd I believe would prefer to restrict India from obtaining uranium, but given the reality of other countries with less uranium than Aus but still substantial quantities, the restrictions placed on India as a result of the agreement are better than no agreement.

TR would do well to allow the cloud of rhetoric disperse and allow some of the light of reality to play on the situation.

There is in my mind a mighty credibility gap between reality and the exaggerated, almost hysterical rhetoric of TR.

To start with India is a stable democratic power and one friendly to Western ideals. Of course this may change sometime in the future who knows? The reality is that in the ‘here and now’ trade between India and Australia is great for both counties. Uranium is ubiquitous in the earth’s crust. There are several other non Australian suppliers of uranium including the states of the former Soviet Union.

TR would have read the recent report on nuclear energy chaired by Dr. Switkowski. I draw attention to the chapter on health and safety. Clearly in terms of Joules of electricity generated nuclear is among the safest of all for base power generation. Switkowski table 6.1 places nuclear in terms of direct fatalities as being well below coal, oil, natural gas LPG, and hydro.

I was interested to read an article in the New Scientist of 9th Aug by Mattson and Calabrese on the subject of hormesis. An old idea that is applicable to radiation exposure. Briefly the claim is that small exposures of a toxin are beneficial. From a regulatory point of view it is not possible to define the levels at which hormesis operates. The point I make here, with out being over technical is that hormesis is one of several factors that render predictions of death from low radiation exposure very rubbery.

So when TF writes:
“…….radioactive fallout killing tens of millions, global climatic consequences would be severe and persist for 10 years. “

He is clearly going beyond the evidence and is inventing a political horror story.

You know, Litvinenko looked really healthy to me.

anti-green, if you believe this perhaps you would care to place some radiation by your pillow and drink poisoned water. Increase the sample size to your family. It must be a long term study, of course. Do whatever you want to prove your point and document it.

Honestly people should realise that people like anti-green here are out there by the hundred or thousand. People like him have no problem implementing policy that could contribute to radiation poisoning of our country or countries across the world. Radiation doesn't go away morons. Once it's in, that's it.

As for the NPT it's worthless and any rhetoric coming from nuclear equipped countries or those signatories to the NPT is empty. The threats of nuclear attacks on other countries by those with nuclear weapons has shattered any illusions amongst the international community that nuclear weapons should be in the hands of an elite who overrule everyone else. The USA particularly has created nuclear weapons for general usage in warfare. Not as a last resort. The USA policy is now to use them whenever it chooses. Everyone around the world has to understand the implications of this.

We all know that supplying India with nuclear material that they may guarantee will not be used for weapons, merely frees up more of the current imported nuclear material that has no such restrictions for use with their weapons programs.

I have had many radiation exposures during my lifetime of 75 years. I have experienced exposures from background, as a research subject, occupationally exposure and with increasing age medical. I also remember being given a sample of monazite sand that I carried around. But this proves absolutely nothing.

You must look at diverse epidemiological studies, such as comparison of mortality from high and low backgrounds regions, industrial studies, Japanese atomic bomb studies, medical radiation and so on. Further you must carefully analyse each study for bias in selection of subjects and controls. Confounding and interactive factors- such as smoking, infective agents, chemical carcinogens etc. too have to be evaluated.

Many studies are ecological that is where doses to individual subjects is unknown and a population mean exposure is assumed or estimated say by distance from a nuclear facility. These studies are valuable but can not be considered as definitive. On the other hand random controlled experiments in human populations are neither practical nor ethically possible.

The largest human population exposed to up to several Grays is of course the Japanese. Even in this group below an exposure of 100 mGy few or no cancer incidence can be attributed to radiation. The RERF update 2008 attributes 0% cancers to radiation below 5 mGy and 2% in the range 5-100 mGy.

The Alice Stewart papers on in utero radiation at exposures of the order 10 mGy has been severely criticised by ICRP (publication 90 section 8.2).

BEIR 7 gives the following explanation of risk for exposure 100 mGy or less. For simplicity subtleties as such as age and sex distribution of the exposed population are ignored. 1 in 100 may develop a radiogenic cancer and 42 others would be diagnosed with cancer. Of course there is no way of recognising the radiogenic case.

On the other hand there are many experts who contribute to internet discussion groups such as “radsafe” or “know_nukes” who argue against a linear extension of risk down to levels below say 50-100 mGy.