In years to come when it is realised what damage to progress has been done by people such as Helen, we should adopt the term "Caldicott".

Like a Ludite, it will describe a person who fears the future and uses fear to lobby against progress.

Helen has been successful, with her peers, in stopping nuclear power development and spreading, fear of the industry. With no thought to the consequences apart from her own fear of people's instincts.

Does she now realise that if her groups had not lobbied against nuclear power we may not be in the AGW position many believe in? That if we had continued to develop the industry we'd have 10th or even later series reactors, that might even be able to use old fuel rods as fuel, thus we would have no waste at all?

The nuclear wars she feared never happened, not because of her lobbying, because people really are not that stupid after all.

Of course the fear of war is central to a good "Caldicott", like running out of water or everything burning up and then the seas will rise, is used as the central fears of AGW.

Now she wants yet more "Caldicotting", all for her own precious position to be maintained as a professional lobbiest, conferences, speaking engagements, maybe a book contract?

So now coal is the new target, well no stopping a busy person is there? Lot's of attention available to an experienced doomsayer, but there is going to be a lot more competition, and she could end up "Gored", or even "Flaneried", she might even be "Wonged"!

ODO So name calling supports your case well done.
Did you actually read the problems on nuclear energy and resources that with present technology and extremely long lead times it is not or was a solution.
Perhaps you are happy to have the waste in your back garden.

As alluded to by ODO above, Caldicott really needs to become updated on the latest generation of nuclear power.
The latest generations of fission machines have virtually no waste as they use their fuel rather than converting it to close to weapons grade material. They no longer have the old style rods that became jammed on a couple well known occasions that have led to meltdowns.

The nuclear industry has learned from these problems and has moved on. Unfortunately, Caldicott and her merry band of Luddites would have no fear mongering issues to stand on if they came up to speed on the latest nuclear technology. Then maybe they could rubbish GM Holden for making polluting vehicles in the 1950's and 60's.

Helen has the same problem that the climate change skeptics like Ian Plimer have. They passionately believe they are right but the vast majoirty of experts in the respective fields don't agree with them.

There are many credible, peer reviewed studies on the full lifecycle cost and GHGs from nuclear power that disagree with the study from Storm van Leeuwen and Smith she is relying on.

Helen clearly believes the climate change scientists but elects not to believe the power generation engineers. She can't have it both ways.

Had nuclear power existed in WW2, much of Europe and the UK would have been rendered uninhabitable, essentially forever, due to conventional bombing alone.

Something to think hard about.

pETERa - so sensitive, have you seen what name calling Helen does of her enemies?

What names did I call her pETER? I suggested in her honour we should call people like her by her name, it's an honour I want to bestow. Luddite just does not fit at all the scope of her crimes against humanity and technology - and why should she not be blamed for causing AGW (if you believe in that)?

Did you read what I said, that if Helen and her ilk had not lobbied Nuclear Power to be held back, we might not have waste now? Present technology is actually old technology that was never updated because of people like Helen. I don't know how else to explain it, I suspect you read my post but cannot believe your own eyes, so veiled are they by your own moral outrage.

Waste in my own backyard, but there would be no need if better nuclear technology can use it, that's my point that Helen has lobbied successfully to hold back progress.

pETERa, you realise I'm taking the p*ss out of Helen don't you? I think she's been a doomsayer who has inadvertantly caused us much damage.

Atom1 "Had nuclear power existed in WW2, much of Europe and the UK would have been rendered uninhabitable, essentially forever, due to conventional bombing alone. Something to think hard about."

I did, and since there has not been a world war since the development and use of Nuclear weapons, conclude that WWII would not have happened if there had been such weapons around.

Nuclear weapons are peacemakers, have you not noticed?

The problem with Caldicott's reasoning, even if we take the facts cited in the article at face value is that she is not comparing nuclear power with other power supplies. Everything she says can also be said about coal, except that coal involves a great deal more material and vastly more waste. It even involves more radiactivity. there is very little radiactive material in coal, but coal plants go through so much of it that a great deal is injected into the air.
In contrast, the volume of waste from nuclear energy world wide is actually quite small. Storing it somewhere remote on, say, an island should not really be a problem but activists insist that it is..
And, no it is not easy converting reactor grade fuel into bomb grade. Once you've got the bomb-grade material making the bomb is comparatively simple (I say comparatively). the real trick is getting the bomb grade material..

"We ... (produce) more CO2 per capita than any other country".

Wrong.

Do some fact-checking, people, and stop spouting conventional wisdom.

I should congradulate Helen for the most comprehensive collection of half truths, outdated facts and irrelevant scare mongering that I have yet seen.

I also notice that her acedemic credentials that she posts seem a little shady as her organisation's site seems no longer to exist.

Helen, if you are going to cobble up such plate of tripe, you should rather direct it to a group with sufficient naivity to swallow it such as year 3 children.

Name-calling for Helen Caldicott? How about fifth columnist, and useful idiot? The so-called Peace Movement and anti-nuclear lobby were creatures of the Cold War, nurtured by the Soviets as a counter to their technological and industrial inferiority to the West. Members of the Communist Party of Australia from the forefront of the Moratorium movement in Vietnam days carried right on into the Peace Movement, acting as pied pipers for the wellmeaning protestors at Pine Gap and Exmouth, and the self-righteous morons of the anti-nuclear movement were backed by CPA members.

The Soviets gave testimony to their sterling efforts by awarding them free holidays on Soviet cruise liners in the Pacific, and cruises on the Don. This is not secondhand - I am talking about people I know.

Caldicott and her mates such as Vallentine were willing associates and tools of that appalling regime, responsible for liquidating millions and chaining the minds of hundreds of millions.

If the pro-nukes want nuclear power, then I suggest they cease the spin and provide evidence to show that the nuclear industry is economical, competent, ethical and well regulated. To construct a logical argument, they would need to acknowledge the documented information I have provided in their assessments.

Furthermore, Bruce’s “latest generation of nuclear power” does not exist. There is not one operating commercially on the planet. Could he please advise us on how many he envisages operating by 2050?

1: Ocean dumping of nuclear waste was banned in the 60s. During the 90s, a Russian naval ship dumped hundreds of tons of low-level nuclear waste into the the Sea of Japan, touching off a sharp diplomatic dispute between Tokyo and Moscow just after they had declared a new era of cooperation.

2. "Last year uranium miner, Marathon Resources got lazy, greedy and deceitful in dumping 22,000 bags of mine waste in the unique Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary in South Australia, rather than disposing of them properly. It’s not like they fell off a truck – they were buried."

3. August 2009: "Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet has been hit by a series of serious safety breaches involving repeated leaks of radioactive waste from submarines, broken pipes and waste tanks at its home base on the Clyde, the Ministry of Defence has disclosed.

"In a confidential report released under the Freedom of Information Act, the MoD has admitted that safety failings at the UK’s main nuclear submarine base at Faslane near Glasgow are a “recurring theme” and ingrained in the base’s culture.

"It emerged that the radioactive plant manager had no qualifications in radioactive waste management. The Ministry of Defence is legally exempt from the civil radioactive safety regulations policed by Sepa but promised the agency a number of times it would voluntarily uphold those laws at the base – promises that Sepa has now accused the MoD of repeatedly breaking."

Contd......

I would imagine that far more people die today due to this pagan religion than needs to. People who have suitable heating and cooling (especially the aged) are no doubt better off and live longer. Helen's religion in the name of pseudo science is really hypocritical considering the great benefits nearly all Australians have because of coal.

Contd...

4. 2009: "Pakistan's military has strenuously rejected allegations by a British academic that al-Qaida is targeting the country's nuclear facilities in an attempt to obtain weapons for use against the west. In an article for a US military journal, Professor Shaun Gregory, of the University of Bradford, said al-Qaida and the Taliban had targeted the country's nuclear infrastructure three times in the last two years."

5. 2009: "Britain’s nuclear power and weapons plants have been plagued by more than 1,700 leaks, breakdowns and other mishaps over the past seven years, according to a secret report by the government’s chief nuclear inspector, Mike Weightman. The report, released under freedom of information legislation, reveals the catalogue of incidents and accidents that have confronted the UK safety watchdog, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), Six fires and nine leaks have happened in the last six months."

6. 2009: "ITER — a multi-billion-euro international experiment boldly aiming to prove atomic fusion as a power source — will initially be far less ambitious than physicists had hoped, Nature has learned. Faced with ballooning costs and growing delays, ITER's seven partners are likely to build only a skeletal version of the device at first. Nature poster stated: “Scientists who keep promising results to government leaders and the public taxpayers are fundamentally dishonest.... The proposed ITER is not even being designed to actually work as anything more than a test and certainly never as a prototype working reactor. Let's end this program now and find a better approach."

7. 2009: "It’s one of the world’s dirtiest jobs and it’s going to cost at least £70 billion - and it’s already going wrong. The mammoth task of cleaning up the radioactive mess created by more than half a century of nuclear power and weapons is running into problems across the UK, according to a report from the government’s nuclear watchdog. In Scotland, technical cock-ups, maintenance oversights and bureaucratic delays have been dogging the decommissioning of old nuclear plants around the country."

Vietnam ChrisPer? But of course ignorance is as ignorance does and exemplified by your ad homs.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-02/05/content_303315.htm

Protagoras,

You are a bit full of yourself.

"To construct a logical argument, they would need to acknowledge the documented information I have provided in their assessments."

Your fluffy collection of snippets from anti nuke websites hardly constitute documented information. The same or more could be provided for any industy.

The existing nuclear industry is far more regulated than any other base load power industry, has far less fatalities per unit of energy and a far lower environmental impact.

The CANDU reactors which produce a fraction of the waste and can be used to burn up fissile material, have been running for decades and as such have 6 more under construction.

A thorium prototype is due for commissioning next year and if successful will reduce the dependance on uranium drastically.

Even with the programmes in place, electricity generation from nuclear reactors is likely to increase substantially from the 15% presently to about 30% by 2030.

Australia will probably stil generate 90% from fossil fuels.

Why be concerned about a nuclear weapon.
Machetes and guns are more likely to be the cause of violent death.
Cast your mind back to 1994 in Rwanda.
A 100 days and between a 800,000 to 1,000,000 people were hacked and shot to death.
The Khmer Rouge had a fair whack at genocide as well amongst many others.
Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki there has been no use of nuclear weapon in a war situation.
Life is full of risk even without nuclear power so I cant see why we should deny ourselves the benefit that nuclear power may bring.
The worlds population is about 6.75 billion people today and 1/4 do not have access to electrcity leaving them with an appalling standard of living.
By the time 2050 rolls around with 9 billion plus people we will need every source of energy we can muster to provide even a basic standard of living for all.

Helen Caldicott is a person who is just so full of herself. I watched her condescending description of "comforting" President Reagan which made her an absolute laughing stock. Every time I see her there is some other committee or organisation she is running. Spanish Prime Ministers Science committee, really? truly? Wow!
I am amazed she didn't tell us about her being a child medical specialist. I honestly believe she is a typical fantasist who makes up stuff and just bluffs her way through. The admiral Andrew Denton certainly gave her so many free kicks on his program but I am sure the truth will come out eventually.

My Parents were a support to me not only when I was growing up, but right up to the day they died. I can't imagine not supporting and helping my children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren if I should live so long, and I don't believe I am Robinson Crusoe.
So how is it that we believe so strongly in supporting our children as individuals, yet we are so uncaring collectively?
We take out loans at compound interest for short term gains, which inevitably push up prices for real commodities, we pollute the environment, we use up irreplaceable resources like oil, coal and uranium, we cut down forests and destroy ecologies that have taken thousands of years to form, we cause untold extinctions, we create toxic wastes that will be hazardous for millennia, and we trust our children to clean up the mess we leave.
As a baby boomer, this is not how I want history to remember me.

Shadow Minister – Presumptions are a fatal line of defence in a logical debate particularly when one resorts to the same tired old accusation that everyone opposed to nukes, gleans their information from anti-nuke sites. Of course it’s entirely irrelevant to them that proponents of nukes glean their information from pro-nuke sites.

Naturally I understand just how ignorant some people are when they presume that ‘Freedom of Information’ reports (from which I provided the info) are manufactured by anti-nuke warriors.

As anticipated, you’ve ignored the information I provided which is typical of a denier. A denier feigns indifference when a child’s bite from a rabid dog is barely visible, denying the fact that the dog has rabies. Generally a rabid dog is euthanised but not so with the rabid dogs in the nuclear industry, therefore, where does your splendid spent fuel gobbler, the CANDU reactor, sit with Canada’s stockpile of some 230 million tonnes of radioactive uranium mine and mill tailings, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and thousands of cubic metres of HLW?

Of course a CANDU devotee need not be too concerned that Canada produces over six times more nuclear waste than any OECD country, coming dead last out of 30 countries and has an extremely poor environmental record. Nuclear energy is a complete dud when you consider that the US has more reactors than any country and is the largest polluter on the planet.

Naturally CANDU devotees will never allude to the CANDU’s high emissions of the lethal tritium or its destructive human and environmental impacts.

Canada’s permissible levels of tritium in drinking water is 7,000Bq/L and Europe’s maximum permissible levels is 100 Bq/L. Even the bad boys, the US, have a maximum permissible level of 740 Bq/L. However, Australia’s ignominious MPL is 76,103 Bq/L – a mere peccadillo for Australia's pro-nuke grim reapers and our intellectually disabled “regulators.”

I welcome the gaggle of geese on this thread to show evidence, disproving the information I have provided. To date the hapless reader has endured a vaudeville of insults and a stupefying round of irrelevant swill.

Currently more than 100,000 tonnes of radioactive waste is stored in the UK, awaiting final disposal. The majority of the existing UK nuclear power stations will need to be decommissioned in the next 20-30 years, which will generate a substantial amount of radioactive waste to be disposed.
The UK currently has no long-term solution, neither does the USA.

If we had nuclear power stations some time back then the wastes would even larger with no end in site for safe disposal.

One side effect of mining is waste for example South Australia is going through the phase of discussing the extension to Olympic dam. The environmental damage at the present site is far from satisfactory what with extracting precious water from the artesian basin, contamination of underground water and the evaporation ponds, which are huge (hundreds of hectares) causing the documented death of many thousand of birds that drink the acid water and that is only those that have been found on the lake sides.

If nuclear power was a viable clean option why are not the manufactures (CANDU) beating our door down and promoting it in the media they are big boys who usually get there way.
Now wait and hear others being blamed - that is not a reason just an excuse.

It is perhaps time for all comments made with full name and connections to ascertain where they are coming from.

Brief review Uranium weapons hazards Part 1

Dr Geoff Pain

I have selected some of the most interesting abstracts, especially from the US and Canadian military, so things in quotation marks are those of the authors acknowledged with references in square brackets. Starting with Afghanistan, Gulf, then Kosovo and Iraq, it all adds up to one very sorry state of affairs.

Uranium is very toxic as well as carcinogenic. One study has concluded that uranium intake in the range 0.004–9 µg kg-1 body weight affects kidney function in a dose-dependent manner. As a result of its ionic characteristics, UO22+ competes with Ca2+ for certain transport mechanisms and is rapidly accumulated in bone.

DU is predominantly 238U (half-life 4470 million years). Another radionuclide is 234U (half-life 245 000 years). Typically, DU contains some 0.2% of the fissionable 235U (half-life 704 million years).

White House concedes death and injury [8]

“A White House review prompted the Department of Energy to officially concede on January 29, 2000 that its nuclear weapons workers were placed at risk of increased disease and death. This Presidential review also served as an underpinning for the recent creation of a major worker compensation entitlement program by the U.S. Congress -- which specifically grants a non-rebuttable presumption for 22 listed cancers to uranium process workers exposed to recycled uranium, (contaminated with isotopes such as plutonium-239, neptunium-237, and Technetium 99) which now apparently has been measured in depleted uranium found on the battlefields of the Balkans and the Persian Gulf.”

Veterans are still digging for documents [9]

References
[1] Arfsten DP, Still KR, Ritchie GD. A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development. Toxicol Ind Health. 2001 Jun;17(5-10):180-91 Naval Health Research Center Detachment-Toxicology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB), Ohio 45433-7903, USA

“In a memorandum from the DoD date 16 Aug 1993 on depleted uranium.
“during peace time, exposure must be kept as far below the NRC limits (specified in exposure to DU in table 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 10CFR20, Appendix B to part 20.1001 thru 20.2401, page 23409, Federal Register, May 21,1991.) as is reasonably achievable. There are no comparable limits for wartime. When soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust, they incur a potential increase in cancer risk. The magnitude of that increase can be quantified (in terms of projected days of life lost) if the DU intake is known (or can be estimated).”

US Military concerned over veteran children and grandchildren [1]

“Depleted uranium (DU) is used in armor-penetrating munitions, military vehicle armor, and aircraft, ship and missile counterweighting / ballasting, as well as in a number of other military and commercial applications. Recent combat applications of DU alloy [i.e., Persian Gulf War (PGW) and Kosovo peacekeeping objective] resulted in human acute exposure to DU dust, vapor or aerosol, as well as chronic exposure from tissue embedding of DU shrapnel fragments. DU alloy is 99.8% 238Uranium, and emits approximately 60% of the alpha, beta, and gamma radiation found in natural uranium (4.05 x 10(-7) Ci/g DU alloy).
[2] Miller ML, Cornish RE, Pomatto CB. Calculation of the number of cancer deaths prevented by the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project. Health Phys. 1999 May;76(5):544-6 Roy F. Weston, Inc., Albuquerque, NM 87110, USA.

[3] Ritz B.Radiation exposure and cancer mortality in uranium processing workersEpidemiology. 1999 Sep;10(5):531-8 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles 90095-1772, USA.

[4] Durakovic A. Undiagnosed illnesses and radioactive warfare. Croat Med J. 2003 Oct;44(5):520-32 Uranium Medical Research Center, 3430 Connecticut Avenue/11854, Washington, DC 20008, USA

Given the intemperate, ad hominem, and woefully ignorant nature of many of the responses to my article, it seems we’ve fallen down the rabbit hole of political wing-nuttery into the Australian equivalent of the American Tea Party and Birther movements. Such is the current level of rational “discourse” Down Under when it comes to the issues of nuclear power and nuclear war.

Given space constraints I’m not able here to correct every egregious error and mis-representation , but let’s look at one of the the major porkies.

Contrary to one respondent’s assertion, Generation Four reactors do not solve the problem of nuclear waste..

These so-called “fast breeder” technologies require five to fifteen tons of plutonium ( whose half-life is 24,400 years) to be extracted from spent civilian radioactive fuel , fashioned into fuel rods which are then placed in a fast (breeder) reactor cooled by volatile liquid sodium. However, only ten percent of the plutonium fissions into strontium 90, cesium 137 and other radioactive elements , leaving ninety percent of the plutonium and fission products to be disposed of – as waste. Further, a breach of the cooling system in such a reactor would not only trigger a sodium fire or explosion, but the loss of coolant would almost certainly precipitate a meltdown and a scatter carcinogenic plutonium to the four winds.. Finally, this scheme -- called the “closed fuel cycle” by the nuclear industry -- is enormously costly : the electricity it generates is 4.5 times more expensive than that produced by present day light-water generators.

As Thomas Cochran and Christopher Paine -- senior scientist and director respectively of the Nuclear Program at the Natural Resources --noted in their testimony before Congress in March 2009, such reactors are “complex to build, expensive to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair.” Morever, then went on,” the development of such reactors has failed thus far in the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Japan. “

Says Peter A "It is perhaps time for all comments made with full name and connections to ascertain where they are coming from", why is that PeterA, do you think there is a conspiracy afoot, you've been Caldicotted have you? I note you don't post your full name and address, of course you'd be exempt wouldn't you, but would line up for some finger wagging I'm sure.

Helen, you've held back progress for decades, so of course Gen 4 is way behind where it should be.

The AGW folks must be wondering just which way to jump, given a technology like Nuclear Power is held back by little minded bigots.

Thanks a lot, from our children's children!

"why is that PeterA, do you think there is a conspiracy afoot, you've been Caldicotted have you? I note you don't post your full name and address, of course you'd be exempt wouldn't you, but would line up for some finger wagging I'm sure."

Errr....rpg - I think PeterA was referring to links to support a poster's claims but it's not the first time you've let fly with a tirade of jabberwonky.

Helen Caldicott you are the first person that I have seen respond to what has been posted here. I am not suprised but when you use terms such as "Wing-nuttery", what do you mean? I have only ever seen you on TV where you have grossly exaggerated anything you have ever done. Where you always blame everyone else and where you have behaved extremly strangely.
Witness you with Switkowski. You either wrote furiously on the pad in front of you but when you thought the camera was not on you (Actually Helen it was) you then stared balefully in an almost demented manner whilst he was talking. It was a bizzare spectacle, in fact it was most disturbing. If a male had done this to any female on an ABC programe then there would have been grave repercussions for him.As it was the ABC are firmly on your side. Now was your behaviour "Wing nuttery"? The ABC and your mate Tony Jones are beyond the pale in my opinion.

When Helen goes to her eternal reward, she's going to wish she could jump into a nicely Cerenkov-lit reactor core.

rpg, you said: "I did, and since there has not been a world war since the development and use of Nuclear weapons, conclude that WWII would not have happened if there had been such weapons around."

I hadn't even mentioned nuclear weapons. I said: "Had nuclear power existed in WW2, much of Europe and the UK would have been rendered uninhabitable, essentially forever, due to conventional bombing alone. Something to think hard about."

Think harder.

Nuke weapons have not prevented wars, and your basis that they will always prevent nuclear war is based on the PAST ONLY; If it ever happens (and you survive) you may notice that hindsight is just not good enough.

We've come close to global nuclear war on several well documented occasions (notably the Berlin crisis of 1961, the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the Yom Kippur War of 1973, false alarms on 9 Nov 1979, 3 June 3 1983, NATO's Able Archer exercise of 1983, Colonel Petrov 23 Sep 1983, and 25 Jan 1995. http://nuclearrisk.org/soaring_article.php).

Did YOU choose to live with the threat of 4,400 nukes still on 24/7 alert?

Have you considered the dire consequences of climate change within hours from the use of even a fraction of these nukes?

Anyone who opposes WMDs should oppose the only energy sector which fuels them via infrastructure, expertise, covert research and the fuels themselves.

Nuclear power is a 20th Century white elephant; it being a "solution" for climate change is a red herring for uranium market profits and we could face a pandora's box of consequences.

Atom1 take a breath and calm down, Without nuke engery none of us would be here.
I've got solar panels on my house(8 years now) but I think we should explore nuke power the idea that we can't use it safly and develop even safer power plants is silly.

And the idea that Australia is leading the way on this just makes the autor look shrill.

Helen Caldicott is a paediatrician whose knowledge of the nuclear reactors is based mostly on activist propoganda as evidenced by her woefully ignorant analysis of the fast breeder reactor.

Just to expose some of the porkies she has just posted:

Fast breeder reactors exist and can already be used to dispose of the waste.

"Prototype FBRs have also been built cooled by other liquid metals such as mercury, lead etc, and one generation IV reactor proposal is for a helium cooled FBR.

FBRs usually use a mixed oxide fuel core of up to 20% plutonium dioxide (PuO2) and at least 80% uranium dioxide (UO2). The plutonium used can be supplied by the reprocessing from reactor outputs or 'off the shelf' dismantled nuclear weapons."

The sodium coolant is blanketed in helium, so a coolant breach is extremely unlikely to cause a sodium fire, nor is it possible to cause a meltdown with out the failure of several other systems.

If all the multiple redundant safeguards fail, the ultra strong containment wall (which was missing at Chernobyl) will contain any fall out.

Also the most expensive part of the existing fuel cycle is the enrichment of the uranium as both 235 and 238 are chemically identical. Plutonium, strontium etc can be relatively easily separated and re used. The road blocks to doing so are political and not technical as agencies are paranoid about anyone having access to plutonium.

Secondly the Candu and Gen IV reactors use as little as 1-2% of the uranium that standard reactors do for the same energy output, and as such produce proportionally less waste.

Protagoras,

Considering that Canada is the largest producer of uranium, if you consider mine tailings (which can be replaced from where they were extracted, and are very low level "waste") then Canada would rank highly. (as would Australia)

However, as the majority of their reactors are the earlier versions (not CANDU) this has no bearing what so ever on the future of the Candu reactors. I followed your references and found the conclusions of the articles you quoted differed considerably from yours.

Shadow Minister

“Porkies?” What porkies? Links?

“quoted differed considerably from yours,” What quotes? link?

“my references?” What references?

“Generation IV reactors?” What reactors - they don't exist!

“mine tailings (which can be replaced from where they were extracted,” Really? Links please?

“However, as the majority of their reactors are the earlier versions (not CANDU) this has no bearing what so ever on the future of the Candu reactors?” The future?

Let's go "back to the future" and see just how "superior" the futuristic reactor is. After all, the industry's had some sixty six years to perfect the technology:

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

• ”India's Department of Atomic Energy plans to build a large fleet of fast breeder nuclear reactors in the coming years.

• "However, many other countries that have experimented with fast reactors have shut down their programs due to technical and safety difficulties.

• "The Indian prototype is similarly flawed, inadequately protected against the possibility of a severe accident.”

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-safety-inadequacies-of-indias-fast-breeder-reactor

Your duplicitous posts reminds me also that last year, "in his High Court judgment in the judicial review of the UK Government’s energy policy consultation in 2006, Mr. Justice Sullivan found that the information given by Government on radioactive waste in this process was ‘not simply inadequate … it was also seriously misleading.’

"This information included substantial material on nuclear new build wastes. As a result the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) advised it was 'therefore re-stating its position.'”

I suggest that your information is also seriously misleading Shadow Minister so please spare us anymore of your garbage.

I would also recommend that you read up on the processes of uranium mining. Papers published by respected and peer reviewed Australian scientist, Gavin Mudd, may assist in making you appear less stupid – though that’s doubtful.

After that you could perhaps acknowledge the contents of the posts provided by others rather than continue your bobbing and weaving.

Ignorant rants and red herrings thrown into debate by nuclear rent boys, simply exacerbates the industry’s ignominious reputation for spin and obfuscation:

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:-rBxdQy0AusJ:www.energyscience.org.au/FS06%2520Uranium%2520Mining.pdf+olympic+dam+waste+ore+disposal+of+remediation&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

http://iswr.eng.monash.edu.au/about/pubs/mudd

The phrase "nuclear rent boys" needs to be put in context. Last year's worldwide production of, if I recall, 2600 billion nuclear electric kilowatt-hours required 48,000 tonnes uranium, about six billion dollars' worth. (Yes, much of the world's power comes from a mineral whose extraction industry is financially about as large as the cell-phone ring-tone industry.)

Had that six gigabucks' worth of uranium not been used, 20 billion mmBTU of natural gas, $80 billion dollars' worth, would almost certainly have been used in its stead. Many tens of billions of dollars' worth of natural gas were in fact used, and government royalties on it much exceeded the whole income of all the world's uranium miners.

So when anonymous net commentators comment on nuclear issues, and are suspected of being paid to do so, the reasonable question to ask is, are they getting their natgas money from the vendors? Or through the tax man?

--- G.R.L. Cowan, ('How fire can be domesticated')
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/

Protagorass,

That you are making personal insults indicates you don't have the itellectual horsepower to sustain a rational argument. Don't worry I will try to use smaller words that you can understand.

Your cherry picked quotes are traceable using google, and I can only assume that your failure to provide the links is due to them being more effective when quoted out of context, or that they come from activist websites such as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

If you look hard enough you will find highly qualified people with evidence that:

Global warming is a hoax,
Evolution never happenned, etc.

Like wise what Gavin Mudd says is correct. Mining in the 50s to 80s often lacked the understanding of the dangers that we are aware of today.

What he fails to mention is that the dangers he has highlighted apply to every single mine in the world, be it gold, coal, iron, aluminium etc. The fact that he has pinned the tag on the uranium mining is what is getting him the attention and paid appearances.

The treatment of tailing and leaching is not how it was done decades ago, and has passed the stringent environmental impact assessments. In the 80s large commercial planes were falling out of the skys every month, and like mining, the safety standards have been considerably improved.

You exposed your idiocy with “Generation IV reactors?” What reactors - they don't exist! "

Well duh! no one claimed they did.

Fast breeder and CANDU reactors are not Gen IV, and old design versions have been operational for decades. That they were more difficult to run, more expensive, and politically sensitive, is why more of them have not been built.

The requirements for the future has focused considerable design efforts on these technologies as well as the future gen IV.

As you are obviously from a non technical background and have little experience of power generation I would suggest that you go as far as reading up on the technology, before re hashing the inane drivel that you have so far posted.

fwiw, yet another aspect (as with ongoing European heatwaves & nuclear water supply issues) as to how climate change may severely limit nuclear power, rather than the other way around...

Yellowcake cyclone impact concerns council

By Gina Marich

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/18/2658995.htm?section=business

Consider also the uranium enrichment is the most **energy intensive** aspect of the nuclear fuel chain.

"As you are obviously from a non technical background and have little experience of power generation I would suggest that you go as far as reading up on the technology, before re hashing the inane drivel that you have so far posted.

“I should congradulate (sic) Helen for the most comprehensive collection of half truths, outdated facts and irrelevant scare mongering (sic) that I have yet seen. I also notice that her acedemic (sic) credentials that she posts seem a little shady as her organisation's site seems no longer to exist. Helen, if you are going to cobble up such plate (sic) of tripe, you should rather direct it to a group with sufficient naivity (sic) to swallow it such as year 3 children.

“That you are making personal insults indicates you don't have the itellectual (sic) horsepower to sustain a rational argument. Don't worry I will try to use smaller words that you can understand."

Shadow Minister – Using "smaller words" may be helpful (for you!) however, ignorance and hypocrisy are inalterable attributes; “naivity” can be remedied. Perhaps I should point out that Caldicott does indeed have a website, however, you say her “non-existent” website is relevant to her credentials? The reason for this esoteric statement could only be hypothesised on by a psychologist.

Your endeavours to slander Caldicott and question her "shady" credentials, reveals not only malicious intent on your part but a deliberate deceptiveness since had you actually pressed a button, voila - 71,800 hits! BTW, I was under the impression that anyone who boasts a “technical background” in power generation, and the “itellectual” horsepower to sustain a rational argument , would be sufficiently literate (and ethical) to acknowledge the content of the author’s article, not just the footnotes.

Caldicott is, at the very least, academically proficient in the areas of physics, chemistry, genetics, biochemistry, pathology, anatomy/physiology, and human biology. In addition, she has altruistically (and for the common good,) sacrificed some 40 years of her life, extensively researching and documenting the health and environmental impacts of, and the technological failures, within the nuclear industry.

contd......

“I can only assume that your failure to provide the links is due to them being more effective when quoted out of context, or that they come from activist websites such as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.”

However, Shadow Minister, it was I who requested that YOU supply the links and since you never flinch from an opportunity to scheme and plot (no matter how sordid) please now provide evidence to substantiate your claim that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, is an “activist” website.

To assist you with your response, allow me to provide you with a list of names of people you can contact. These are the people who sponsor that website.

Board of Sponsors:

David Baltimore, 1975 Nobel laureate in medicine
Paul Berg, 1980 Nobel laureate in chemistry
Nicolaas Bloembergen, 1981 Nobel laureate in physics
Georges Charpak, 1992 Nobel laureate in physics
James Cronin, 1980 Nobel laureate in physics
Sam Edwards, Cavendish Professor Emeritus for Theoretical Physics and former pro-vice chancellor of Cambridge University
Val Fitch, 1980 Nobel laureate in physics
Jerome Friedman, 1990 Nobel laureate in physics
Sheldon Glashow, 1979 Nobel laureate in physics
Brian Greene, professor of mathematics and physics and joint director of the Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astrophysics at Columbia University
Stephen W. Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge
Dudley Herschbach, 1986 Nobel laureate in chemistry
Howard Hiatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School
Roald Hoffmann, 1981 Nobel laureate in chemistry
Masatoshi Koshiba, 2002 Nobel laureate in physics
Leon Lederman (co-chair), 1988 Nobel laureate in physics
Ben Mottelson, 1975 Nobel laureate in physics
John Polanyi, 1986 Nobel laureate in chemistry
Lisa Randall, professor of physics at Harvard University
Richard Roberts, 1973 Nobel laureate in physics
Roald Sagdeev, professor of physics at the University of Maryland
Steven Weinberg, 1979 Nobel laureate in Physics
Frank Wilczek, 2004 Nobel laureate in physics

http://www.thebulletin.org/content/about-us/board-of-sponsors

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he who propagates falsehoods and errors and is bewitched by his own hubris.

Protagorass,

If you look at Caldicott's lofty introduction on the site:

Author's website: Nuclear Policy Research Institute

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/

You get adverts for cars etc.

Contrary to your assertions I also don't find any reference to physics or chemistry quoted in her bio.

http://www.helencaldicott.com/cv.htm

If she is so knowledgable then some of the things she stated in her post are deliberate falsehoods and not due to ignorance such as:

"and the high grade reserves will last only one or two decades if nuclear energy production were to be expanded"

and

"Consumption of fossil fuels to mine, mill and enrich low grade ore become so large that nuclear energy will emit comparable quantities of CO2 from an equivalent combined cycle gas-fired plant."

These are only true if one considers the older 1960s type reactor designs and not the designs presently being built.

As for the "Bulletin of the Atomic scientists"

Their articles include:

Hiroshima, (re)visited
Still surviving Hiroshima
Hiroshima and the power of pictures
Reprocessing isn't the answer
The safety inadequacies of India's fast breeder reactor
It is 5 Minutes to Midnight
etc

Need I say more?

Getting lots of famous people to sign on does not mean that it does not have a specific political agenda.

Some links you should read:
http://www.candu.org/candu_reactors.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_CANDU_Reactor
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html

Something that is a great source of amusement is your comment "since you never flinch from an opportunity to scheme and plot (no matter how sordid)". I get a distinct whiff of paranoia :)

I assume from your personal attacks you don't have the technical know how to grasp the science and need to rely on emotion.

From your statement "He who knows nothing is closer to the truth" You must a god.

DU is a heavy metal 160% more dense than lead and can remain within the body for many years and slowly solubilize. High levels of urinary uranium have been measured in PGW veterans 10 years after exposure to DU fragments and vapors. In rats, there is strong evidence of DU accumulation in tissues including testes, bone, kidneys, and brain. In vitro tests indicate that DU alloy may be both genotoxic and mutagenic, whereas a recent in vivo study suggests that tissue-embedded DU alloy may be carcinogenic in rats. There is limited available data for reproductive and teratological deficits from exposure to uranium per se, typically from oral, respiratory, or dermal exposure routes. This paper reviews published studies of reproductive toxicity in humans and animals from uranium or DU exposure, and discusses ongoing animal research to evaluate reproductive effects in male and female rats embedded with DU fragments, and possible consequences in F1 and F2 generations.”

US weapons makers very concerned [8]

Oak Ridge Y-12 weapons Plant, Tennessee.

The study also found elevated death rates for brain cancer, several lymphopoetic (immune system) cancers, as well as cancers of the prostate, kidney and pancreas. Excess death from breast cancer among women was found. The authors found excess lung cancer as their main finding and urged that this disease warrants continued surveillance An earlier study found similar risks, with a marginal dose-response trend for lung cancer only. (Dana P. Loomis and Susanne H. Wolfe, Mortality of Workers at a Nuclear Materials Production Plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1947-1990, American Journal of Medicine, 1996, 29:131-141,Harvey Checkoway, Neil Pierce, Douglas J. Crawford-Brown, and Donna Cragle, Radiation Doses and Cause-Specific Mortality Among Workers at a Nuclear Materials Fabrication Plant, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1998, 127:2:255-266.)”

The K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Tennessee.

“Excess risks of dying found for white males when compared to general population rates. Other statistically significant increases among white males were for cancers of the respiratory system, bone cancer, mental disorders and all respiratory diseases including pneumonia. Increased risks of dying from kidney cancer and chronic nephritis (kidney disease) was found. The latter condition was more than 600 percent higher when deaths from the last decade of follow-up was observed.(Elizabeth A. Dupree, Susan M. Wells, Janice P. Watkins, Phillip W. Wallace, Nancy C. Davis, Mortality Among Workers Employed between 1945 and 1984 at a Uranium Gaseous Diffusion Facility, Draft Report, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.”

Fernald Uranium Processing Plant, Ohio.

“Significant increased risks of dying from stomach cancer were found among salaried workers (261 percent higher than expected). Hourly workers increased death risks were found for all cancers (21 percent higher) and lung cancer (26 percent higher). (Donna L. Cragle, Janice P. Watkins, J. Nicholas Ingle, Kathryn Robertson-Demers, William G.. Tankersley, Charles M. West, Mortality Among a Cohort of White Male Workers at a Uranium Processing Plant: Fernald Feed Materials Production Center [FMPC], Radiation Research
Linde Air Products Co., NY. Statistically significant increased risks of dying from all causes (18 percent higher), laryngeal cancer (447 percent higher), all circulatory diseases (18 percent higher), arteriosclerotic heart disease (19 percent higher), all respiratory diseases (52 percent higher) and pneumonia (217 percent higher) were found among workers who processed uranium at this facility between 1943 and 1949. (Elizabeth A. DuPree, Donna Cragle, Richard, W. McLain, Douglas Crawford-Brown, M. Jane Teta, Mortality among workers at a uranium processing facility, the Linde Air Products Company Ceramics Plant, 1943- 49, Scandinavian Journal of Worker and Environmental Health, 1987, 13:100- 107.)

If she is so knowledgable then some of the things she stated in her post are deliberate falsehoods and not due to ignorance such as:

"and the high grade reserves will last only one or two decades if nuclear energy production were to be expanded"

and

"Consumption of fossil fuels to mine, mill and enrich low grade ore become so large that nuclear energy will emit comparable quantities of CO2 from an equivalent combined cycle gas-fired plant."

"These are only true if one considers the older 1960s type reactor designs and not the designs presently being built."

Isn’t stupidity and malignant egophrenia peculiar maladies Shadow Minister?

Only Canada has high grade uranium ore. With your "designs presently being built" (though presently failing) high grade ore will be exhausted in the near future.

Permit me to provide the most recent emissions' report, from the Olympic Dam low-grade uranium mine, where comprehension of the scientific measurements, I trust, will not be beyond your "itellectual" capacities.

The following emissions, where the majority of chemicals oxidize to CO2, form tropospheric ozone or acid rain, are but part of the report. Alas, I am aware of your ignorance on environmental toxicology and as a result, one cannot give some people more than they're prepared to receive:

C0:...................................410,000kg..... up from last report
Oxides of Nitrogen.....1,600,000......... up from last report
PMs:..............................2,500,000
SO2:..............................1,100,000........ up from last report
VOCs:...............................92,000.......... up from last report
PAH:.................................49,000........... up from last report

Protagorass,

Clearly you feel real facts are an impediment to your pontifications.

If you bothered to look at
http://aua.org.au/Content/Resources.aspx or
http://www.ga.gov.au/about/corporate/ga_authors/uranium_resources.jsp or
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html or
http://www.thundelarra.com/documents/10%20February%202009%20High%20Grade%20Uranium%20Results%20Extend%20Thunderball.pdf

You would see that Australia has 40% of the worlds uranium that can be mined for less than US$40 /kg, and that Canada is one of many countries with high grade ore.

At present consumption rates, without further exploration, there is enough to feed present consumption for > 200 years or 100% of the worlds electricity for 30 years.

If improved reactors are used this extends to 2500 years
With further exploration and the use of lower grades this extends to 25 000 years, and with thorium this extends even further to > 200 000 years.

Having designed and installed emission monitoring systems with EPA consultation my first reaction to your statement on emissions is gales of laughter.

"The following emissions, where the majority of chemicals oxidize to CO2, form tropospheric ozone or acid rain"

These are all emissions typical from power generation and transportation, which if they had nuclear would not exist.

Talk about a home goal.

I see that a labor MP has just had the balls to stand up and admit that the emission targets are not possible without nuclear. Maybe the light is starting to filter through that reality differs significantly from the political rhetoric.

fyi: Storing nuclear waste a $24-billion problem

"There are two million high-level radioactive fuel bundles sitting at temporary storage sites in Canada, as the Nuclear Waste Management Organization wrestles with the mandate of finding a community to host a central storage facility for the waste for perhaps tens of thousands of years."

"The cost of a facility based on the concept, estimated by AECL in 1991 dollars, would range from $8.7 billion for five million fuel bundles to $13.3 billion for 10 million bundles, excluding financing costs, taxes, non-routine activities (such as waste retrieval), transportation and any extended monitoring stages," according to the report."
More: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/08/18/f-nuclear-waste-storage.html

Furthermore, however, even IF nuclear was insurable and had no emissions (GHG or radioactive) from the mining, milling, processing, enrichment, reprocessing, waste management and all construction and related transports; even IF it posed no repeatedly demonstrated WMD proliferation concerns (safeguards don't even apply to military facilities or guarantee inspections of civil facilties); even IF there was a radioactive waste management solution for the immense periods required.... nuclear still only attempts to address approx ONE THIRD of the global source of greenhouse emissions – generating electricity (International Energy Agency).

A BIG NO to nuclear power and to uranium ore exports

Helen Caldicott has made an outstanding contribution to this debate and continues to do so. The global warming justification to now defend opening up new uranium mines is indeed farcical and dishonest. It is motivated by greed and commercial interests. An additional new justification is that "everybody is doing it so let's make sure we don't miss out with our huge reserves of uranium ore". To export uranium ore to China, or anywhere else, is very bad news for the entire world. Given our large reserves it is especially incumbent on us to set an ethical example. Nuclear power plants are (a) extremely costly to build and dismantle (b) provide energy that is not “cleaner and greener” (c) still has the major problem of producing and storing radio active waste (d) if in Australia it is not even geologically stable as often claimed (e) is NOT a renewable energy (f) can easily lead to the spread of nuclear weapons. Exporting the ore to other countries, on the pretense of having a moral responsibility to do that, means losing control over its final destination and use. We could end up with nuclear weapons everywhere. Does Australia want to contribute to this in any way? Keen to show leadership internationally this is Australia's great opportunity by saying "we will not be part of this".

Klaas Woldring

The one really irritating thing in common about the anti nuclear posts is that they look at practices and technologies from decades ago and hold them up as warnings for the future.

Yet often with the same breath they will look at renewable technologies and ascribe to them capabilities that as of yet are purely speculative.

For example, the dangers of radiation weren't clearly understood until the late 60s, and the lack of safety precautions (especially 1945 to 1970) lead to a lot of unnecessary illnesses. The plants then and now are chalk and cheese.

This can be compared for example to the handling of asbestos.

Similarly the high level fuel waste that Atom1 mentioned, (if the political hurdle of reprocessing is passed) is a significant source of fuel. The reprocessing would reduce the volume of waste material significantly, and the radioactivity so much that the hazard level of the waste can be down graded.

It is not as if the correct information is not readily available, but the old stories keep circulating the anti nuclear websites like urban myths, even when they ceased to be true decades ago.

People like Helen Caldicott don't help either by posting this outdated rubbish. Assuming the moral high ground seems to give her license to ignore the truth.

With global warming, nuclear is coming, the actions of the government over the next decade will determine whether Australia is involved with the design and setting of standards, or is simply has to adapt to standards set by others.

Why are so many posters in support of Nuclear Power? I do not need Helen Caldicott to tell me that Nuclear Power is a non-solution to the problem of climate change. The reasons?
First most pundits seem content to ignore the reality of exponential growth - the rate at which our demand for energy is increasing is such that it cannot be met by finite resources like coal, natural gas, oil or uranium. Even a modest growth of 2%pa in our energy demand means a doubling of the energy output every 30 years - we are looking at a global growth of closer to 10%. That demand cannot be met by relying on finite resources. We can buy some time by increasing efficiencies but ultimately we need to find a way of creating an economy that is based on renewable energy.
Secondly I am supicious of any energy solution that is touted to be so wonderful and such a brilliant solution yet cannot attract private investors. Standard and Poors have advised funds against investing in nuclear technology - the industry is dependent on tax payers to make their technology viable. (WE will be in the priveledged position of paying for nuclear power twice, once as a tax payer and then as a consumer - how lucky are we!)
Thirdly everytime the nuclear energy debate generates a new head of steam we are told that there are some break through technologies just around the corner. Generation 4 reactors? They are as illusive as the alchemist dream of turning base metals into gold.
Fourthly there are the well documented health risks.
But of course there are those who would rather believe that there is a simple solution, who mock and villify those who have the courage to stand up and say that we are being sold a dangerous solution.
Instead of being proud of Caldicot they prefer to treat her with contempt.
John Töns

Baygon:

"Why are so many posters in support of Nuclear Power?"

Because it is the only viable non CO2 emitting base load alternative to coal.

"First most pundits seem content to ignore the reality of exponential growth - the rate at which our demand for energy is increasing"

So blocking the single most viable future source is a solution?

"Secondly I am supicious of any energy solution that is touted to be so wonderful and such a brilliant solution yet cannot attract private investors"

Like Hot rocks geothermal (huge guarantees and subsidies from gov)

"the industry is dependent on tax payers to make their technology viable"

Nearly much like all the renewable souces.

"Fourthly there are the well documented health risks"

per unit of nuclear energy generated, the deaths are as low or lower as any other source of energy.

"who have the courage to stand up and say that we are being sold a dangerous solution."

It takes a lot of courage to regurgitate outdated facts to a receptive fearful public, and accept the royalties and public speaking fees that come with the publicity.

Reality and practicality just get in the way.

Atom, Klaas, Baygon et al

It’s a waste of time having to endure the nuclear spin from Shadow Minister who is concealing the evidence on the nuclear industry. He's simply appearing sillier by the day. One need only look at the headlines of each of the following links to see the reality. And there's reams more:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25943922-2682,00.html

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.792,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/18/nuclearpower.energy

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/environment/flood+threat+to+nuclear+arms+site/2513357

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Yucca_Mountain_cost_estimate_rises_to_96_billion_dollars-0608085.html

http://uranium-news.com/2009/08/13/482/

To add insult to injury, last year, Canadian miner, Mega Uranium, plundering Australia’s resources, threatened to sue the Western Australia government if they didn’t lift the ban on uranium mining.

WA’s resource minister in 2008, John Bowler had his portfolio stripped for leaking confidential cabinet information to industry lobbyists ( or should that be “activists?”) Burke and Grill, who have been under criminal investigation by the Crime and Corruption Committee.

John Bowler spouted the “no uranium” policy while he was a member of the Labor Party, however, the Kalgoorlie electorate, returned him to parliament last year as an independent. These constituents will reap what they sow when they believe it’s OK to have a perjurer as their parliamentary representative.

Now the Kalgoorlie Miner paper has John Bowler in the headlines vigorously promoting and celebrating the lifting of the uranium mining ban by the Liberal government.

Would any of you buy a used car from these duplicitous toads?

We live at a time when emotions and feelings count more than truth,
and there is a vast ignorance of science.
James Lovelock

Shadow Minister, you have the patience of Jove. I gave up on these emotionally charged Luddites long ago. So impossibly frustrating are they to deal with that Professor David Mackay of Cambridge University had dedicated his book to them, See www.withouthotair.com. His book should disturb them by shining the little laser of reality upon their illusions, but it won’t, I think they are immune

Protagorass,

I'm "Concealing the evidence"? What a mind numbingly stupid comment.

As a poster in this thread I wonder how you propose I managed to do it? Or is it simply your paranoia speaking.

I can only assume that by resorting to insults you cannot argue the case on its merit. By the strength of your arguments and links I can only assume that you hold a high powered position such as senior mail clerk?

I would certainly not buy a used car from you.
Once again you managed to provide links that look impressive, but in reality are irrelevant. For example considering the size of the US nuclear industry the $96bn waste storage facility for nearly a century's waste contributes less than 0.2c / Kwhr. When reprocessing is approved, this will be a major source of fuel and the disposal costs will reduce significantly.

I would certainly not buy a used car from you, when you cannot distinguish reality from fantasy.

Both those for and against he use of nuclear power have marshalled an impressive array of expert sources and painstakingly gleaned evidence to support their arguments. There is no doubt that there are some significant environmentalists who see nuclear as part of the mix. Spindoc quotes David Mackay’s valuable book which clearly shows that the UK will never be able to generate enough energy from all the available sustainable sources. MacKay’s argument is simple – he looks at the total energy needs of the UK at a particular point in time and demonstrates that sustainable energy will not cut it to meet that demand. If you marry his argument with that of Geoff Davies in Economia then the problem looks quite different. Nuclear, oil and coal are all finite resources – if growth was linear as exposed to exponential developing an economy based on these finite resources might make sense. Yet we have an economic system that presumes that growth is a good thing – a growth rate of 3% per annum seems modest but it will mean that we will run out of those finite resources. (There has been at least one study which argues that we need not need to worry about global warming because the rate of increase is such that we will run out of stuff to burn before we have done irreversible damage!) Therefore since sustainable will not cut it and since fossil and mineral sources will run out one is faced with only one conclusion: we need to develop a society that requires less energy. The choice is simple: either we reduce our energy demand or nature will do it for us. Therefore to go down the nuclear track is only a distraction; at best it may buy us some time but the real challenge is to develop a society that reduces its energy demand in line with what it can generate in a sustainable manner. Mackay’s book demonstrates that this will by no means be easy. ( His calculations with respect to what can be sustainably generated are very generous)

Dear Helen, your claims in relation to comments made before congress by Cochran and Paine? You referred to Gen IV reactors (none yet in service as I understand it) and then to generic “fast breeder” reactors. Was congress testimony related to Gen IV or FB reactors? The Gen IV is new and the FB reactors have been in service for many years, the first being Dounreay in the UK. Sorry I don’t understand your point.

Australia is <<producing more CO2 per capita than any other country>>

Wrong, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait top the list. Such statistical anomalies are maliciously used to make us feel guilty. These anomalies also include Ireland, Trinidad, Tobago, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and Singapore. In emissions terms, all these put together don’t even register.

<<The truth is that very few people or organisations have calculated the true energetic cost of nuclear electricity>> really?

See IPCC report (Sims 2007) “The IPCC estimates that the total carbon intensity of nuclear power (including construction, fuel processing, and decommissioning) is less than 40 gCO2/kWh(e)” whoops Helen.

<<high grade reserves will last only one or two decades>>

Utter rubbish, do your homework. Almost all the recoverable uranium is in the oceans, which is topped up by rivers delivering 32,000 tons per year. Not mention plentiful Thorium which is the fuel used by Nuclear reactors in India. Fast breeder reactors are 60% more efficient than “once through” reactors (burning U235 and U238). Gen IV reactors are being designed to burn all current stocks of spent fuel from previous model rectors.

<<The stark truth is that bomb fuel can be made by any country from enriched uranium or plutonium manufactured in reactors (250 kilos yearly, 5 kilos makes a bomb).>>

What a load of old garbage, where do you get this from? Fuel grade enrichment is max 10%, Weapons grade enrichment must be 90% plus.

I’m with odo on this, “In years to come when it is realised what damage to progress has been done by people such as Helen, we should adopt the term "Caldicott".

A very dangerous lady.

Firstly...
'Reprocessing (of uranium fuel) provides the strongest link between commercial nuclear power and proliferation.'
- US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards, June 1977.

'If you can enrich Uranium-235 by 10% you can enrich it to higher percentages to make it weapons usable.'
- Former Australian Diplomat and author of 'Fact or Fission? The Truth About Australia's Nuclear Ambitions', Richard Broinowski.

'From the point of view of someone concerned about arms control, is any enrichment facility suspect?'
'Oh, of course'.
- Physicist C. Paul Robinson, former director of Sandia National Laboratories, also led nuclear weapons programs at Los Alamos and served as a U.S. arms control negotiator in the late 1980s. (On Line News Hour,May 27, 2005.)

'Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power.'
- Dr. Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado.

'Any country has the right to master these (nuclear) operations for civilian uses. But in doing so, it also masters the most difficult steps in making a nuclear bomb.'
- Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

'The push to bring back nuclear power as an antidote to global warming is a big problem. If you build more nuclear power plants we have toxic waste at least, bomb making at worse.'
- Former US President Bill Clinton, Sep 2006.

Secondly...
Study shows: Nuclear energy on downward trend worldwide
No. 278/09
Berlin, 27.08.2009
http://www.bmu.de/english/current_press_releases/pm/44840.php

Atom1,

I agree with you that the technology to enrich uranium or reprocess spent fuel can just as easily be used for weapon production, they also happen to be extremely expensive on a small scale.

For example the reactors at Koeburg in Cape town run off fuel rods purchased elsewhere, and have the waste reprocessed in Japan, as trying to do it themselves cost twice as much.

Iran has been offered the light water reactors with the same fuel deal, and have refused insisting on the right in the non proliferation treaty to enrich uranium for fuel. The simple logic that this is hideously more expensive than the Koeburg option is why the world knows that this is for weapons.

In Australia selling yellow cake, instead of fuel rods, they are making proliferation much easier, as it is much more difficult to account for the uranium.

As the present "renewable" electricity generation is unattainably expensive for the developing world, they are simply choosing to ignore any requests to cut back on GHG.

Considering that the developing countries on their own generate 50% of the world's emissions and by 2030 will generate as much as the entire world does presently, reductions in GHG will require more than the rich man's toys they have presently.

SM, I hear what you're saying and glad you agree, re the links with weapons proliferation and the non-accountability of Australian sourced yellowcake to the world market (in which all military facilities remain exempt from UN safefuards which don't guarantee the extremely limited inspections of civil facilities anyway, nor prevent diversion of domestic U reserves).

On the whole, it now seems timely to question:
Where are the 50,000+ rallying in *favour* of nuclear power, while it also faces worldwide decline as existing reactors exceed their designed life span or approach hugely expensive decommissioning?
'Anti-nuclear rally enlivens German campaign'
http://planetark.org/wen/54544

Atom1,

You don't see any pro globalisation rallies either, but it still marches on. The commencement of new reactors would tend to contradict this.

"It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. These included 47 in USA, 42 in France and 18 in Japan. The average power was 923.5 MWe. So it is not hard to imagine a similar number being commissioned in a decade after about 2015. But with China and India getting up to speed with nuclear energy and a world energy demand double the 1980 level in 2015, a realistic estimate of what is possible might be the equivalent of one 1000 MWe unit worldwide every 5 days"

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html

Similarily, the old plants instead of being expensively decommissioned, are being upgraded with newer and bigger reactors.

The point I was trying to make is that with the call to reduce GHG, smaller countries will not be able to afford renewables and will have either the choice of coal or nuclear. Either the west can allow them to go it themselves and enrich the fuel with the obvious proliferation issues or sell them ready fuel and reprocessing.

Women of the world seem determined to lead the way to an unstable and ecologically sterile world. Whether it is global warming scare campaigns or a nuclear war or some new high-tech weapon yet unleashed won't matter. For women are hell-bent on the quest for ATTENTION, $LOVE, the holy grail of EASY STREET, all the children it takes so they don't have to have sex anymore and the enslavement of at least one of their children so they won't be LONELY in their dotage. They find the best weapon of choice is make-up & botox.

This sentiment of selfishness has been captured by polluticians, investors and MEdia as the way to grow economies. The Wall Street goons have only one question for Women:
"How can we make it so you have more children so there's more spending, and more economic growth so we can get back to serious BONUS & pussy times?"

Comes the whip-fast reply: "We have it under control. Just keep building weapons of WAR for you will need them. And aback, we await the smiley winners. For this is evolution and we the women of the world see no reason to change it no-way, till the seas are dead and the rivers run dry. EQUAL RIGHTS know-how!"