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.