Oh by the way; do you all realise that the slag heaps around coal fired
power stations are far more radio active than around nuclear powerstations ?
They are in fact a health hazzard and you are not allowed near them.
Interesting isn't it ?

Good one Bazz,
Did you realise

"that the slag heaps around coal fired power stations are far more radio active than around nuclear powerstations"

simply because there are no 'slag heaps' around nuclear powerstations? Duh!

There are of course persistant reports of radioactive leakages into the groundwater in various parts of France.

Why take the risk when reducing our ridiculous levels of consumption and using renewable resources is not only safer but more cost effective and intelligent?

Because our glorious leaders can't bear the thought of a population released from the shakles of credit card slavery is one obvious answer.

Wayne thinks that everyone who is against the mining, selling and utilisation of uranium and extending it to our own nuclear power plants has to be a greenie and 'tree hugger'.

Well, I am a conservative, both political and personally and I'm still dead against it. At one stage I was weakening and starting to accept the nice-sounding gents from the industry and their "assurances" that nuclear power is clean and green. But I've come to my senses.

Think about the A-bomb. Think about lunatics like Korea's and Iran's leaders. Think about Pakistan and India.

It's all very well to make the claims that Wayne does about that 'no one died from the stuff last year' etc, but I would put to him that that is only because, thankfully, that has been because of realitively low use of the killer mineral.

If the danger of accident, carelessness, and incompetence is not enough, think about growing world instablity and the nutters with access to unranium the instablity has thrown up. Think about the "sick rocks" Australian aboriginals were careful to avoid

"you do yourself and the credibility of your argument a great disservice by branding those opposed to nuclear energy in such a simplistic and hostile manner."

Ecowacky groups have big hearts but nothing much between the ears. Most of the people protesting nuclear energy don't even understand how the technology works.

"is very risky in terms of leakage, waste products, accidents and sabotage…and baseline economics."

Life is not about eliminating all possible risk but balancing it against future gain. Nuclear power is a stepping stone to even greater technologies but only if we take that first step. The great fire of London killed thousands but without fire there would have been no industrial revolution. We are at risk of falling behind the rest of the World and becoming a backward nation. China and India are now leading the way in building new plants.

"Now, if we could guarantee that their would always..."

There are no guarantees in life. The past record of nuclear energy speaks for itself. Not a single fatality in decades. Over a million people die every year due to car accidents. Should we ban cars?

"If enough households generated their own power from rooftop solar,"

You can't force people to put solar panels on their roof tops. The technology is available. Unfortunately its ten times more expensive as an option than going nuclear. What do you think sunshine is anyway? Its radiation from our giant thermonuclear reactor the Sun.

" Nuclear energy is a stupid option because it uses extensive oil energy to build and maintain."

Abundant electricity from nuclear plants would bring down electricity costs. That in turn would make electrolysis of seawater cheaper. Which would make Hydrogen cars competitive against petrol guzzlers.

"second reason has to do with the problem of some countries owning breeder reactors that produce weapons grade plutonium."

That's a security issue. I would argue that its safer recycling the waste here than transporting it all over the World and making it an easier target for terrorists.

Todays third generation designs are safe and reliable. The critics are talking about yesterdays technology.

Happen to see the interview last night on ABC where Sukuki advised of the enormous cost of running nuke power in Canada.

Don't quote third world stats, Wayne. In Australia, 281 coal miners have died since 1902!

You need to access some of Rosalie Bertell's books on nuclear power -particularly "No Immediate Danger". That's the cliche nuke institutions sell the public when there's been a leak or spill! Why? To cover their arses since there is often no immediate danger - some of these cancers can take up to 20 years to develop!

Bertell is an internationally recognised expert on nukes; a member of the catholic grey nuns; is an environmental epidemiologist; has a doctrate in biometry and has warned of this nuclear abomination for decades. I recall she was also an invitee of the Australian government some decades ago on nuclear energy matters.

She claims that the nucleogenic or technogenic abnormalities are increasing unchecked including embryonic, foetal and congenital malformations. She strongly claims that as a result of human passivity, millions of deaths or serious casualties have been inflicted on humans. And she speaks strongly against the military nuclear garbage.

As she states: "Each and every problem we face today is the result of yesterday's brilliant solutions".

You need to think about Howard's claim, Wayne. Ten years before commencing the construction of a nuke power plant? Ten more years before operations commence? And what are we doing for the next 20 years, Wayne? And how will one little ole plant mitigate the problem of fossil fuel pollution?

Be assured, the bureaucratic tossers will continue to fiddle while Rome burns, when they could easily become immediately serious about renewables!

In the meantime,a prototype "fusion" plant is under construction - most details I've forgotten. However, all citizens should research the potential of fusion as a solution, which, if I recall, has none of the lethal radioactive problems of fission. So all proponents of nuke power - are you the luddites? Better get with it. Get with the technology! Sorry about the uranium shares you've invested in!

I have to keep reminding myself that Wayne is not the enemy, nor is he the person we need to convince about the Nuclear Industry's push to control our nation's future power supplies... but Jeez he makes that difficult sometimes!

"Most of the people protesting nuclear energy don't even understand how the technology works..."
Sadly Wayne, neither does John Howard or many of his moronic followers who will believe him whenever he says the Nuclear industry is clean and green ('No Virginia, nuclear power stations never accidentally vent radioactive gases or leak radioactive contaminants into the surrounding groundwater supplies, and if you don't develop cancer within one year of a spill you must be safe for life').

"Nuclear power is a stepping stone to even greater technologies but only if we take that first step..."

'A' potential stepping stone Wayne, not the only one or necessarily the best one when ALL factors are considered, not just the ones favourable to your opinion. (Some 'ecowhacky's' do actually possess mental faculties even superior to your own, bud - sad, but none-the less true).

"Unfortunately its ten times more expensive as an option than going nuclear..."
While I am certain that you would not make such a statement without some kind of published data as proof, just how accurate do you feel that statement would be if successive governments had placed as much public fundng at the disposal of renewable energies such as solar and geothermal instead of towards nuclear generation over the last 5 decades? Just how cheap would electricity be when it costs nothing to supply heat to water to turn a steam turbine? with no appreciable safety factors to overcome?