I suppose these polls proving that the majority of Australians want nuclear energy and naysayers are only a noisy minority would be most useful in this thread.

Australian poll. 47% for nuclear. 40% against.
http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/newspoll.html

More Australians approve (49%) than disapprove (37%) the introduction of nuclear power plants to replace coal, oil and gas power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while 14% can’t say, a special Morgan Poll conducted after Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the Australian uranium industry finds.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4032/

Almost half of Australians have given nuclear power plants the thumbs up as a replacement for coal, oil and gas power plants, a poll shows.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=104053

Australians Consider Nuclear Power Plants
49 per cent of respondents approve of the idea, while 37 per cent disapprove.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12190

Countries with experience of nuclear power plants are even more supportive of this clean green energy source.
Poll backs nuclear increase
74% of respondents: Strong support for additional power plants
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=b054eedc-3164-4d34-9101-5cfc61d95123

Give the people what they want I always say.

"Which functioning reactors use thorium, Wayne? Please explain?"

They are in India Dick.

" The Earth receives in just one/365th of a revolution about the sun OVER THREE TIMES THE ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF THE TOTAL FOSSIL FUEL RESERVES KNOWN ON THIS PLANET!!"

So you want to cover the earth in solar panels which only have a working life of 20 years?

OK That's It - the idiots win this round!

Bazz's unbelieveably witty and intelligent retort has cut me to the quick and i am at a loss for any rejoinder - please rename me someone??

As for Wayne, who i tried to respect for his obviously thorough investigation into the benefits of nuclear energy, ( while completely ignoring the disadvantages or seeming to assume that 'some scientists will fix any problems once they have developed')

His last unbelievably ridiculous extrapolation of a proven fact into something that was nowhere near what even MY fertile imagination was dreaming of shows me clearly that this is a lunatic not to be reckoned with - just completely ignored form now on - so I shall.

Well done morons - the discussion is all yours - enjoy your well deserved victory

"Oh yeah - in case you can't tell (Marge) - I was being SARCASTIC!"

(Well Duuuhhhh!)

If anyone knows of a place where intelligent discussion can be enjoined somewhere else....?

In response to my recurring enquiry:

"Which operating reactors use thorium?"

Wayne replied:

"In India Dick"

In India Wayne? Where in India would that be?

"His last unbelievably ridiculous extrapolation of a proven fact into something that was nowhere near what even MY fertile imagination was dreaming of shows me clearly that this is a lunatic not to be reckoned with - just completely ignored form now on - so I shall."

Oh come come on BrainDrain. Don't be like that. We'll have to change your name to Sooky La La.

A few nasty chemicals are used in manufacturing solar panels and even you would have to agree that experts have already said such technologies can't take up the slack. I'm a realist. Nuclear energy works and the risks are far lower than the fearmongers would have us believe.

Surely there has to be better alternatives than nuclear power?

Whats the problem with the existing system?