The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Uranium Should Be Nationalised For Medical and Pharmeceutical needs only

Uranium Should Be Nationalised For Medical and Pharmeceutical needs only

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Labor is and should be Democratic Socialism not Social Democrat.
Stalinism was not Socialism it was State Capitalism or Nazism it was a Dictatorship from the top. Democratic Socialism is dictatorship from the bottom through committees the tail wagging the dog. The Community should decide, not those placed on a pedestal. Trade Unionism is Democratic Socialism which should be membership driven. The Labor Party should be membership driven whereby motions from committees set out the platform and the manifesto.

Nationalised Industries our Utilities are there to serve the people not for profit but as a service. Utilities such as Electric, Gas, Railways, Minerals, Communications Hospitals, Schools should never be privatised once privatised the country is then on a slippery slope to disaster as there is never any accountabilty when greed and profit overides the needs of the consumer.

Colin Barnet has made a bra snapper, Chair Sniffer his Treasurer when he should have been sacked for intimidation harassment and bullying under the equal opportunity act. Now Colin wants to give leases to the powerful Nuclear Lobby to mine for uranium to the detriment of miners local communities and human life on this planet.

The poweful Nuclear lobby do not tell us about the tailings from mining uranium and the toxic waste and the deaths downwind from uranium mining. This asbestos of today is so toxic it cannot be harnessed once lifted to the surface it becomes a threat to all mankind yet these speculators do not give a damm to the disaster that they intend to create because it is an extremely lucrative business.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Saturday, 20 September 2008 12:48:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whenever i see "should be", i am tempted to ask "how?"

if you can't see an answer to "how", why talk about it?

in my view, the only question worth asking is; "who has the power to act?" once you've figured that out, you can pursue goals within that area covered by your power.

it's a safe guess, that you have no power to affect uranium mining or disposal. not many people do. your choice, if you agree you have no power, is to be silent, or to get power. or you can go on pretending ministers are reading your posts with deep attention.

get power, mate. because uranium is a danger. so is coal. the people who led us here will not, can not lead us back. only the people can effect the radical change in human behavior needed to save the nations of the world from economic disaster, the fruit of greed bred with declining resources, and ecological disaster, the fruit of those misused resources.

labor, and any party, can not save oz. it needs most of the electorate wanting action and willing to support it. this can only be achieved by democracy over the long term, but dictatorship can appear more attractive to a passive and ignorant populace, such as ozzians.

the next 50 years will be the most interesting time since we left the african savanna. the next 10 will probably set the scale of the coming catastrophe. god help young people, they have been betrayed by their elders.
Posted by DEMOS, Saturday, 20 September 2008 1:05:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Demos,

I just love it. On the one hand you seem to believe we are in the termnal stages of death by CO2, on the other you propose forming a comittee consisting of 20 million Australians to sort it out. Are you serious?

BTW, You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that at least half of all Australians are happy for uranium to be mined.

Rule by public opinion is rule by THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. What's more, any progress would stop because on any given day, on issues which are evenly supported, opinion could swing. In that case proponents of true democracy, like yourself, could justifiably say that the issue needs to be re-voted.

BroncoLane,

Stalinism was not even remotely capitalism. You clearly have no idea about the differences between capitalism and socialism.

The USSR had a command economy where the means of production was owned by the workers party (ie the communists). The Party issued 5 year plans where all economic activity was centrally planned. Thats no kind of capitalism that I've ever heard of. Want to try again?


you say >> "This asbestos of today is so toxic it cannot be harnessed once lifted to the surface it becomes a threat to all mankind "

What unadulterated bullsh!t. In nature, uranium atoms exist as uranium-238 (99.284%), uranium-235 (0.711%),[2] and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0058%). Uranium decays slowly by emitting an alpha particle.

U238 is hardly radioactive at all. Uranium is not absorbed through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

Uranium has been mined successfully in Australia at Ranger, Olympic Dam and Beverly. The magnitude of the health problems from those mines is comparable to those seen as a result of any other mining operation. The suggestion that uranium is as toxic as asbestos is pure hyperbole.

Why don't you be honest and admit that you are philosophically opposed to uranium mining because uranium (more specifically enriched uranium) is used in nuclear power and in the production of plutonium for nuclear bombs
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 20 September 2008 6:00:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"BTW, You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that at least half of all Australians are happy for uranium to be mined.”

Tut tut Paul.L. You debate with obfuscation when you fail to mention that 65% of Australians oppose any expansion to uranium mining.

If Wiki is your only source of uranium information, I suggest you return to the drawing board for radioactive materials left behind in the uranium tailings are among the deadliest poisons known to science - radium-226, polonium-210, that was used to poison Litvinenko; radon gas, which remains one of the deadliest cancer-causing agent ever encountered; as well as thorium-230, lead-210, and others.

When uranium ore has lain undisturbed for hundreds of millions of years, then all of the uranium decay products will have exactly the same radioactivity as uranium-238. For example, if a 10-kilogram rock contains 1000 becquerels of uranium (about one gram), it will also contain 1000 becquerels of radium-226, 1000 becquerels of polonium-210, 1000 becquerels of radon, and so on.

The total radioactivity of the rock is 14,000 becquerels, since there are 14 different radioactive substances in the “decay chain.” Once the uranium has been removed the residues still have about 12,000 becquerels of radioactivity left.

To make matters worse, most of the uranium decay products are constantly replenished by the on-going radioactive disintegration of thorium-230, which has a 76,000 year half-life. This means that only half of the atoms of thorium-230 will disintegrate in 76,000 years.

BHP Billiton admitted to losing 3 billion litres of this radioactive water into the ground in 1994.

The Olympic Dam project plunders 35 million litres per day from our Great Artesian Basin – free of charge for the next 70 years. The proposed expansion of Olympic Dam will see a further increase in water usage.

contd.....
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 20 September 2008 11:41:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And if you think the industry is competent, think again. In 2004, ERA, the owners of the Beverley uranium mine, were fined $150,000 for contaminating 159 workers (many became ill) who drank and bathed in water 400 times in excess of the “legal” limit.

The Yeelirrie uranium mine in WA was abandoned by WMC and left in an appalling state, exposing wildlife and humans to radioactive substances:

http://www.sea-us.org.au/no-way/yeelirrie.html

And I share Bronco Lane’s concerns. Colin Barnett will open up WA to uranium mining and a significant number of tenement holders are salivating over the proposed green light:

http://www.uic.com.au/pmine.htm

This month, former Labor Minister, John Bowler, who was sacked for leaking cabinet documents to Julian Grill, has been returned to parliament by the Goldfields’ people who seemingly approve of liars and cheats.

Bowler actively promotes uranium mining and as Demos indicates, the sheeple will now get what they deserve. Leaking cabinet documents in some countries incurs at the very least, a gaol sentence!

And lobbyists Burke (ex-con) and Grill would have been delighted to learn of their colleague's return to parliament!
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 20 September 2008 11:57:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I recommend this thread, to every one who questions why we have left and right in Aussie ,indeed world politics.
I a lifetime ALP activist.
A trade unionist for every day I live.
Have no true part to play in such a thread.
I am not that left as some who post here.
And never as right as others.
Yet I am in my view much closer to most Australians.
Fact is we will continue to sell uranium.
And it will both give power and be used in weapons like it or not.
Insane or not.
We in time will use it to create our own power like it or not.
And if we said no, we are not ever going to sell it, use it, nothing others who wanted it would take it from us.
In truth, regarding the dreams of my youth Socialism.
Even with the current melt down, the greed of capitalism, the unpaid for crime of Wall street, can anyone believe the world can bury greed and embrace Socialism?
We in part in this country, a constantly shrinking part, are Socially aware and in part Socialistic in our outlook to health, welfare education and much more.
One day we must find a new word to explain that old dream, communism dragged the word Socialism into dark places.
But some reality must take place mans self interest will win every time.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 21 September 2008 7:17:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh, such kind and considerate people on OLO! Bronco and Dickie
for instance, want to be able to switch on their computers at will,
to chat on OLO, as we burn coal to satisfy their cravings, yet
want to deny others on the planet the possibility to do the same,
without burning coal.

What a bunch of hypocrites!
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 21 September 2008 2:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"What a bunch of hypocrites!"

Welcome to Yabby, the representative for the industry the United Nations declared is one of the highest polluters in the world, causing the most serious environmental problems on the planet. An industry which is responsible for 70% of all emissions of nitrous oxides and more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined - and that's just for starters!

What a hypocrite!

Kakadu National Park is one of the larger national parks in the world, under world heritage and consisting of four major river systems and various landforms. It is the breeding habitat of the endangered saltwater crocodile and the pig-nosed turtle. Its flora is very diverse and includes 46 rare or threatened species.

"In 2003, the World Heritage Committee expressed its concern about new leaks of contaminated water at the Ranger uranium mine and the Jabiluka mineral lease adjacent to Kakadu National Park.

"The Committee is also concerned about reported shortcomings in the regulatory reporting procedures at both mine sites and deficiencies in the management of ore stockpiles at the Ranger mine which reduce public confidence, in the management and monitoring of the two sites."

Ranger has so far, produced over 30 million tonnes of radioactive tailings, and there have been more than 120 documented leaks, spills and licence breaches at the mine in Kakadu National Park since the mine opened. The incidents have got more severe as the infrastructure has aged.

And so, despite the overwhelming evidence - the gross inefficiencies, abuses and cover-ups in the industry, the people of Western Australia have expressed support for Mr Barnett's delusional fantasies of wealth and power from the mining of uranium.

And the truth will remain irrelevant! So let them eat cake!
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 21 September 2008 9:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry yabby but like me you properly already think you should not have said that.
Dickie however is showing the reasons threads about animal welfare and like this one are doomed to end in verbal warfare.
SOME please Lady's not every female, resort to getting of subject to have the last word.
I thought the threat was about uranium and Socialism.
Maybe it is about green vs the rest?
In any case I am sure I set myself up for a verbal kicking in saying it but review such threads.
Truly take the blinkers off.
We rarely take into account our posts surely are meant to bring others to our side of the debate, not to lecture on why we are right and every one else wrong.
How many truly tell me are more concerned about that turtle or is it tortoise?
When it comes down to it self interest has always driven man and it always will.
If it comes down to power or a turtle who do you think will win?
Having the last word in such threads is no win.
Sometimes the room is empty, the question is can we debate issues with an understanding others have different views?
And just maybe they are right?
Posted by Belly, Monday, 22 September 2008 6:06:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, nope, I never regret what I type, or I would not write it
in the first place. Perhaps you noticed the smiley, it was not
nasty, like many of the insults that Dickie throws around OLO.

But back to the point. The fact is that the genie is out of the
bottle, people in this world want electricity to function, that
includes the Dickie's of this world. If all those nuclear power
plants in Europe etc, switched back to coal and oil, things would
be far worse. Fact is they tick over day by day, providing energy
for our modern world, which exists, like it or not.

If a company is not mining uranium to satisfactory standards, well
States have huge powers to ensure that they get their house in
order. Mine sites these days have to comply with enormous amounts
of regulation. Every industry has its problems, even the religious
industry.

I note that BHP would have been quite happy to send their ore
offshore for further processing, but the SA Govt insists that it
is done here in Australia, at enormous expense.

Of course people are driven by self interest. That is human nature.
Even the Dickie's of this world are driven by self interest, thats
why they had children
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 22 September 2008 1:53:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronco Lane

You may know that the German wind energy industry has developed into an enormous economic factor, with a 5.64 billion euro turnover in 2006 and more than 73,800 people employed in the sector.

Services provided by German manufacturers of wind turbines include planning, construction, equipment, systems engineering, plant supervision, finance packages and training.

Exports are already playing a very important and ever-increasing role in the German wind industry. The export rate lies at 71 percent and the revenue from foreign business amounts to nearly 3.5 billion euros.

One reason for the increasing international demand for wind turbines is their increasing cost-efficiency. The costs for this eco-friendly method of energy generation have more than halved since the beginning of the 90s.”

And "Spain’s wind-power sector has continued its dramatic growth. Installed capacity in the country doubled in only three years, from 2003 to 2006, and is expected to double again by 2010. Spanish companies rank in the world’s top 10 among both wind-farm operators and turbine manufacturers."

http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/index.aspx

However, in the UK, the estimated cost of decommissioning the UK's 19 ageing nuclear power plants is now in excess of $145 billion, almost a third higher than five years ago, according to a parliamentary watchdog.

Protests over uranium continue around the globe – Canada, India, Africa US, South America, Japan etc . In previous years, from northern China, came the voice of Sun Xiaodi, a whistleblower who has exposed massive unregulated uranium contamination. Xiaodi is now under house arrest in Gansu Province after he was "disappeared" and imprisoned in 2004-2005.

I see in the near future common sense prevailing. Tidal, solar, windpower - elements which do not require digging up. These forms of energy can be supplemented by gas for the interim periods.

Mother Nature buried uranium for good reason. She did not anticipate humans plundering and pillaging her contaminated and lethal waste repositories!

If anyone here can decode the off-topic, primitive hieroglyphics raised by Yabby and his rent boy, I would be grateful if you could help me out. Many thanks!
Posted by dickie, Monday, 22 September 2008 9:48:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That will do me Dickie.
Rent boy how quick you are to insult.
And to over value your own thoughts
While undermining others.
You are trying to head in directions Bronco Lane never intended the thread to go.
He truly believes in radical Socialism.
And maybe you too think uranium is ok buried in the ground as it is by your so called mother nature.
[Do you truly think she is a living breathing, thinking thing?]
But not buried again by man?
The fact is uranium is like coal at natural product.
Now some of the very best posters here are women, my view the top ten are mostly female.
But some of the worst are too.
That feminine switching the subject or even throwing insults is clearly on display often.
Our hot dry country will use many forms of power, wind tidal yes nuclear but surely it is clear if we stop selling coal, and only sell uranium for others to use we are going to be left behind?
Yabby you waste your time, any one having opinions not shared by a few you constantly debate can never win.
Ask mum nature that all knowing all seeing girl.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 5:50:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly

The title of this thread is:

"Uranium Should Be Nationalised For Medical and Pharmeceutical needs only"

An excerpt from Bronco Lane's thread states:

"Now Colin wants to give leases to the powerful Nuclear Lobby to mine for uranium to the detriment of miners local communities and human life on this planet."

I am merely expressing my support for those assertions and look forward to other reasoned opinions. Alas you're too ignorant to do likewise and remain off-topic. You are too ill-informed to debate or offer advice therefore you instigate ad homs to attack your opponents, so sod off.

You sycophantically trail after Yabby and you are both here to create mischief. Both motivated by self-interest and greed.

You are the type of ignorant unionist the unions don't need.

You are typical of the unionists who remained impotent when witnessing workers dying of mesothelioma - remaining silent whilst I witnessed a family member die a painful death from silicosis and the obese union rep. sat on his backside smoking cigars whilst his members were dropping!

I have official mine documents from the 50s and 60s, raised by mine inspectors denouncing the appalling conditions which the underground workers were subjected to yet the dangerous conditions continued and miners were used as cannon fodder.

Now you criticise me for raising the scientifically proven and documented health and environmental impacts of uranium mining.

I would be delighted if someone could prove me wrong.

I have learnt much from other posters for which I am grateful. I trust that they may learn a little from my posts too.

As for your mumbo jumbo - well try Hyde Park. There may be a few drop kicks down there or a few of your own turncoats echoing your stupefying irrelevant swill!
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 10:17:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie,

There is a practical limit to the amount of wind power able to be integrated into an electricity grid. Have a look at this article from the IEEE, who are the international electrical engineers institute. The problems of the significant variability of wind speed causes significant problems to electricity grids which are not thoroughly integrated.

“Because wind is an intermittent resource, providing power only when it blows, the grid has to be able to cope with fluctuations and dips in electricity. When wind accounted for only a small percentage of the country’s power, such dips made little difference. But as this resource achieved greater prominence, split-second losses of power could have caused problems, especially since Spain doesn’t have strong grid connections with neighboring countries” . http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/6/29742/01353791.pdf.

There will always be a need for stable BASE LOAD power which cannot be supplied by ANY of the current renewables. If you are truly serious about reducing CO2 production, then nuclear power is the way to go.

My understanding of nuclear plant decommissioning is that the cost is accounted for at the time of building and is incorporated into the total cost of building the plant. The decommissioning costs, as well as waste storage, ARE taken into account when electricity costing is done on nuclear power.

See the malfunction of 81 danish wind turbines offshore which had to be brought back to shore and replaced. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/6/29742/01353791.pdf.

You say >> “Mother Nature buried uranium for good reason.!”

What are you? A luddite? By that ridiculous reasoning we shouldn’t fly planes either, becaue if “mother nature” had intended us to fly she would have given us wings.

You say >> Protests over uranium continue around the globe”

SO? All that proves is that there are idiots everywhere, hardly a discovery.

You say >> “elements which do not require digging up”

Are you serious? I suggest that Yabby was close to the mark when he identified your hypocricy. How do you think you are going to be able to build wind stations without “digging up” things to turn into metal to build the machinery?
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 10:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie as you do so often you have bought the debate into the gutter, proving my point .
You may think as you wish, my increasing membership and the most valuable thing a unionist can ever have, his members trust, prove you wrong.
Unions are not all from the extreme left.
They must confront, so too must you, member ship is not either.
Your thoughts are extreme, yes shared by many but never the majority.
Bronco and I have locked horns before we will again yet we both appear to be from that large group who put Labor in office.
I am no fan of the ideas expressed by PaulL none of them.
But in time to come this country will use nuclear power as about 30 others already do or plan to.
Increasingly people are weary of some truly extreme views about what we should and should not do in conservation areas.
Humans are the threat not uranium.
Dickie I am constantly targeting the actions of people like your fat unionist, in fact if you are thinking of the same fool I am he is a grub.
But do you ever think some views expressed by those on your side do more harm than good?
Do you ever weigh your own comments and ask did that help my side?
I do often, and sometimes have to say I got it wrong.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 4:25:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*What are you? A luddite? *

Paul L, I think you will find that Dickie follows a touchy, feely,
make it up as you go along philosophy, which has little to do with
the rational. "The Karma will get you" etc, like a new age religion.

Fact is that with 6.5 billion people, heading for 9 billion, we live
in an industrial society as hunter gathering for a living is just
not possible anymore.

Wind power is great, but any serious analyst will note that in the
future it will be a number of energy sources that we will rely on,
not just one. Nuclear will be one of them, but as with anything,
caution and sensibility are required and mistakes will happen.

Interesting that in WA, when they tried to build power generating
windmills in Denmark WA, a whole pile of Greenies screamed blue murder,
it was about NIMBY. Build them in other peoples backyards, not
where we can hear them or see them.

So it comes back to the core issue. If Dickie and other feelgood
posters demand electricity when they power up their computers to
log in to OLO, why do they want to deny other people, in other parts
of the world, the same right as the one that they take for granted?
Hypocrites for sure.

Belly, best to just not take Dickie and her abusive style, too seriously.

One minute she complains about ad hominems, next minute she is
abusing posters. Quite irrational. Perhaps she needs a bit more
meat in her diet, in order to think a bit more clearly :)

She adds a bit of colour to OLO. There are not so many 50 kg
lightweight grandmas on here, threatening to go around kicking
people in the groin :) Wether anyone should actually take her
seriously, is of course another matter. I certaintly don't.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 23 September 2008 9:35:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The brotherhood of buffoons have entered this thread to invert the truth suitably dosed up by obfuscations and well done to Paul.L who cannot resist flaming. Remember Paul.L it is you (not I) who, like the other nitwit, Yabby, has cast the first blow on this thread: “What are you? A luddite?”

Now what was Yabby’s first ad hom here? “A greedy selfish bitch” or similar. Strange that it’s now vanished from the thread eh Yabby? So then you state: “best to just not take Dickie and her abusive style, too seriously.” Well no-one takes you seriously Yabby.

Then Paul.L asserts: “There is a practical limit to the amount of wind power able to be integrated into an electricity grid.” Agreed, however wasn’t it you who manipulated my information in another thread when I advised that depleted uranium was used in Afghanistan? And didn’t you get nasty, twisting and distorting the facts? How your credibility dimishes:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm

I suggest before your next ad homs you bring yourself up to date with windpower. Granted the supply is so far inadequate but I have already touched on the potential for gas supplementing supply whilst technology is improving. Now there is a design for a two powered system into one combined system, a hybrid wind and solar technology to guarantee that the power is sufficiently charged in the solar battery everyday.

On sunny days without wind energy, the solar panel charges the battery. The other way round, if some days there is wind energy but without the sunlight, the wind turbine can charge the power to the battery. On days where both wind & solar energy is sufficient, both can charge the battery. In the evenings, the wind turbine can continue to work to supply power to the system – state of the art for the near future Paul.L though I doubt you would want the public to know how advanced solar and wind are becoming.

As for your penchant for nuclear power – big deal. 439 reactors (many aging and faulty) scattered around the planet producing 16% of the world’s energy needs.
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 12:03:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L you claim: “My understanding of nuclear plant decommissioning is that the cost is accounted for at the time of building and is incorporated into the total cost of building the plant.” Well think again dear boy. The UK has a monster on its hands:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article3695001.ece

“What are you? A luddite? By that ridiculous reasoning we shouldn’t fly planes either, becaue (sic) if “mother nature” had intended us to fly she would have given us wings.”

You like the other shadowy figures who support the nuclear industry refuse to acknowledge that uranium is a fossil fuel – non-renewable!

In case you've not noticed, we are in crisis mode over climate change. And why is that Paul.L? It's a result of digging up and/or drilling to extract fossil fuels which has now seen this century emit over 20 times more CO2 than any other century prior to the industrial revolution in the last 650,000 years! That happens to be scientific!

Back to the matter of windpower where Grant Taresch, general manager and co-owner of Elgo Estate in Victoria's Strathbogie Ranges, moved to sustainable practices.

Six years ago he decided he wanted to generate wind power on the farm. It was no easy task and he met resistance and red tape at all levels of government. But in January last year, his dream came became reality.

The 150kw wind turbine started generating power and now supplies 1000kW daily, twice as much as the business uses. The excess, enough to power 34 homes now goes into the grid.

Paul.L, there are basic manuals on environmental toxicology. They're great for dummies. Get it? Share it with the conceited and perverse Yabby – it's particularly good for fossil fools on the environmental and health impacts of mining uranium!

And following is a bit more trivia for you to peruse on Olympic Dam's precarious non-renewable uranium project:

Scumbags like yourself will continue to peddle pernicious and deceitful falsehoods over the indisputable science on radioactive substances and continue to obfuscate the facts by claiming that the documented evidence is simply MY "opinion" - stoopid dumkoph!

http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1323
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 1:17:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Strange that it’s now vanished from the thread eh Yabby?*

Not strange at all Dickie dear. No doubt one of the humourless
PC correct sisterhood, complained to the overworked moderators.
I use no language that is not commonly used in the Australian
press. Clearly your constant insults are fine by the sisterhood, their bias does not go unnoticed.

*enough to power 34 homes now goes into the grid.*

Wow, 34 homes heh? When it can be shown to be done economically
for millions of homes, then we have progress. Right now, most
people don't even bother to spend a few bucks on solar water
heating, which has been around for 30 years or longer and is
why alot of that coal is burnt. I at least practise what I preach.
I've had solar water heating for over 25 years now.

Gas is fine in WA, but not a global solution, there is not enough
of the stuff. Secondly gas needs a backup, as we saw in WA, when
the State nearly came to a halt, due to a single burst pipe. Again,
my point is, the future involves lots of energy sources, including
nuclear.

*producing 16% of the world’s energy needs.*

16% of global needs is not to be sneezed at, unlike your
34 houses :) All very quaint, but we'll take more notice, when
there are some real results happening globally. Until then,
best not to talk of shutting industries down, until better ones
are in place. You still rely on coal to log onto OLO. Don't
be so selfish to deny others the right to do the same, using
nuclear, where that is a working option, as in much of Europe.
For that they need our uranium ore.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 11:50:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie,

If you would like to pretend that my suggestion that you must be a luddite for suggesting that we shouldn’t mine anything, is flaming, then you are in for an awful lot of pain on this and many other sites. By the way, your propensity to flame has not gone unnoticed.

You say >> “The Brotherhood of buffoons”

Well dickie I must say. Coming from the group of absolute idiots who are insisting upon turning the Sarah Palin debate into a childish slanging match I really won’t take this too much to heart. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7864#124136
As far as credibility goes, anyone who is anti-mining HAS VERY LITTLE to start with.

Then when you say things like >> “See Rougie Red Lips, That's what you get for playing with pigstails., Poor Porkabell - got a sore bottom sweetie? Swine! Now Rougie's got the porcine plague. Thart'll larn 'im!”

It kind of kills whats left.

So what do we have left? You agree that there is a limit to the amount of wind power that can be integrated into the grid.

Then you say >> “I suggest before your next ad homs you bring yourself up to date with windpower.”

Well I’d suggest you get up to date with electricity networks and how they function. Did you even read the article I posted regarding Denmarks problems with wind power?

You say >> “Now there is a design for a two powered system into one combined system, a hybrid wind and solar technology to guarantee that the power is sufficiently charged in the solar battery everyday.”

But dickie you cannot use batteries for much besides very small current DC devices. Certainly batteries cannot be used for anything which needs more than a modicum of power. Even a single household could NOT be powered economically from batteries. For starters you would need massive batteries and many of them, also you would need an inverter because all of the electrical devices in our homes use AC power. Do you even know the difference between ac and dc power?
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 12:47:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont,

You say >>” I have already touched on the potential for gas supplementing supply whilst technology is improving.”

But gas is a non renewable dickie, that’s one of your arguments against using Uranium. Never mind that there could easily be thousands of years worth of uranium when used in modern nuclear reactors.

You say >> “You like the other shadowy figures who support the nuclear industry refuse to acknowledge that uranium is a fossil fuel..."

Gas is a fossil fuel, that is, hydrocarbons found within the top layer of the Earth’s crust. Uranium is NOT a fossil fuel. Moron.

"Shadowy figure"? I love it, international man of mystery. Actually dickie I’m an engineer, an electrical engineer, and anyone who actually has a clue about nuclear power generally recognizes its benefits in reducing CO2 emissions.

I really don’t know what relevance the “international criminal tribunal for Afghanistan” has to this debate. In fact is has virtually no relevance at all, anytime. Just because a bunch of idiots got together to make a case against Bush doesn’t make it true, or relevant.

you say >> “ we are in crisis mode … It's a result of digging up and/or drilling to extract fossil fuels”

I see, so you're against mining fossil fuels, is that right?

Oh, not all fossil fuels, because apparently Gas is OK for the moment.

Oh hang on you’re also against mining uranium as well.

So did you work out if its OK to dig up metals? Besides uranium of course, which is also a metal?

Airhead.
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 12:51:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congratulations Paul.L. An "electrical engineer" eh? Do we award you a five star Hoppy badge for being the only electrical engineer who bludges his way through the day motor-mouthing on a forum? You could be second largest M/M only to Yabby – who runs a "flourishing" business too. Or are you home waiting for the phone to ring - or free-loading on your boss's computer?

“and anyone who actually has a clue about nuclear power generally recognizes its benefits in reducing CO2 emissions."

“Benefits:”

Olympic Dam 2007: CO 390,000kgs, SO2 1,300,000, VOCs 81,000, PAHs, 37,000 etc etc.

Tailings dams

Spent fuel rods; wastes from reactors that produce plutonium and tritium for nuclear weapons.

High-Level Radioactive Waste

Must be stored for about 240,000

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Low-level waste gives off small amounts of ionizing radiation; must be stored for 100-500 years before decaying to levels that don't pose an unacceptable risk to public health and safety

1940-1970: low-level waste was put into drums and dumped into the oceans. This is still done by UK and Pakistan

Since 1970, waste is buried in commercial, government-run landfills.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission had estimated a 15-45% chance of a complete core meltdown at a US reactor during the next 20 years.

US National Academy of Sciences estimates that US nuclear power plants cause 6000 premature deaths and 3700 serious genetic defects each year and the “the smallest dose has the potential to cause an increase in risk to humans”.

As for your swill on nuclear there are few Westernised countries who have any new plants under construction - Canada and Japan 2, France 1, Finland 1. Wow! The people have spoken!

Gas is the cleanest of all fossil fuels and is superior to coal for an interim period. An electrical engineer and you didn’t know that? Ahem!

http://www.nfcrc.uci.edu/EnergyTutorial/fossilfuels.html

And if you can't get it, here’s another:

http://www.articlealley.com/article_242489_15.html

“Did you even read the article I posted regarding Denmarks problems with wind power?” Obsolete propaganda from a vapid simpleton - just like the rest of your trash:

http://www.energistyrelsen.dk/sw14294.asp

Batteries and inverters - renewable energy:

http://www.csiro.au/news/SmarterEnergyStorage.html
http://www.busjrnl.com/article/20071112/BUSINESSJOURNAL/71109025/1219
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 10:25:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh, Dickie is clearly finding the plain questions too hard to
answer, so best to try and bog em down with the google bar diversion.
5 websites of reading in one post, that should divert em for a while.

Sorry Dickie, it won't work. Now back to the question. Why should
other people not have access to electricity, as you claim for
yourself, when you hook into the WA coal burning power grid?

Yes, some countries have decided on the nuclear power option. That
is their decision, not your decision. Selling them uranium ore
mined in Australia, makes perfect sense.

*Yabby – who runs a "flourishing" business too.*

Yabby certainly does and its not agriculture, which is where it
lands up being spent, for that is my hobby. The thing is, of
the 90 billion $ in social security pensions paid by us taxpayers,
unlike yourself, I don't receive a single cent. You of course
are free to frolic around the old peoples home, at taxpayers
expense! So don't preach to me about what I do with my time and
why.

Back to gas. As we saw in WA, relying on the stuff is a danger to
the economy, so coal is what we burn, with gas as just one limited
option in a field of energy sources. Gas is not the solution,
its just one small solution. Many countries don't have gas as
we do, in WA. So for them to use nuclear power, makes perfect sense.

* Wow! The people have spoken!*

They certainly have! They demand to be able to switch on their
computers and have 24/7 access to electricity, just as you do.
They are also not prepared to pay three times as much as they pay now,
for it. So Govts do what is cost effective.

If you have all the answers to do just that, there is plenty of
venture capital out there, waiting to be invested. But you need
sound evidence to back up your claims, not just dreamer stuff.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 24 September 2008 11:23:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fallacy 1:

“ as you claim for yourself, when you hook into the WA coal burning power grid?”

Fact: I am a green-power customer purchasing accredited renewable energy

Fallacy 2:

“I don't receive a single cent. You of course
are free to frolic around the old peoples home, at taxpayers
expense! “

Fact: I do not live in an old people’s home. I'm not the recipient of a social security benefit, nor have I ever been. You and your unethical and immoral industry are subsidised by the taxpayer!

Fallacy 3:

“Back to gas. As we saw in WA, relying on the stuff is a danger to the economy, so coal is what we burn, with gas as just one limited option in a field of energy sources. Gas is not the solution,its just one small solution.”

Fact: Western Australian sedimentary basins currently hold more than 80% of Australia’s discovered natural gas resources.

The number of developed and producing gas fields has almost doubled over the past decade. Between 2010 and 2020, condensate production from gas condensate fields will play a key role in maintaining WA’s liquid hydrocarbon production in the future.

The forecast decline in gas condensate production is much slower than the decline in oil production. Future gas production is committed to upcoming LNG projects. Australia is strategically located to supply LNG throughout the Asia Pacific region with LNG exports playing an increasingly important role in the Western Australian energy scene.

Outside North America, the Australia/New Zealand region is projected to see the most rapid expansion of natural gas production among all the world regions.

Natural gas is a major world energy source, currently accounting for 25% of the world’s primary energy needs. Australia’s gas reserves are predicted to last for 100 years.

Fallacy 4:

“questions too hard to answer, so best to try and bog em down with the google bar diversion.5 websites of reading in one post, that should divert em for a while.”

Fact: Ethical posters support their claims by providing documented evidence. Liars such as Yabby cannot!

Yabby is a duplicitous, gossiping toad!
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 25 September 2008 1:09:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well yabby you got that right.
Not taking Dickie too seriously.
But insults are top notch you have to admit that.
Rent boy remember that?
Aimed at me it seemed to come from an episode of a police story the night before.
Implying I/ the rent boy was a homosexual who rented out his body.
No running to GY no complains.
Not worth the effort but pure evidence these threads are not about discussing the planets health but insults.
Just count the insults aimed at each of us.
How could anyone take Dickie seriously?
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 25 September 2008 5:49:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly

In your first post you advised: "Have no true part to play in such a thread."

True and we are agreed on that but you are still here ranting on about everything except the topic. Historically in other threads where you trail around after neo-con, Yabby, you bombard us with your unmitigated swill. And typical of your boasts you also state:

"A trade unionist for every day I live." Ah yes, a union rep bludging on a debate forum during working hours. Well why don't you get back to work? My Pop, a union man, would turn in his grave to see your calibre representing his union.

Says Belly: "One day we must find a new word to explain that old dream." I say, "Take your hand off it Belly." Union membership is down to a miserable 13% in the private sector workers.

Your largest union SDA actually help to maintain the low levels of pay and poor conditions in fast food and retail - the "Bosses' Union" it's called.

Not only are they pro capitalist but they are extremely socially conservative - influential in maintaining the Labor Party’s right wing policies and are opposed to abortion rights for women and to rights for same sex couples.

So whilst the kids are working their butts off in Kentucky Chuck, a Union representative is bludging around debate forums throwing in indecipherable red herrings to distract those who may be interested in hard documented facts.

As is typical in most of his 2,547 posts, capitalist and head pimp, Yabby has succeeded in corrupting yet another thread, backed by a fawning self-seeking rent boy.

Fakes, fraudsters and figwits!

Over and out!
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 25 September 2008 11:27:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The present capitalist system of exploiting minerals is for the risk taker / entrepreneur to pay a licencing fee and possibly a royalty.

What “Democratic Socialism “ (which is an oxymoron) would like is for the taxpayer to be to risk taker and some here-today-gone-tomorrow politician to be the entrepreneur.

Having seen the mess and incompetence which government nationalized industry manage to get themselves into in the past, the last thing I would wish to see is the taxpayers of this country stuck with the largesse and losses of the expanded government spending programmes needed to implement uranium production, with no detailed programme of future revenue to support them.

If and when a private entrepreneur sees the opportunity to engage in uranium mining, he can go and satisfy his investors of the risk, raise capital and purchase the necessary licences (which will benefit the government/community) and then pay the royalties as negotiated/agreed.

That way tax payers do not get stuck with the abysmally poor negotiated outcomes, the products of compromises made by politicians, like the Victorian taxpayers did for $3 billion of Tri-Continental banking losses.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 25 September 2008 11:53:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Fact: I am a green-power customer purchasing accredited renewable energy*

Which means Dickie, that you get your power from exactly the same
coal based energy grid as the rest of us do. No coal means no
electicity for Dickie, its as simple as that. You of course free
to take the feelgood option and pay extra, which does not change
the fact that you still rely on coal for your electricity.

*Fact: Western Australian sedimentary basins currently hold more than 80% of Australia’s discovered natural gas resources. *

Yes we have alot of gas, although CSG from the coalfields will
probably change the 80% figure. That is not the point. The point
is that with all that gas, one little pipe ruptured on Varanus island
and the State nearly came to a halt. Coal kept things going. If
that same pipe had been over at Woodside, it could well have shut
the State down. Gas in a gas field is a long way from electricity
in your home. The first thing they did when Apache developed a
problem, was bring coal fired power stations out of mothballs,
to try and somehow keep the wheels on the electricity cart.

*I'm not the recipient of a social security benefit*

Ah Dickie, so no seniors card, with a price discount on everything?
No lower tax for retirees? Don't tell me fibs.

*Ethical posters support their claims by providing documented evidence.*

Documented evidence Dickie? You mean if somebody published it
on a webpage, then it must be true? How gullible are you?
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 25 September 2008 12:46:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col:

"That way tax payers do not get stuck with the abysmally poor negotiated outcomes, the products of compromises made by politicians, like the Victorian taxpayers did for $3 billion of Tri-Continental banking losses."

Col, you didn't have to go back to the 80's for an example of abysmal fiscal management; how about the $700 billion being handed over by USA taxpayers for the Wall Street bail-out? Or closer to home in 2000, when the Howard capitalist-conservative government bailed his brother's company National Textiles with taxpayer's money?

Back on topic, I see no problem mining small quantities of Uranium for Medical requirements. It is when we sell huge quantities to any other country we no longer have control over its final use and destination.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 25 September 2008 12:58:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie having noted you nasty spite filled posts for a long time I am still baffled.
You seem to have had, or some one did on your behalf a post removed.
Yet it did not truly insult any one as bad as you do.
2 Fridays ago, I was involved in a car smash.
I have been working short hours ever since.
I was told to take compo but wanted to not let my members down.
See Dickie my members are my mates.
Your insults are deep and meant to hurt, but not worth the trouble rebutting.
You take the thread shake it and head of in other directions, then blame others for doing it.
I will never take the trouble to talk to you again.
But you may not believe me, whatever ails you, brings you to insult so needlessly, to express so much rage, anger and pain, may you find a cure for it.
In this one thread you poor thing you have called me just about every thing, and been wrong every time.
Look into the mirror Dickie some one you know needs help.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 25 September 2008 6:24:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I will never take the trouble to talk to you again.
But you may not believe me, whatever ails you, brings you to insult so needlessly, to express so much rage, anger and pain, may you find a cure for it.
In this one thread you poor thing you have called me just about every thing, and been wrong every time.
Look into the mirror Dickie some one you know needs help."

Sounds a bit wimpy to me, Belly.

From my vantage point, Dickie is only ever giving as good as she gets. In my view, she not only outsmarts you and Yabby when it comes to insults, but also with the content of her argument. I agree totally with her well-argued position on uranium. It should be left in the ground.
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 26 September 2008 12:50:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn while I have no need to answer you I will this once.
Dickie is no saint, take this challenge , review her post history all of it.
You are in a minority , uranium powers 30 power stations just in England and will in time do so here.
Wimpy? not a chance.
I am unconcerned at your support for Dickie but truly worried that you can not see she does need some in sight into why she in one thread used such insults.
Amused even laughing at the thought if I used those insults rent boy? if I inferred Dickie did such a thing,
Well there is the difference I never would
I leave the thread and Dickie's company not as a wimp.
But as an Aussie bloke who does not need to have the last word, something Dickie has to do.
Take the challenge click on Dickie's post history see her out of control and know she needs help.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 26 September 2008 5:46:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle “Col, you didn't have to go back to the 80's for an example of abysmal fiscal management; how about the $700 billion being handed over by USA taxpayers for the Wall Street bail-out?”

Well that is not signed off, as yet and I notice Obama is up there enjoying a tea (or more like coffee) at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

However, if you want my take on it I suggest you read my post

Thread “terrorism and wallstreet” Tuesday, 23 September 2008 1:42:53 PM
Quote “My personal view on the financial problems is I would let the market sort itself out.”

I would further note, the US Democrats seem to be champing at the bit to fund this escapade, the US Republicans are opposing the bail out.

As for JW Howards Brother, I am not sure what audit processes applied but he would not have been given money, anymore than Keating’s pig farming friends.

The real issue of the Tricontinental disaster and the subsequent fire sale of the State Bank to the Commonwealth Bank, all overseen by fat, ugly Kirner and the hapless “Jolly” (what a tosser he was, stumping up to pledge the state behind the Pyramid, 2 days before it collapsed and then the Kirner Cow sticking a petrol levy on to the private motorists to pay for it),
it cost Victorians $1,000 per head immediately in loss of State Assets in Tricontinental and further increased interest because the down grading of the States Credit Rating.
Fortunately Jeff Kennett kicked the swill out and put Victoria back on track.

Now do you want to get back on topic… or would you like to try and take another swipe (he said, baseball bat ready)?

Belly, dickie is, on an emotional and intellectual scale, an ameoba.

She is obsessed by truffle hunting omnivores and thinks I am a spokeman for cartels, although, despite being repeatedly challenged, has never ever been able to quote a statement of mine to support her contention
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 26 September 2008 8:50:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy