Examinator,

All these issues of Corporate responsibility are an obfustication. By playing the companies instead of the issues, and by dredging up anecdotal information on past misdeeds the anti nuke movement is trying to show that the power companies cannot be trusted.

What is forgotten is that corporates will primarily follow self interest, and if the legislation is in place to ensure that being socially responsible is good business, then this will happen.

The political system has put in place such stringent safety regulations that nuclear is probably the safest power generator, with fewer fatalities per kWhr than any other technology even wind.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml

The new GenIII reactors have many "fail safe" features that the present GenI and GenII reactors don't. i.e. in the event of systems failure, the plant will revert to a safe condition without the requirement of intervention.

Without the facts your distrust is emotionally based as is the fear of flying, or of sharks in the sea.

The proposed 0.2c /kWhr tax on nuclear power being proposed, should cover the decommissioning and storage of waste by a central body.

The chapter on waste disposal should clear up most of the myths around storage times required. 1000 years is sufficient for the most active isotopes to decay, and the radiation levels are 0.00001% of what they were coming out of the reactor.

Uranium miners, in the 21st century cannot be trusted. Currently 100,000 litres a day of radioactive tailings solution is leaking from the Ranger mine into Kakadu. Regulations stipulate that the tailings dam lining must endure for 100 years. Huh?

While the National Pollutant Inventory publishes the atmospheric emissions of carbon, heavy metals etc discharged by pollutant companies, radiation emissions from uranium mines are kept confidential. On request of these measurements, one is given the run-around. Why so?

Regulators are incompetent. The ignominious neglect by regulators is documented throughout this nation, no more obvious than the 2007 poisoning of Esperance by a lead company. The Port of Esperance and Magellan mines were charged with criminal negligence - but not the regulators.

As a result of regulatory "enforcement", this decade we saw the largest chemical fire in Australia's history from a hazardous waste plant in Bellevue Perth. The carcinogenic hazardous groundwater plume is now resting in the Helena River, a tributary of the Swan river which is on life support.

The cost of cleaning up the nuclear industry in the UK is now in the vicinity of 80 billion pounds and the cost blowout estimate for the Yucca Mountain repository in the US, $96 billion - up from $53 billion in 2001 and the repository is not in operation. Furthermore, Barrack Obama does not believe the Yucca Mountain is suitable for the disposal of the massive volume of radioactive waste, languishing in sheds around the nation.

"After four years of construction and thousands of recorded defects and deficiencies, the price tag on the reactor in Olkiluoto, Finland, has climbed at least 50 percent:"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html

Nuclear reactors in numerous European countries have been periodically taken off-line or operated at reduced output in recent years because of water shortages driven by climate change, drought and heat waves.

Nuclear utilities have also sought and secured exemptions from operating conditions in order to discharge overheated water. The nuclear industry discharges their contaminated wastewater into oceans, lakes and rivers.

Mass protests in France and elsewhere continue:

http://www.cane.org.za/2008/11/04/nuclear-energy-related/mass-protest-march-against-uranium-one-the-mystery-behind-low-level-radiation/

http://blog.taragana.com/n/jaduguda-residents-object-to-renewal-of-uranium-mining-lease-66237/

Protagoras
I know that in this issue you are very strong.
As wrote in other post most if not all developed countries use the nuclear energy.
The main political parties of the developed world as conservatives, labours, social-democreats, socialists or communists support the nuclear energy.

Today more than 46 countries in our planet use Nuclear energy, some of them and percentage of their total energy.
Belgium 53.8%
France 76.2%
Canada 14.8%
Germany 28.3%
Japan 24.9%
Lithuania 72.9%
Sweden 42.0%
Switzerland 39.2%
United States 19.7%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

I understand that there are few risks but they are many times smaller than the risks of other kind of energy or other kind of industries.

You know, we will use the nuclear energy as all the other countries and we have one more reason to do it as we have plenty minerals.
Instead my friend to scare the people it is better to make specific suggestions how to improve the law and incsrease the safety of the nuclear reactors.
I know you are good in this subjiect and you can be usefull but DO NOT TRY TO SCARE THE PEOPLE, IF WE HAVE TO IGNORE A SMALL MINORITY WE WILL DO IT!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

My dear Ant

I do not scare the people for I am merely the messenger. The information I provide is not a figment of my imagination for I derive that information from other sources.

What would be far more prudent Ant, is for you (and the nuclear industry) to address and acknowledge the information that I and others provide rather than throw the red herrings. If you are able to prove that this information is false or incorrect, then we may be able to have a reasonable debate.

I have been researching this industry since gaining access to the Health Department's inventory for the Mt Walton low-level radioactive waste repository (west of Coolgardie WA) where the inventory advised that they have interred two lots of plutonium at that respository - over two decades ago.

The uranium industry in Australia lacks transparency and integrity - it has to because you cannot mine uranium without catastrophic consequences - insidious as they may be.

You and I are the pawns Ant - you, more than I.

I don't believe you are ignoring a small minority, Antonios. I think you are ignoring all the members of the Human Race who are yet to be born.
I'm hoping that will be a vast majority, aren't you?

Protagorass,

Considering that in the last thread, you never responded to one issue raised by anyone else, and your posts consist of snippets of information out of context and vague and irrational commentry, it is a little rich to try and hold others to standards you continually ignore.

What is amusing about your posts is firstly your lack of technical knowledge, and secondly your failure to read the links that you post.

For example:

The mass protest to which you refer is HR related one by workers retrenched and wanting their jobs back.

I look forward to your future cut and paste research.