I wonder how long it takes for the pain of an empty belly, [sorry mate] to over come the warm fuzzy feeling?

Pelican,

You don't even try and tell the truth:

"Even advocates of nuclear understand the finite resource of uranium would mean only (9-30 years depending on who you believe) of power (excluding the even more difficult extraction from less concentrated ore veins which requires vast amounts of fossil fuels)."

Is a bald faced lie, and you know it. The cost of raw uranium in the production of power is a fraction of a percent, and with reprocessing there is enough uranium for centuries even thousands of years. With Thorium, there is enough for hundreds of times that.

The greenie rags will find some idiot that produced a paper that suits their views, and then they will take it as gospel, and expand on it. This is a prime example.

And the personal invective continues in the face of a losing argument.

I doubt you are a nuclear scientist. Nor am I. However, I have read extensively on this subject due to a strong interest in this debate and in keeping Australia Nuclear Free.

Again, accusing somebody to be a liar just because they disagree with your POV is a low act IMO and just puts your own position in a poor light. This is just cowardice.

I have nothing to gain from 'lying' about the risks inherent in nuclear power nor do the thousands of other people including many scientists. If I thought nuclear would solve the world's power and environmental issues I would jump at it. But it does not.

You can ignore the obvious human error in Fukishima, Chernobyl and Long Island at your peril. No matter what regulatory regimes are in place, the fact is people will not always comply especially if there is dollar to be made in cost cutting.

Your own faith in the current ALP government is poor yet you seem to have great confidence in the government being able to oversight such an important program.

I accused of telling a lie, because you told a lie, and I noticed that you completely avoided the 9-30year uranium availability porkie you told. This is not a POV.

I am not a nuclear scientist, but I am an engineer with extensive experience in power generation. From your statement I sense no uni or at best an arts degree. Your verbiage is only possible from a position of ignorance.

A lie is a statement told knowing it to be false. I did no such thing, simple as that SM. You can spin your ignorant personal attacks as much as you like but the emperor is still not wearing any clothes.

Your attacks are meant to hide failure to address any of the points made such as the issues of fossil fuels required to power reactors, waste disposal, risk of radiation contamination and transportation issues just to name a few.

Dr Helen Caldicott along with others has done a lot of research on this issue and I suggest reading some of her books before righting her off as a greenie radical.

We were discussing uranium not thorium. Australia is exporting uranium to India, not thorium (although that might come later). Thorium technology is not so advanced to be making broad statements about it's use at this stage. Geoscience Australia document describes the potential of thorium but it is a field still being researched.

http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/mineral-resources/thorium.html
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2007-08/08rp11.pdf

As you will see from the document above even if technical issues are addressed there are still environmental factors. Or do you just cherrypick what you like and ignore the rest. Thorium may prove to be a solution in part if the environmental issues are addressed but unlike yourself I will wait for the evidence to come in.

The worst sort of radical greenies are those who think nuclear power will solve environmental problems, just replacing one problem with an different kind, one with long term impacts.

It is all very well to argue 'well the Russians were warned about blah blah' etc, but the fact is we are talking about human error and human failings. Radioactive substances and human folly/incompetence is a dangerous mix, especially when there are other alternatives.

The fact is human beings need to reduce their energy use - we are massive wasters in the West. Better to sort out problems of economic inequity and overpopulation.

Your statement that nuclear is 'the only viable option' is simply wrong IMO.

"A lie is a statement told knowing it to be false"

Exactly, we have had this conversation before, and I have published the links from reputable sources on known reserves of 100s of years, and yet you continue to spout the unsupported position that uranium reserves are limited.

HC is just as bad, reproducing these urban myths, and quoting selectively excised information to support her prejudice.

As for the consumption of fossil fuels for nuclear, considering the tiny quantity of uranium required to power a nuclear plant compared to coal this is patently ridiculous. For example, Hazel wood consumes more tons of coal in a week than the quantity of uranium used by the world in the last 40 years.

As for Thorium, two test reactors are soon to be commissioned, but considering the low price of uranium and its availability, it will be a while before the change over can be justified or needed.