Dear Editor
The takers who control the media in the western world have always pushed the pro nuclear issue moulding and manipulating the electorates minds.
They argue that nuclear is safe and is the answer to the global warming. Those that warned of global warming were called scare mongerers. Those that also speak out against nuclear power and nuclear weapons are also labeled scare mongerers. Those that are now pushing for nuclear power are those that had no concern about the ozone layer until recently.
Now they want the taxpayer to heavily subsidise nuclear power and believe that Australia is a prime location for nuclear waste. What can we do to stop the push for this known problem, that science has no answer on how to control it ?
We must:-
1) Oppose the approval of any new uranium mines.

2) Oppose the expansion of any existing uranium mines.

3) Oppose any plans to enrich uranium in Australia except for medicine and pharmacutical purposes.

4) Oppose the development of any nuclear power plants in Australia.

5) Oppose industry that encourages high level radioactive waste plants in Australia.

6) Oppose the development of a high level nuclear waste dump in Australia.

7) Not to over-ride the existing bans by State or territory Labor Governments on uranium mining.

8) Oppose the sale of Australian uranium to any country that is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

9) Repeal the existing Commonwealth legislation that enables Federal Government to over-ride the Northern Territories autonomy on management of nuclear issues.

10) Actively promote and support the development of renewable and sustainable power generation.

sincerely

Interesting summary of nuclear safety issues contained here.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm

We are all subjected to background radiation. Nuclear Power plant emissions are practically undetectable within this spectrum.
Interestingly people living near coalfired power stations are more at risk than those living near nuclear plants due to the small amount of radioactive materials within the coal itself.

Chernobyl, at least until 2004, is responsible for a total 56 deaths. That from a flawed design and incorrect operation. A lot has been learnt from this incident.

I can only commend and support Bronco Lane in these points... bronco notes two vitally important features of the current pro-nuclear hype and spin.

1. The spin is in full rotation now, and opponents of nuclear power are “scare-mongerers” “panic merchants” and so forth, while proponents are “balanced” reasonable” rational” etc. Of course “expert opinion” is important, and the “experts” are of course, nuclear physicists. (getting nuclear physicists to look objectively at evidence against nuclear power would be about the same as getting the Catholic College of Cardinals to objectively consider the non-existence of God)

2. The Achilles heel of nuclear power. In our consumerist world, our investment pre-occupied society – nuclear power increasingly looks like a bad financial investment. What happens when the uranium speculative bubble bursts? Well, the powers that be try desperately to prevent this. The only way for nuclear power plants is to have taxpayer subsidy. So, those harsh financial facts might yet stop this industry, even with the pro-nuke hype in the mainstream media

Christina, nuclear power will be more expensive but that doesn't make it unaffordable. If coal fired power stations have to adhere to the same non-pollution and safety levels Nuke power would seem cheap. It's all relative