Saying that nuclear power is "safer" because of attributable death rates in this case would be like saying that using a chainsaw is safer than using a stepladder. More deaths occur from step ladder falls per year, but only because of two factors: More people use stepladders, therefore there is more risk someone will injure themselves; and chainsaw operators tend to be more highly trained and have more safety protocols BECAUSE it is inherently MORE dangerous.

Other factors that must be considered include much more than accident rates in reactors. For instance, how many sites in the US contain high-level radioactive waste? How is it currently being handled? How long does this waste have to be cared for? I expect Ralph has all these answers, and hope that they're better than the "nuclear is inexhaustible" argument that I have heard ONLY from him, noone else seems to say this, even nuclear physicists. I would also like to know where this comes from.

And also remember that this nuclear waste was only generated by the small number of reactors that they have built historically- how much more would be produced in the future? Also, the US has had a long history of having a nuclear military, a great source of funds for training technicians and scientists for maintaining civilian reactors. Ditto for many other nuclear countries. Australia does not. Where would we be training our technicians? To maintain a steady supply of personnel to run these reactors we would have to firstly import nearly all of our top-level technicians before a practical training scheme would be self-sustaining and considerable investment in targeted education to get that up and running.

There's a LOT more to a whole picture certainly, but building a large number of nuclear power stations in a short amount of time will leave the experienced personnel required to maintain such facilities in shorter supply than at present, this increases our risks of failure, both short term and long term.

The future will likely involve a number of different technologies and not one single technology, as all have drawbacks.

Of course if we were really opposed to the nuclear option then we would not be providing other people with the means to use that option. Seems to be all right to sell it but not use it... fail to understand that logic - unless of course it has something to do with money....

Troublemaker is certainly living up to the name a real devil's advocate either being mischevious not really believing what is being entered or a person that has obviously something to gain with shares in uranium. The author of the pro debate has no concern for people, life in general or the future of mankind many many countries are at great expense decommissioning these potential nuclear bombs because of the many known cancers to miners and residents alike that are too close within those locations and unfortunately very close to it's proximity. Yes it is todays asbestos to build nuclear reactors is like commencing mining again at Wittenoon. Power to the elbow to those politicians who brought in gun control but to export uranium is to condone the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Who do you think that the united nations are so concerned with Iran and Korea building nuclear reactors. This and this alone shows the double standards with those who have no concern for life only the making of money profit before people. The taxpayer will have to heavily subsidise the nuclear effort to the detriment of wave, wind, tidal and solar power.USE OF RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES IN MEDICAL PRACTICE
we do have need for this
.Subject:
The Nuclear and Uranium Debate
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 mongers. Those that also speak out against nuclear power and nuclear weapons are also labelled scare mongers. 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 pharmaceutical 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.

My family lived very close to Bradwell Nuclear Power Station in Essex and we were part of a Community that campaigned for the closure because of the tremendous amount of various type of cancer deaths that was unexplained especially with school children. Friends of the Earth local Residents Associations and Labour Party Branches were finally successful. (Campaigners and local residents today (Thursday 28 March 2002) welcomed the closure of Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex. The station is due to be shut for decommissioning on Easter Sunday, after 40 years operation. Friends of the Earth today called on the Government to rule out the building of another nuclear power station on the site and to encourage investment in renewable energy, such as wind power instead.) We are all interested to know that if you have any intention of altering, amending or changing our existing policy if we do fall into line with John Howard and his Government in expanding uranium mining this would be a disaster for us all because this would mean that we would be condoning nuclear power and subsequently nuclear weapons. We cannot guarantee that China or Russia would not give uranium or plutonium to Iran.

Neighbours our childrens friends victims of emissions Strotium B 90
My family lived very close to Bradwell Nuclear Power Station in Essex and we were part of a Community that campaigned for the closure because of the tremendous amount of various type of cancer deaths that was unexplained especially with school children. Friends of the Earth local Residents Associations and Labour Party Branches were finally successful. (Campaigners and local residents today (Thursday 28 March 2002) welcomed the closure of Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex. The station is due to be shut for decommissioning on Easter Sunday, after 40 years operation. Friends of the Earth today called on the Government to rule out the building of another nuclear power station on the site and to encourage investment in renewable energy, such as wind power instead.) We are all interested to know that if you have any intention of altering, amending or changing our existing policy if we do fall into line with John Howard and his Government in expanding uranium mining this would be a disaster for us all because this would mean that we would be condoning nuclear power and subsequently nuclear weapons. We cannot guarantee that China or Russia would not give uranium or plutonium to Iran.