Is there a role for nuclear energy?

[Pastafarian]

Wouldn't matter even if a safe storage mechanism/process/formular/invention actually became a reality, because nuke power itself is ridiculously expensive as an electricity provider, and cost factoring for waste storage is only for 100 years.
Nuke waste is a mutagenic menace for eons.

In short Nuclear power is a subsidy scam.

Nice goalpost shift.

[mantra]

Wouldn't matter even if a safe storage mechanism/process/formular/invention actually became a reality, because nuke power itself is ridiculously expensive as an electricity provider, and cost factoring for waste storage is only for 100 years.
Nuke waste is a mutagenic menace for eons.

In short Nuclear power is a subsidy scam.

It sure is a subsidy scan and a mutagenic menace, but this is called progress. Live for today and don't think about tomorrow as long as there's a buck in it. It won't be until the first serious accident on the way to the Nuclear Tip or a major natural disaster - that the average person will wake up and finally understand that we've committed ourselves to storing all of the world's most deadly toxin in our backyard.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Wouldn't matter even if a safe storage mechanism/process/formular/invention actually became a reality, because nuke power itself is ridiculously expensive as an electricity provider, and cost factoring for waste storage is only for 100 years.
Nuke waste is a mutagenic menace for eons.

In short Nuclear power is a subsidy scam.

Nice goalpost shift.

If you say so Sport. Still doesn't alter the fact nuke power doesn't come upto scratch economically.
Which is why the nuke industry won't invest its own money in any nuke project. Nuke energy as a business is the greatest failure of all time, and as an electricity utility per se its the greatest white elephant ever known.

Pro-nukers would have us believe nuke energy is advanced and modern, but in reality nuke reactors are just steam engines with fancy titles running on the dirtiest fuels we can find.

[Pastafarian]

If you say so Sport. Still doesn't alter the fact nuke power doesn't come upto scratch economically.
Which is why the nuke industry won't invest its own money in any nuke project. Nuke energy as a business is the greatest failure of all time, and as an electricity utility per se its the greatest white elephant ever known.

Pro-nukers would have us believe nuke energy is advanced and modern, but in reality nuke reactors are just steam engines with fancy titles running on the dirtiest fuels we can find.

Thats cool, argue the economics, any attempt at science just leaves you looking foolish.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Admitedly there are a few medical applications concerning nuclear science, but nuclear power is a failure regardless of any justifications any which way spruikers rationalise it.
IMO unless or until the nuke industry is prepared to use particle accelorators to treat nuke wastes (out of their own pocket) they should not be allowed to operate anywhere on the planet.

[Outlaw Yogi]

All you have to do is go down to the bottom of your swimming pool and hold your breath."

- David Miller, US DOE spokesperson, on protecting yourself from nuclear radiation

[Pastafarian]

All you have to do is go down to the bottom of your swimming pool and hold your breath."

- David Miller, US DOE spokesperson, on protecting yourself from nuclear radiation

I'll readily admit that the history of nuclear energy has been troubled. My concern however is that it's not even being discussed as an option. I can buy the economics concern (not being an economist), but I wouldn't mind a rational detailed study into the pros and cons of nuclear energy in this country. Then we can make a decision about whether we want it or not.


Personally, I'm not for the willy-nilly introduction of nuclear power, I'm simply for a rational debate about it, so we can probably exclude the Greens from that one.

[mantra]

Personally, I'm not for the willy-nilly introduction of nuclear power, I'm simply for a rational debate about it, so we can probably exclude the Greens from that one.

Why should the Greens be excluded? They and likeminded opponents to nuclear power are the ones who have collected factual information on it from the mining, processing, development, decommissioning and disposal of waste and know its inherent dangers.

The major parties as well as the pro nuclear lobby groups have only self interest in selling this dud to a gullible public. Check the information out yourself with an unbiased view. Look for the negatives as well as the positives and compare them.

[Pastafarian]

Why should the Greens be excluded? They and likeminded opponents to nuclear power are the ones who have collected factual information on it from the mining, processing, development, decommissioning and disposal of waste and know its inherent dangers.

The major parties as well as the pro nuclear lobby groups have only self interest in selling this dud to a gullible public. Check the information out yourself with an unbiased view. Look for the negatives as well as the positives and compare them.

Because IME the factual information the Greens and likeminded opponents have supposedly collected is wrong. I was once held up by a Greenpeace guy outside the NMC at RPA.

He proceeded to then rattle off a few things about Lucas Heights, at least until I had to stop him and point out that nothing he had said was correct.

[Outlaw Yogi]

The nuke industry in general is and always has been notoriously dodgey.
As for nuke cronies running Lucas Heights, well they're responsible for contaminating local aquifers with Strontium 90, which has shown up in goats milk at Menai.

Nuke reactors routinely contaminate their localities and surrounds with:

Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear
accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in
Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the US, is
radioactive for only six weeks and it
bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk.
When it enters the human body via the gut and the
lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the
neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In
Belarus more than 2000 children have had their
thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation
never before recorded in pediatric literature.

Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium
analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It
accumulates in the human breast during lactation,
and in bone, where it can later induce breast
cancer, bone cancer and leukemia.

Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years,
concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat.
On entering the human body, it locates in muscle,
where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer
called a sarcoma.

Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements
known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of
a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg is made
annually in each 1000-megawatt nuclear power
plant. Plutonium is handled like iron in the body,
and is therefore stored in the liver, where it
causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can
induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On
inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses
the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it
can cause severe congenital deformities. Plutonium
has a predisposition for the testicle, where it
can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic
diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts
for 500,000 years, living on to induce cancer and
genetic diseases in future generations of plants,
animals and humans.

April 14, 2005
http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2005nn/0504nn/050414nn.txt


September 12, 2002
Authorities say no earthquake danger from fault lines under proposed nuclear reactor
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-67368619.html

October 14, 2007.
Japan’s Nuclear Disaster and Plans to Export Reactors to Indonesia
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Jeff-Kingston/2550

Friday, 22 October 2010
nuclear compounds stolen from the back of a ute
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/10/22/the ... -of-a-ute/