Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Poll Poll
Question: NUCLEAR POLL (choose ALL options that apply): -



« Last Modified by: Equitist on: Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:15am »

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 22
Send Topic Print
ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power (Read 20539 times)
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #30 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:56am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:54am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:49am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:48am:
Hmmnnn....it seems that the 2 who support Nukes 100% chose not to select whose backyard they would put them in...


it's a one choice poll Equit...


Nah - it's my poll and I set it up to include multiple options (I chose 4 options)!


Ahh ok, didn't realise....and now I can't change it...

So put me down for My backyard and Your backyard as well then...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #31 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:05am
 

codswal wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:56am:
whats a Darwin Award??



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards

Quote:
The Darwin Awards: A Chronicle of Enterprising Demises is a tongue-in-cheek honor named after evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin. Awards have been given for people who "do a service to Humanity by removing themselves from the gene pool" (i.e., lose the ability to reproduce either by death or sterilization in an idiotic fashion).

According to Wendy Northcutt, author of the Darwin Award books: "The Awards honor people who ensure the long-term survival of the human race by removing themselves from the gene pool in a sublimely idiotic fashion." The Darwin Award books state that an attempt is made to disallow known urban legends from the awards, but some older "winners" have been 'grandfathered' to keep their awards. The Darwin Awards site[1] does try to verify all submitted stories, but many similar sites, and the vast number of circulating "Darwin awards" emails, are largely fictional.[2]

[...]


Rules

Wendy Northcutt, owner of the DarwinAwards.com web site, has stated five requirements for her Darwin Award:

Inability to reproduce

   * Nominee must be dead or rendered sterile.

   Sometimes this can be a matter of dispute. Potential awardees may be out of the gene pool due to age; others have already reproduced before their deaths. To avoid debates about the possibility of in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, or cloning, the original Darwin Awards book applied the following "deserted island" test to potential winners: If the person would be unable to reproduce when stranded on a deserted island with a fertile member of the opposite sex, he or she would be considered sterile. Winners of the award, in general, are either dead or become unable to use their sexual organs.

Excellence

   * Astoundingly stupid judgment.

   The candidate's foolishness must be unique and sensational, likely because the award is intended to be funny. A number of foolish but common activities, such as smoking in bed, are excluded from consideration.[5] In contrast, self-immolation caused by smoking after being administered a flammable ointment in a hospital and specifically told not to smoke[6] is grounds for nomination. One 'Honorable Mention' (a man who attempted suicide by swallowing nitroglycerine pills, and then tried to detonate them by running into a wall) is noted to be in this category, despite being intentional and self-inflicted, which would normally disqualify the inductee.[7]

Self-selection

   * Cause of one's own demise.

   Killing a friend with a hand grenade would not be eligible, but killing oneself while manufacturing a homemade chimney-cleaning device from a grenade would be eligible.[8] To earn a Darwin Award, the candidate must have killed him- or herself, rather than a third party.

Maturity

   * Capable of sound judgment.

   The nominee must be at least past the legal driving age and free of mental defect (Northcutt considers injury or death caused by mental defect to be tragic, rather than amusing, and routinely disqualifies such entries). After much discussion, there also exists a small category regarding deaths below this age limit. Entry into this category requires that the peers of the candidate be of the opinion that the actions of the person in question were above and beyond the limits of reason in their opinions.

Veracity

   * The event must be verified.

   The story must be documented by reliable sources: i.e., reputable newspaper articles, confirmed television reports, or responsible eyewitnesses. If a story is found to be untrue, it is disqualified, but particularly amusing ones are placed in the urban legend section of the archives. Despite this requirement, many of the stories are fictional, often appearing as "original submissions" and presenting no further sources than unverified (and unreliable) "eyewitnesses". Most such stories on Northcutt's Darwin Awards site are filed in the Personal Accounts section.

In addition, later revisions to the qualification criteria add several requirements that are have not been made into formalized 'rules': innocent bystanders cannot be in danger, and the qualifying event must be caused without deliberate intent (to prevent glory-seekers from purposely injuring themselves solely to win a Darwin).

Examples of Darwin award winners include:

   * Juggling active hand grenades (Croatia, 2001)[9]
   * Leaving a lit cigarette in a warehouse full of explosives (Philippines, 1999)
   * Three Palestinian terrorists accidentally blowing themselves up because of their refusal to live on "Zionist Time" (Israel, 1999)[10]
   * Jumping out of a plane to film skydivers without wearing a parachute (U.S., 1987)[11]
   * Trying to get enough light to look down the barrel of a loaded muzzle-loaded gun using a cigarette lighter (U.S., 1996)[12]
   * Using a lighter to illuminate a fuel tank to make sure it contains nothing flammable (Brazil, 2003)[13]
   * Attempting to play Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol that automatically loads the next round into the chamber[14]
   * Attempting Russian roulette with an unexploded landmine[15]
   * Crashing through a window and falling to one's death in trying to demonstrate that the window was unbreakable[16]


Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #32 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:07am
 
"really!!! you ask questions usually from the wrong people. or side.."

Am I? To whom, besides NPP advocates, should I address my questions?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #33 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:13am
 

viewpoint wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:55am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:48am:
Hmmnnn....it seems that the 2 who support Nukes 100% chose not to select whose backyard they would put them in...


True to form, “it seems”, that when things don’t go your way, like all leftards you either whinge and whine or make up excuses………



Perhaps I should have put the 100% option at No.3 instead of No.1 - since 3/3 (that's 100%) right whingers aren't capable of reading more than one option...


Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
nichy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1812
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #34 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:19am
 
I'm not sure how I feel about nuclear Power -  So will have to make two posts to fit all the Pro's and Cons in.


Is nuclear power safe for humans and the environment?
PRO (yes)

James Lovelock, PhD, Honorary Visiting Fellow at Oxford University Green College, wrote the following in his Mar. 2005 article “Our Nuclear Lifeline,” published in Readers Digest:
“Every time we click a light switch or start a car, something sinister happens. From power station chimneys and car tail-pipes, immense volumes of gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) are pumped into the sky...
If only we could avoid burning these 'fossil' fuels, global warming would lose momentum. . .A lifeline does exist and it’s dangling in front of us. . .It’s safe, proven, practical and cheap.

Our lifeline is nuclear energy…
We know nuclear energy is safe, clean and effective because, right now, 137 nuclear re-actors are generating more than one-third of Western Europe’s electricity and 440 in all are supplying one-seventh of the world’s [electricity]…
Radiation is part of our natural environment and we can live with it. All of us are exposed to natural radioactivity every minute, mostly from rocks and soil. The radiation bombarding us goes up 10 percent when we sleep next to another human. A weekend at a beach with granite rocks in Brittany or Cornwall increases it three-fold, a skiing holiday ten-fold.
How do nuclear power stations compare? The radiation from a reactor is tiny: about as much as that from our own bodies. According to the UK’s National Radiation Protection Board, doses from the entire nuclear industry amount to less than one percent of our total exposure. Medical uses such as X-rays account for 14 percent and the remainder is natural. Compared with known cancer risks such as smoking and poor diet, it reports, the risk from non-medical, man-made radiation is about 1/100th of one percent…
The Chernobyl accident is painted as one of the great industrial disasters of the twentieth century…
The fall-out from the radioactive cloud that swept Western Europe was really nothing: only one-tenth of a chest x-ray or ten days on holiday in the Alps…
Why are we so frightened? After all, if nuclear power were really as dangerous as people believe, isn’t France—with its 59 nuclear reactors making 78 percent of its power—grossly polluted and doomed? Far from it. The world’s nuclear champion is safe and its health is among the world’s best…
A Swiss study of deaths related to power generation came up with astonishing results. Nuclear turns out to be five times safer than oil, ten times safer than gas and 100 times safer than hydro-electric dams. According to the World Health Organisation, worldwide fossil-fuel pollution is responsible for three million deaths a year."

Mar. 2005 - James Lovelock, PhD 




Back to top
 

"He who does not value life does not deserve it." -- Leonardo da Vinci&&&&
 
IP Logged
 
nichy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1812
Gender: female
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #35 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:20am
 
CON  (no)

Helen Caldicott, MBBS, President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, wrote the following in her 2006 book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer:
"Miners, workers, and residents in the vicinity of the mining and milling functions, and workers involved in the enrichment processes necessary to create nuclear fuel are at risk for exposure to unhealthy amounts of radiation and have increased incidences of cancer and related diseases as a result...
Relatively small but significant amounts of radiation are released on a daily basis into the air and water during the course of mining, milling, and enriching uranium for fuel to create the nuclear energy. Additionally, a nuclear power plant cannot operate without routinely releasing radioactivity into the air and water through the normal operation of nuclear reactors. Finally, and most frighteningly, accidental releases of even more radiation are commonplace in the nuclear industry…
Radioactive gases that leak from fuel rods are also routinely released or 'vented' into the atmosphere at every nuclear reactor. These gases are temporarily stored to allow the short-lived isotopes to decay and then released to the atmosphere through engineered holes in the reactor roof and from the steam generators. This process is called 'venting.' About 100 cubic feet of radioactive gases are also released hourly from the condensers at the reactor...
Although the nuclear industry claims it is ‘emission’ free, in fact it is collectively releasing millions of curies [the standard unit of radioactivity measurement] annually. . .By contrast, coal plants release some uranium and uranium daughter products in their smoke but very little radiation compared to atomic plants, and certainly no fission products…
Quite apart from these routine radioactive releases is the almighty problem of radioactive waste. Each regular 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant generates 30 tons of extremely potent radioactive waste annually. . .the nuclear industry has yet to determine how safely to dispose of this deadly material, which remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years…
Strontium 90 is an isotope released from reactors in small amounts on a daily basis, mostly in the waste water but sometimes in air. It is often released in larger quantities when accidents occur at nuclear power plants. It is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of twenty-eight years—radioactively dangerous for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, strontium 90 mimics calcium in the body. After release from a nuclear power plant, it lands on the soil, where it is taken up and concentrated by orders of magnitude in grass, concentrated further in cow and goat milk and in the breasts of lactating women, where it can induce breast cancer many years later."

2006 - Helen Caldicott, MBBS  




[b]We need to weigh up both I guess to have any idea.

Although from the little I know -  the disposal of waste is a worrisome and huge factor
[/b]
Back to top
 

"He who does not value life does not deserve it." -- Leonardo da Vinci&&&&
 
IP Logged
 
viewpoint
Gold Member
*****
Offline


A joke is a very serious
thing. [Winston]

Posts: 2209
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #36 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:24am
 
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:13am:
viewpoint wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:55am:
Equitist wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 8:48am:
Hmmnnn....it seems that the 2 who support Nukes 100% chose not to select whose backyard they would put them in...


True to form, “it seems”, that when things don’t go your way, like all leftards you either whinge and whine or make up excuses………



Perhaps I should have put the 100% option at No.3 instead of No.1 - since 3/3 (that's 100%) right whingers aren't capable of reading more than one option...





It appears that you're not capable of posting a poll to your own advantage genius.......lol
Back to top
 

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
IP Logged
 
aussiefree2ride
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3538
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #37 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:25am
 
Anyone who believes in AGW would at least consider nuke. It not they`re hypocrites.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Please delete
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Please delete this smacking
PROFILE

Posts: 2936
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #38 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:29am
 
"Anyone who believes in AGW would at least consider nuke. It not they`re hypocrites. "

I just puzzle over this "let's have a debate" garbage, as if someone is denying someone else their chance to speak.

I still haven't heard one corporation propose a plant - not one - it's all just talk by non players.

Personally, I worry about the opportunity cost of spending $300B or so on Nuclear.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #39 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:30am
 

nichy wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:19am:
I'm not sure how I feel about nuclear Power -  So will have to make two posts to fit all the Pro's and Cons in.


Is nuclear power safe for humans and the environment?
PRO (yes)


James Lovelock, PhD, Honorary Visiting Fellow at Oxford University Green College, wrote the following in his Mar. 2005 article “Our Nuclear Lifeline,” published in Readers Digest:
“Every time we click a light switch or start a car, something sinister happens. From power station chimneys and car tail-pipes, immense volumes of gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) are pumped into the sky...
If only we could avoid burning these 'fossil' fuels, global warming would lose momentum. . .A lifeline does exist and it’s dangling in front of us. . .It’s safe, proven, practical and cheap.

Our lifeline is nuclear energy…
We know nuclear energy is safe, clean and effective because, right now, 137 nuclear re-actors are generating more than one-third of Western Europe’s electricity and 440 in all are supplying one-seventh of the world’s [electricity]…
Radiation is part of our natural environment and we can live with it. All of us are exposed to natural radioactivity every minute, mostly from rocks and soil. The radiation bombarding us goes up 10 percent when we sleep next to another human. A weekend at a beach with granite rocks in Brittany or Cornwall increases it three-fold, a skiing holiday ten-fold.
How do nuclear power stations compare? The radiation from a reactor is tiny: about as much as that from our own bodies. According to the UK’s National Radiation Protection Board, doses from the entire nuclear industry amount to less than one percent of our total exposure. Medical uses such as X-rays account for 14 percent and the remainder is natural. Compared with known cancer risks such as smoking and poor diet, it reports, the risk from non-medical, man-made radiation is about 1/100th of one percent…
The Chernobyl accident is painted as one of the great industrial disasters of the twentieth century…
The fall-out from the radioactive cloud that swept Western Europe was really nothing: only one-tenth of a chest x-ray or ten days on holiday in the Alps…
Why are we so frightened? After all, if nuclear power were really as dangerous as people believe, isn’t France—with its 59 nuclear reactors making 78 percent of its power—grossly polluted and doomed? Far from it. The world’s nuclear champion is safe and its health is among the world’s best…
A Swiss study of deaths related to power generation came up with astonishing results. Nuclear turns out to be five times safer than oil, ten times safer than gas and 100 times safer than hydro-electric dams. According to the World Health Organisation, worldwide fossil-fuel pollution is responsible for three million deaths a year."

Mar. 2005 - James Lovelock, PhD  



Driving and crossing the road are safe, until one has an altercation with a vehicle - all it takes is one inattentive, rushing, arrogant, complacent and/or reckless motorist to destroy or snuff out a life...

The problem with nukes is that accidents can and do occur on a much larger and uncontrollable scale...

Nukes are safe, until one experiences a nuclear meltdown - all it takes is one inattentive, rushing, arrogant, complacent and/or reckless programmer or operator to destroy a region and snuff out countless lives...

The recent NAB fiasco occurred because one individual uploaded a corrupt file, Chernobyl occurred because safety procedures were ignored, Three Mile Island occurred because of what!?

I, for one, hope that the next Nuclear meltdown occurs sooner rather than later - and in close proximity to a large population - cos inter/national complacency has become rampant...
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
viewpoint
Gold Member
*****
Offline


A joke is a very serious
thing. [Winston]

Posts: 2209
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #40 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:31am
 
Well Australia can just continue supplying other nations with uranium so they can take advantage of nuclear power and grow their economies whilst this country carries on hugging fking trees…….
Back to top
 

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
IP Logged
 
viewpoint
Gold Member
*****
Offline


A joke is a very serious
thing. [Winston]

Posts: 2209
Gender: male
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #41 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:41am
 
Posted by: Equitist:
Quote:
I, for one, hope that the next Nuclear meltdown occurs sooner rather than later - and in close proximity to a large population - cos inter/national complacency has become rampant...


You need help!
Back to top
 

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #42 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:41am
 

Both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were caused and/or exacerbated by the actions, inactions and misunderstandings of mere mortals...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Quote:
The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear accident of catastrophic proportions that occurred on 26 April 1986, at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine (then in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, part of the Soviet Union). It is considered the worst nuclear power plant accident in history and is the only level 7 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale.

The disaster occurred on 26 April 1986, at reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant, near the town of Pripyat, during an unauthorized systems test. A sudden power output surge took place, and when an attempt was made at an emergency shutdown, a more extreme spike in power output occurred which led to the rupture of a reactor vessel as well as a series of explosions. This event exposed the graphite moderator components of the reactor to air and they ignited; the resulting fire sent a plume of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive area, including Pripyat.

The plume drifted over large parts of the western Soviet Union, and much of Europe. As of December 2000[update], 350,400 people had been evacuated and resettled from the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.[1][2] According to official post-Soviet data, up to 70% of the fallout landed in Belarus.[3]

Despite the accident, Ukraine continued to operate the remaining reactors at Chernobyl for many years. The last reactor at the site was closed down in 2000.[4]

[...]

Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. A 2006 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the World Health Organization (WHO) states, "Among the 134 emergency workers involved in the immediate mitigation of the Chernobyl accident, severely exposed workers and firemen during the first days, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS (Acute Radiation Syndrome), and 19 more persons died in 1987-2004 from different causes. Among the general population affected by Chernobyl radioactive fallout, the much lower exposures meant that ARS cases did not occur". It is estimated that there may ultimately be a total of 4,000 deaths attributable to the accident, due to increased cancer risk.[6]

[...]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Quote:
The Three Mile Island accident was a partial core meltdown in Unit 2 (a pressurized water reactor manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox) of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania near Harrisburg. The plant was owned and operated by General Public Utilities and the Metropolitan Edison Co. It was the most significant accident in the history of the American commercial nuclear power generating industry, resulting in the release of up to 481 PBq (13 million curies) of radioactive gases, but less than 740 GBq (20 curies) of the particularly dangerous iodine-131.[1]

The accident began at 4 a.m. on Wednesday, March 28, 1979, with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a stuck-open pilot-operated relief valve (PORV) in the primary system, which allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant to escape.

The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss of coolant accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as industrial design errors relating to ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface.

The scope and complexity of the accident became clear over the course of five days, as employees of Metropolitan Edison (Met Ed, the utility operating the plant), Pennsylvania state officials, and members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tried to understand the problem, communicate the situation to the press and local community, decide whether the accident required an emergency evacuation, and ultimately end the crisis.

In the end, the reactor was brought under control, although full details of the accident were not discovered until much later, following extensive investigations by both a presidential commission and the NRC. The Kemeny Commission Report concluded that "there will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible health effects."[2] Several epidemiological studies in the years since the accident have supported the conclusion that radiation releases from the accident had no perceptible effect on cancer incidence in residents near the plant, though these findings have been contested by one team of researchers.[3]

Public reaction to the event was probably influenced by the release of the movie The China Syndrome 12 days before the accident, depicting an accident at a nuclear reactor.[4] Communications from officials during the initial phases of the accident were felt to be confusing.[5] The accident crystallized anti-nuclear safety concerns among activists and the general public, resulted in new regulations for the nuclear industry, and has been cited as a contributor to the decline of new reactor construction that was already underway in the 1970s.

[...]

Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #43 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:48am
 

viewpoint wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:41am:
Posted by: Equitist:
Quote:
I, for one, hope that the next Nuclear meltdown occurs sooner rather than later - and in close proximity to a large population - cos inter/national complacency has become rampant...


You need help!


Clearly, humanity has become so complacent about the inherently grave risks, that only a devastating reality check will put a stop to the reckless proliferation of nuke facilities...

The A380 aircraft engines were widely accepted as safe and reliable - until the recent wake-up call when one of them blew up and then it was found that several of them were ticking time-bombs...

The sooner another major nuclear accident occurs, the sooner the proliferation will stop - and ultimately fewer lives and livelihoods will be put at unnecessary risk...

Besides, what do you care, since you think I am wrong to be concerned about the risks of nukes!?

Alas, time will vindicate one of us - I remain hopeful that it won't be me...
Back to top
 

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
aussiefree2ride
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3538
Re: ALP flip flop on Nuclear Power
Reply #44 - Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:55am
 
Please delete wrote on Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:29am:
"Anyone who believes in AGW would at least consider nuke. It not they`re hypocrites. "

I just puzzle over this "let's have a debate" garbage, as if someone is denying someone else their chance to speak.

I still haven't heard one corporation propose a plant - not one - it's all just talk by non players.

Personally, I worry about the opportunity cost of spending $300B or so on Nuclear.


Ernie, you obviously don`t understand standard operational proceedures.  You can`t expect anyone to spend millions on feasability studies, etc. for no reason other than your own entertainment.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 22
Send Topic Print