Warning Graphic Images. Australian Liberal Party’s Nuclear Agenda; dirty politics = radioactive environment

posted by Scott Kane on Tuesday, November 17th 2009

The CPRS legislation is before the Senate and the  Liberal/National coalition, with the predictability of a summer bushfire, have heaved out their old files supporting nuclear power.

They are in a bind, with 10 coalition MPs steadfastly and publicly opposed to the carbon pollution reduction scheme.  So Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop has dusted off the nuclear power issue and brought it forward with the justification that “19 of the G20 countries already relied on nuclear power…”

One can only assume that if 19 of the G20 countries announced they were going to jump off a cliff into the ocean tomorrow Julia Bishop would don a new bikini (no pun intended) and join in.

We’ve got big problems with carbon based power.  The science condemning it is beyond question and the need to act is urgent.

But nuclear?

Consider the images above.   These are “survivors” of Chernobyl.  These are people.  The only difference between them and us is we wear hats with corks to keep away the flies, play cricket and Australian Rules or Rugby and prefer beer to vodka.

I could write paragraphs about the half life of various nuclear isotopes.  The centuries upon centuries it takes for them to be rendered inert.  But why?  The images  of the “survivors” of Chernobyl speak louder than words…

Warning Graphic Images Click to Zoom In.

Scott Kane

The Forgotten Nightmare: Nuclear Winter, Global Cooling and Universal Radioactive Fallout. More fingers on more genocide-buttons

posted by Robin Davis on Thursday, October 22nd 2009

While global warming dominates the headlines a more urgent danger threatens life on earth. Global warming could make the planet uninhabitable by the end of the century. Global cooling – the “Nuclear Winter” that would follow nuclear war – could achieve the same result in days or weeks.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union a disturbing complacency has set in. It is as if the threat imposed on us all by the hair-trigger readiness of thousands of intercontinental nuclear-armed missiles no longer exists. Perhaps this is understandable with the political and media discussion of the issue focussed almost entirely on the potential danger posed by non-state terrorism and so-called “rogue” states.

The selective finger pointing, fear mongering and drum beating only serves to distract attention from the chilling reality: the US and Russia still possess 97% of the world’s nuclear weapons and neither has any genuine commitment to nuclear disarmament. It is they and the other 7 established nuclear weapon states that pose the greatest threat to humanity and all other species on the planet.

If even a tiny fraction of the world’s nuclear arsenal were unleashed catastrophic climate change would follow. For example, a “small” nuclear war employing 100 bombs of the size that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki would pour millions of tons of smoke into the stratosphere. The smoke would come from the raging firestorms consuming cities, industries, neighbourhoods and people. As the smoke spread around the globe it would reduce the sunlight and destroy much of the protective ozone layer. Temperatures would drop and food production would plunge due to shortened growing seasons. Hundreds of millions of people, possibly a billion, would starve to death. [1] Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 100 times Hiroshima. (3) And this can quite accurately be described as a “small” conflict because it would be equivalent to less than half of 1% of the explosive power of US and Russian high-alert nuclear weapons. [2] That figure bears repeating: less than half of 1%.

A large conflict involving all of the Russian and US high-alert nuclear weapons would pour 50 million tons of smoke into the stratosphere, blocking the sunlight and dropping global temperatures by 4°C. [1] Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 79,000 times Hiroshima. (4)

Now consider a war involving the entire world operational nuclear arsenal. Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 177,000 times Hiroshima. (5) 150 million tons of smoke would rise into the stratosphere enveloping the planet, absorbing the sunlight, reducing global temperatures by 8°C; creating another Ice Age.

Climate change from global cooling would occur not in decades or years but in weeks or days. Survivors would have no time to adapt. [1] Until they died off from the lethal radioactive fallout they would be left with razed cities, destroyed infrastructure, horrific injuries, birth deformations, cancers, disease epidemics and mass starvation. Perhaps the tens of millions or hundreds of millions instantly vapourised or incinerated would be the lucky ones.

The potential for a catastrophic mistake is enormous, particularly in the case of a suspected submarine launched attack. Russian and US “Launch on Warning” systems” would give their presidents only 2 to 3 minutes to decide whether or not to retaliate. [6] Typical warheads have 20 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Typical nuclear missiles carry 8 or more of these independently programmed to destroy multiple targets. Think of Hiroshima. Imagine 160 times Hiroshima – from one missile.

With this spectre hovering over humanity it is difficult to understand how anyone, least of all an environmental luminary like James Lovelock, could advocate nuclear power as a solution to global warming. [7] This solution sidesteps the health, environmental and security dangers associated with building and operating at least a thousand nuclear reactors; the increased environmental and security risks associated with mining, transportation, processing and storage of vastly increased quantities of uranium and deadly radioactive waste; and the fact that high grade, low cost uranium deposits consumed even at the present rate will be exhausted in fifty years. [8]

More importantly, it overlooks the enormous danger posed by more leaders of more nuclear weapons states (that would inevitably emerge) with their fingers on more doomsday buttons. While there are nuclear reactors, there will be nuclear weapons. While “peace-loving” countries like Australia mine and export uranium they are complicit in keeping the world on the brink of nuclear annihilation.

Here in Australia, advocates of uranium mining and export claim that this gives us a more credible voice in the world arena than we would otherwise have. They say our position as the largest source of uranium and the second largest exporter after Canada makes us more effective in preventing nuclear proliferation than we would otherwise be. In other words, by selling the stuff from which nuclear weapons are made, we are helping to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

This absurd reasoning extends to the so-called “safeguard” agreements – essentially book-keeping entries – that supposedly track every morsel of “Australian Obligated” uranium during its travels around the world, including its reprocessing and on-selling. We can rest assured that Australian uranium won’t be used to make nuclear weapons – or free up other uranium for that purpose – because we say it can’t and the buyer nations say it won’t.

History tells a different story. Of about 60 countries that have nuclear power or research reactors more than 20 have used their “peaceful” facilities for covert nuclear weapons research or production or both. India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and North Korea have all developed nuclear weapons under cover of “peaceful” nuclear programs. Other countries have made considerable progress before ending their programs. (South Africa is the only state to eliminate its nuclear weapons.) [8]

Egypt, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Romania, South Korea, Taiwan, and the former Yugoslavia, all signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), have violated their agreements by conducting forbidden weapons-related activities or not meeting their reporting requirements to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). [8]

North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty; India, Pakistan and Israel were never members. The “declared” nuclear weapons states – the US, Russia, the UK, France and China – have all violated their NTP obligations and shown by their actions that they have no intention of abandoning their nuclear superiority. [8]

The belligerence and blatant double standards demonstrated by the “big five,” who also hold the five permanent seats and veto power on the UN Security Council, provides motivation and “justification” for other states – some repeatedly threatened with attack, including nuclear attack (“all options are on the table”) – to develop a nuclear “deterrent” of their own. “Peaceful” nuclear programs are the obvious way for them to develop the necessary expertise and facilities and to acquire the technology and essential raw material: uranium.

Five years ago Australia’s uranium exports had already produced about 80 tonnes of plutonium – enough for 8,000 nuclear bombs. The Beverly Four Mile mine in South Australia recently approved by the current government has the capacity to produce enough plutonium for 4,500 more. [9]

It seems the straight-faced hypocrisy of successive Australian governments is boundless: joining in the vilification of the latest designated nuclear “rogue” states, worrying over nuclear terrorism and mouthing non-proliferation platitudes on the one hand while allowing exports of the raw material for nuclear proliferation on the other. If Australia were sincere it would leave its uranium in the ground.

In December, representatives from about 170 countries will meet in Copenhagen to negotiate an international agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012. Hopefully, amidst the media circus and political theatre they will commit to the carbon emission reductions necessary to prevent catastrophic global warming.

Hopefully, too, the world will awake from its nuclear slumber in time to prevent the other climate change nightmare: global cooling.

[1] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/index2.php

[2] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/globalnucleararsenal/usrussianhighalert/

(3) Hiroshima yield 15,000 tons x 100 = 1.5 million tons

(4) [2] Yield 960 million tons/15,000 tons

(5) [2] yield 2,225 million tons/15,000 tons

[6] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/highalert/launchonwarning/

[7] http://www.jameslovelock.org/page11.html

[8] Climate Change: Nukes No Solution

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/nuclear-climate/

[9] Arena Magazine, August/September 2009

Robin Davis lives in Victoria, Australia. He is a freelance writer and graphic designer. He can be contacted at: robindavis@hotkey.net.au

Bob Hawke paid? Australia to be new home of world’s radioactive waste? We’re receiving a dump.

posted by David Collyer on Wednesday, August 19th 2009

Bob Hawke Wants Us To Turn Australia Into Nuclear Sewer

A former Australian Prime Minister is lining up our beloved country for a sucker punch – to be the dump for the world’s radioactive waste.

Bob Hawke makes me so angry.  And he is bringing my prediction , made in great sadness, into reality.

The world has a serious problem – there is radioactive waste stored precariously in unsafe conditions around the globe.  Scientists have warned governments they must act; populations are anxious.  A resolution is urgently needed.

Australia is ideal as a deep geologic radioactive repository: it is roomy, dry, geologically stable and politically benign. We understand the need for great caution in managing and disposing of depleted uranium.  We are honest too, so whatever facility is built will be to agreed specifications. Perfect.

News Corp today quotes Bob Hawke saying:  “It would also become a strong source of national income for Australia that could be dedicated to our own environmental and water requirements.”

Really?

This is a key problem: dumping countries will not pay Australia properly for the right to free themselves of this dirty, poisonous, dangerous stuff.

Yes, they will pay billions for their get-out-of-jail-free card.  But it wont be enough, not nearly enough.

Australia will commit itself to guarding, containing and protecting the waste for – choose a number – say 1000 years (a gross underestimate).  Other countries will willingly pay for the engineering and construction and transport, but not for 1000 year security – that wont be their problem!

This waste dump will be a magnet for crime.  Anyone with large volumes of radioactive material can hold the entire world to ransom.

Costing Trillions Of Aussie Dollars

One could do an actuarial estimate of what 1000 year security would cost Australia.  It would be trillions.  The dumping countries will want to erase this liability by negotiating it away.

I can see them all in a row, gesturing energetically, looking for a bargain and demanding a discount.

A Millennia is a very long time.  Given the quality of our political leadership, the giant capital injection we would enjoy would be frittered, inflated and mismanaged away in a generation or two.

Do we really want this responsibility?

Hiroshima Day – August 6th – We All Know About Nuclear Danger Yet The Clock Is At 5 Minutes To Midnight? What Are We Doing?

posted by Scott Kane on Thursday, August 6th 2009

At 8:15 am on August 6 1945,  140,000 men, women and children were incinerated by a bomb dropped by the United States of America on the city of Hiroshima.  The bomb, the first nuclear weapon to be detonated in an act of aggression – the second and only other  being Nagasaki a few days later – was known as  “Little Boy” detonated with the explosive force of 13 kilotons of TNT.

Many were vaporized instantly by the blast, others, less lucky – the “walking charred” – died painful deaths from leukaemia and other radiation illnesses.

Some died of poisoning from drinking the irradiated river water to quench their searing thirst.

Everytime this topic is brought up it is guaranteed to generate a war of words on whether or not the United States was justified in using these bombs on a civilian target.

But that empty argument fails to do justice to the stark reality that this event occurred and must never be allowed to happen again.

Whether one supports the peaceful use of nuclear fission or not, the use of weapons of mass destruction – of any nuclear device in war as a weapon – is inhumane.   It is genocide.

Nuclear weapons brought the world to the brink of disaster between 1945 and the early 1990’s.  The imminent threat and reality of nuclear war has hung over the heads of several generations of people worldwide.

But what have we learned?  We’ve learned over the years of the Cold War that:

1. Talk is cheap.
2. There are two types of fear.  Fear of these weapons being used and fear of not being able to use them.
3. They provide no valid solution to conflict.

Albert Einstein famously said:

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Public awareness of nuclear issues  is much higher today than in the 1940’s and even 1950’s.  Most understand a nuclear conflict is unwinnable as, once begun, it must escalate into global thermonuclear war.  Yet the Doomsday clock – run by the “Bulletin of Atomic Scientists” since 1947 – shows right now – 5 minutes to midnight.

The history of this clock is worth reproducing, the original historical  “times” of their clock can be found on their website here – Click Here – along with their rationale for the settings listed below.  It’s essential reading.  As you’ll see from the timeline we are not currently at an all time “close to midnight” but we are, despite the assumption that the end of the Cold War meant the end of the threat – higher than at many other times and dangerously close regardless.

IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
2007: The world stands at the brink of a second nuclear age. The United States and Russia remain ready to stage a nuclear attack within minutes, North Korea conducts a nuclear test, and many in the international community worry that Iran plans to acquire the Bomb. Climate change also presents a dire challenge to humanity. Damage to ecosystems is already taking place; flooding, destructive storms, increased drought, and polar ice melt are causing loss of life and property.
IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
2002: Concerns regarding a nuclear terrorist attack underscore the enormous amount of unsecured–and sometimes unaccounted for–weapon-grade nuclear materials located throughout the world. Meanwhile, the United States expresses a desire to design new nuclear weapons, with an emphasis on those able to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets. It also rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces it will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
IT IS 9 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1998: India and Pakistan stage nuclear weapons tests only three weeks apart. “The tests are a symptom of the failure of the international community to fully commit itself to control the spread of nuclear weapons–and to work toward substantial reductions in the numbers of these weapons,” a dismayed Bulletin reports. Russia and the United States continue to serve as poor examples to the rest of the world. Together, they still maintain 7,000 warheads ready to fire at each other within 15 minutes.
IT IS 14 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1995: Hopes for a large post-Cold War peace dividend and a renouncing of nuclear weapons fade. Particularly in the United States, hard-liners seem reluctant to soften their rhetoric or actions, as they claim that a resurgent Russia could provide as much of a threat as the Soviet Union. Such talk slows the rollback in global nuclear forces; more than 40,000 nuclear weapons remain worldwide. There is also concern that terrorists could exploit poorly secured nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union.
IT IS 17 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1991: With the Cold War officially over, the United States and Russia begin making deep cuts to their nuclear arsenals. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty greatly reduces the number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by the two former adversaries. Better still, a series of unilateral initiatives remove most of the intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers in both countries from hair-trigger alert. “The illusion that tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are a guarantor of national security has been stripped away,” the Bulletin declares.
IT IS 10 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1990: As one Eastern European country after another (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania) frees itself from Soviet control, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev refuses to intervene, halting the ideological battle for Europe and significantly diminishing the risk of all-out nuclear war. In late 1989, the Berlin Wall falls, symbolically ending the Cold War. “Forty-four years after Winston Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech, the myth of monolithic communism has been shattered for all to see,” the Bulletin proclaims.
IT IS 6 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1988: The United States and Soviet Union sign the historic Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the first agreement to actually ban a whole category of nuclear weapons. The leadership shown by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev makes the treaty a reality, but public opposition to U.S. nuclear weapons in Western Europe inspires it. For years, such intermediate-range missiles had kept Western Europe in the crosshairs of the two superpowers.
IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1984: U.S.-Soviet relations reach their iciest point in decades. Dialogue between the two superpowers virtually stops. “Every channel of communications has been constricted or shut down; every form of contact has been attenuated or cut off. And arms control negotiations have been reduced to a species of propaganda,” a concerned Bulletin informs readers. The United States seems to flout the few arms control agreements in place by seeking an expansive, space-based anti-ballistic missile capability, raising worries that a new arms race will begin.
IT IS 4 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1981: The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan hardens the U.S. nuclear posture. Before he leaves office, President Jimmy Carter pulls the United States from the Olympics Games in Moscow and considers ways in which the United States could win a nuclear war. The rhetoric only intensifies with the election of Ronald Reagan as president. Reagan scraps any talk of arms control and proposes that the best way to end the Cold War is for the United States to win it.
IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1980: Thirty-five years after the start of the nuclear age and after some promising disarmament gains, the United States and the Soviet Union still view nuclear weapons as an integral component of their national security. This stalled progress discourages the Bulletin: “[The Soviet Union and United States have] been behaving like what may best be described as ‘nucleoholics’–drunks who continue to insist that the drink being consumed is positively ‘the last one,’ but who can always find a good excuse for ‘just one more round.’”
IT IS 9 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1974: South Asia gets the Bomb, as India tests its first nuclear device. And any gains in previous arms control agreements seem like a mirage. The United States and Soviet Union appear to be modernizing their nuclear forces, not reducing them. Thanks to the deployment of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV), both countries can now load their intercontinental ballistic missiles with more nuclear warheads than before.
IT IS 12 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1972: The United States and Soviet Union attempt to curb the race for nuclear superiority by signing the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The two treaties force a nuclear parity of sorts. SALT limits the number of ballistic missile launchers either country can possess, and the ABM Treaty stops an arms race in defensive weaponry from developing.
IT IS 10 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1969: Nearly all of the world’s nations come together to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The deal is simple–the nuclear weapon states vow to help the treaty’s non-nuclear weapon signatories develop nuclear power if they promise to forego producing nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon states also pledge to abolish their own arsenals when political conditions allow for it. Although Israel, India, and Pakistan refuse to sign the treaty, the Bulletin is cautiously optimistic: “The great powers have made the first step. They must proceed without delay to the next one–the dismantling, gradually, of their own oversized military establishments.”
IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1968: Regional wars rage. U.S. involvement in Vietnam intensifies, India and Pakistan battle in 1965, and Israel and its Arab neighbors renew hostilities in 1967. Worse yet, France and China develop nuclear weapons to assert themselves as global players. “There is little reason to feel sanguine about the future of our society on the world scale,” the Bulletin laments. “There is a mass revulsion against war, yes; but no sign of conscious intellectual leadership in a rebellion against the deadly heritage of international anarchy.”
IT IS 12 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1963: After a decade of almost non-stop nuclear tests, the United States and Soviet Union sign the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which ends all atmospheric nuclear testing. While it does not outlaw underground testing, the treaty represents progress in at least slowing the arms race. It also signals awareness among the Soviets and United States that they need to work together to prevent nuclear annihilation.
IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1960: Political actions belie the tough talk of “massive retaliation.” For the first time, the United States and Soviet Union appear eager to avoid direct confrontation in regional conflicts such as the 1956 Egyptian-Israeli dispute. Joint projects that build trust and constructive dialogue between third parties also quell diplomatic hostilities. Scientists initiate many of these measures, helping establish the International Geophysical Year, a series of coordinated, worldwide scientific observations, and the Pugwash Conferences, which allow Soviet and American scientists to interact.
IT IS 2 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1953: After much debate, the United States decides to pursue the hydrogen bomb, a weapon far more powerful than any atomic bomb. In October 1952, the United States tests its first thermonuclear device, obliterating a Pacific Ocean islet in the process; nine months later, the Soviets test an H-bomb of their own. “The hands of the Clock of Doom have moved again,” the Bulletin announces. “Only a few more swings of the pendulum, and, from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western civilization.”
IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1949: The Soviet Union denies it, but in the fall, President Harry Truman tells the American public that the Soviets tested their first nuclear device, officially starting the arms race. “We do not advise Americans that doomsday is near and that they can expect atomic bombs to start falling on their heads a month or year from now,” the Bulletin explains. “But we think they have reason to be deeply alarmed and to be prepared for grave decisions.”
IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1947: As the Bulletin evolves from a newsletter into a magazine, the Clock appears on the cover for the first time. It symbolizes the urgency of the nuclear dangers that the magazine’s founders–and the broader scientific community–are trying to convey to the public and political leaders around the world.

Join the worldwide Hiroshima Day rallys on Saturday 8th of August.   Click Here For Details

Scott Kane

Werribee rejected Uranium and the nuclear fuel cycle through political action. Reactors leak and genes mutate.

posted by Roger Howe on Friday, July 31st 2009

When the Liberals proposed a toxic dump for Werribee, the people were stirred into a massive reaction.

A national boycott was lead by the Democrat senators against CSR, the commercial operator of the proposed dump.

The protest movement culminated in a 15,000 strong meeting at Werribee Racetrack – average mums, dads and kids – joining to deny the government and the profit seeking CSR their plan, which was to be at the cost of the local residents. The civic resistance would have only got bigger if the Liberals hadn’t cut their losses and cancelled the planned toxic dump.

Uranium and radioactive waste from nuclear reactors are far more toxic than the contents of the once planned toxic dump in Werribee.

If 15,000 people protest against the cost to their health and livelihood from chemical waste, imagine how many would be out to stop a fatal government mistake mining Uranium and creating radioactive waste at every point of the fuel cycle. I recall Werribee was mooted as a potential site for a Nuclear Reactor, but the quiet giant of public opinion stirred. The proposal was quickly stilled.

Now, Labor has increased the scale of uranium mining in Australia, and continues to operate 2 nuclear reactors at Lucas Heights.

The more modern reactor was shutdown pending investigation of incidents during its operation.

The older has suffered a number of incidents, no doubt obliging the decision to replace it.

I am convinced that with the appropriate use of particle accelerators, nuclear reactors would no longer be required for nuclear medicines and medical research, the stated justification for keeping the reactors.

Australia is trading the genetic health of generations in return for quick bucks – Is it really worth it??

Australia was once proudly nuclear free, with uranium left safely in the ground.  Now we have operating and planned Uranium mines and two sick nuclear reactors.  This is NOT progress.

Ziggy Switkowski urges the spread of radioactive poison by embracing nuclear reactors and the uranium fuel cycle

posted by David Collyer on Wednesday, July 22nd 2009

My old boss, Dr Ziggy Switkowski, is out again – advocating Australia adopt nuclear power generation, citing it as the solution to climate change.

Ziggy is a highly respected physicist, leader and thinker.  He is a very big fan of all things nuclear.  And he is dead wrong.

“Give a man a hammer and everything looks like a nail.”

I make the following points, none of which are original and none of which have been refuted:

• Uranium mining leaves large areas contaminated by radioactive waste.

• Nuclear reactors cannot physically be built in time to match the imminent closure of Victoria’s brown coal power stations, which generate a quarter of the country’s electricity.

• Reactor constructors will be confronted by widespread civil disobedience and hysterical social unrest (I am not advocating this, merely predicting it).

• Nuclear reactors are really really expensive compared to alternatives.

• No satisfactory solution has been found for radioactive waste.

It is easy to dismiss environmental critics as ‘unrealistic’ or ‘naive’.  But we do have genuine, attractive alternatives.  The immediate solution lies in gas turbines and windmills.  Recent technological advances in coal seam gas extraction mean we have an abundant gas supply.   And we have plenty of good, windy sites for wind turbines.

I remind the gentle reader that Germany already sports windmill power equivalent to Australia’s entire generating capacity.  This, in a densely populated country a fraction of our size.

We are faced with an urgent, climate-critical task in replacing our generating set with low and no pollution alternatives.  Across the world, scientists are grappling with new techniques – hot rocks, solar, carbon capture and onward – not to find a solution, merely to drive down its eventual cost.

Join me in rejecting the nuclear option for Australia.