Hi Tom
I know what you're saying and there are a lot of people who really want to see Australia get some decent nukes going. I'm one of them. But it's not a popular decision. We had a huge brouhaha when the Federal Gov't wanted to build a national repository for low level waste [not even the nasty stuff] in one of the States - that got canned very quickly. Even locally there has been stiff opposition to an irradition facility in a nearby suburb - not even a radioisotope steriliser, but a giant fluoroscope facility - and all sorts of irrational maunderings from the usual suspects. We're a country where the Greens almost have the Balance of Power in our Senate, where my city proudly bears "Nuclear Free Zone" signs on the city borders, and where people don't realise that skin-cancer will kill them before reactor leakages probably ever will.
Adam
BTW Our current attitudes are probably not helped by a bad history of abuse by the UK of our soldiers in their nuke tests in the 1950s plus some Aborigines not being evacuated or even consulted during a few tests near their lands. Hence the Green rumour machine has a certain amount of ill-will to feed off.
Space/Science » in reply to Thanks for the links!
It's nuts
The whole thread (29 posts)
- Nature: Hydrogen economy looks out of reach
- Exactly. Only nuke energy makes sense for this.
- So agree
- re: Time to face reality: Unless the hydrogen atoms are bonded to carbon, then hydrogen is not a feasible energy source.
- Rats! Somebody better let both Kerry and Bush know. (n/t)
- Nuclear energy is the only technically feasible near-term solution. (n/t)
- Bookmark this: I completely agree with Bowser.
- Whoops - link
