Reactors for Australia? - YES! : Melbourne Indymedia

Much progress has been made in safe reactor technologies recently and safe clean fusion reactors should soon be a going concern. A test prototype is almost ready for testing and the results will be webcast as they come to paw.

As far as fission reactors go well they are probably not a good idea. It's not a bad idea to sometimes skip technological cycles - India is doing this with WiFi - Au can wait until safer cleaner fusion reactors come online instead of paying a small fortune for the ' Collins class' of dangerous and dirty fission reactors.
If John Howard resembles Monty Burns and Kim Beazley, Homer Simpson is this scenario then thats simply a coincidence.
Fission reactors such as Canada's CanDu reactors may very well have a good safety record however it doesn't pay to torture test these things does it. Chernobyl and Three mile island come to mind. I was in the states in 1979 when, for three days, everyone wondered whether the entire east coast was about to become unihabitable for the next 250,000 years.
People are still dying from Chernobyl and vast spaces around Pripyat are a Canberra type wasteland.
The only people in favour of fission reactors are probably old capitalist pigs and terrorists.
Friends of the Earth was saying 35 years ago that uranium creates a police state. Well now we have a police state , I know, but that is still no argument for letting the material for a thousand dirty bombs loose.
I have to go to Melbourne occasionally for coffee donchaknow ...
Savings in wasted energy and more research into appropriate sustainable technolgies seems the wise move.
All the more reason to change the government actually.
And, no, I don't mean the Alternative Liberal Party either.
I mean change to a net based form of direct democracy.
Another bee in my bonnet is water.
Of course any entertainment journalist worth their salt has water on the brain.
People here know that the RAT institute is running double blind mice trials on exterme water recycling. ( Sear ' Dune' and Simon Thaur, for more on this exciting new research area) What some rat scientist's may be unaware of is rat dew harvesting projects we are running in WA.
The morning fog may yield vast amounts and then there are salt water condensing greenhouse's.
Delicious rat salad items can be grown in these with sea water being condensed by sunlight to clear enough water to grow the lettuce and tomatoes.
RAT science never sleeps my friends and so I request your small contribution toward a better future through rat progress. All donations add up to better lab conditions and are fully tax evadable. Please steal from the rich and give generously to a worthy cause.
Net travel - yes!
Solar - yes!
Wind - yes!
Recycling - yes!
35 hour month - yes!
Seqestration of old politician's - FUCK YES!

Outside View: Nuclear Cancer Factories

Two thousand years ago Hippocrates laid down the dictum "primum non nocere," or "first, do no harm", meaning it's a physician's moral duty to induce no harm or injury to the patient in the course of treatment.

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/114093.php

SO DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT NUKILLER!

AND STOP HAVING X-RAYS FOR YOUR BROKEN LIMP DICK!

Get a blog, pr, and please stop the text diarhea on MIM. Your garbled stream of conciousness musings are really embarrassing, for you and the site.

p.s. fusion doesn't work for electricity generation, never has, never will.

Hold the Tritium dressing on the leathal lettuce and killer tomatoes for my rat salad thanks pr.

I strongly oppose any nuclear power use except for medical purposes, and please know, that 60% of the world need for that comes from a teeny tiny reactor in Canada. Therefore we have no need to build another one anywhere. like they are planning(attached here).

Also remember what happened like Chernobyl. Ten years after that tragedy, a doctor in Hiroshima did a research. He picked breast cancer as a sample and checked all the data in Japan, and found certain area up north of mainland Japan(Tohoku area), the rate of breast cancer jumped up high! Chernobyle was the only cause he could ever thinks of, i.e. it travels and contaminates surrounding areas.

Uranium enrichment process leaves some 90% of toxic waste called 'depleted' uranium which is not 'depleted' the danger at all. It is a radio active, heavy metal toxin that the US and UK have been using to cause cancer, leukemia, kidney and all sorts of other lethal diseases as well as horrific birth deformities. And its half life is 4.5 billion years meaning it keeps killing and contaminating forever.

Look at photos from Iraq at
http://www.wilpf.org.au/ and
http://www.morizumi-pj.com/shashinten/thumbnails%20of%20exhibition.html

Also buy and watch

"Blowin' in the Wind"
http://www.bsharp.net.au/

Think well,
Worry about one parrot a year which doesn't fly that high to begtin with, or about human lives and future generations. And in W.A., their facility cannot cope to accept all the electricity the 'ugly' windmills are creating. It can produce plenty!

And we need to change the coal/power stations green!
Technology is there to reduce whatever their toxic exhaust, but costs money. And yet, it would cost LESS THAN 2 weeks spending of our military to fix problems of our hospitals!

Go figure!!

A coherent rat is a pleasure to read, thanks pr but you trod on my bread and butter. This week’s article was well and truly scooped & scraped by yours which leaves me in fear of being known as pr’s copycat if I print a word. Bugger.

However what has escaped pr’s notice is that the Glibs latest public distraction is on a very obvious fault line,. Sure Nuke power is in the headlines, Blair is shouting about it and Howard is copying, as it takes the focus off other more pressing things, distraction is the biggest thing that was ever produced by the nuke power debate, its nearly as useful as a Pope un-cassocked and called a paedophile, a very useful tool for taking the heat off other focus issues.

But pr’s right, the new breed of reactor is safer and has an ability to consume its own waste but the cost is eye watering so we will buy a cheaper one from Argentina but only to replace Lucus Heights.

Britain needs to do something about energy, they have no coal or oil or anything to burn, they import 90% of their energy fuel and lots of that comes withy hidden costs from Putin, they need something to loosen his grip, and so nuke for them maybe the best bet.

For us It will not, as there are cheaper and more viable options open. Remember degassing coal? We were going to teach the Chinese how its done, once that is, if we find out how to use the technology ourseves, and geosequestering co2 could save us the troublev anyway if it was possible, so nuke power is a little unnecessary anyway if you believe what our leaders say.

Then theres the availability of water, our countries biggest problem as desalination plants will be required by the reactor, so we cannot expect the reactor to supply its needs as well as our own

Can we?

That would be like expecting agriculture to supply biofuel for its own energy needs and food for us as well. That just silly.

Besides which on a hot day the steam will remain vapour a float away from the cooling towers, Australia aint no place for any type of nuclear

Desalination could occur in a flooded lake Torrens and be carried by prevailing winds to drop into the Murray Darling Basin through precipitation naturally, with just a gravity assisted siphon technology being constructed linking below sea level lake with the Gulf of St vincent.

Brilliant.

However for electricity all you need are two holes in the right piece of ground, both deep and a little explosive and you will have the energy from geothermal to play with. There’s a successful pilot project north of the Flinders Ranges, just south of Roxby Downs starved of attention funding and evertything else...that may well supply our entire nation with clean inexhaustible supplies of energy but Howard wants more fairy stories to distract the minds of the easily led, he doesn’t want real threats to the coal industry, so nuke will never happen in Australia its just one of the lies he makes up in his bed.

Running out of lies is more possible than a power station coming here.

I have an idea that could solve 2 problems. We have a rising rate of obesity and a problem generating clean power. We could kill 2 birds with one stone. All you need to generate power is a spining turbine right? And to elimitate obesity you need people to exercise more. So, we get all the fat people to run around on treadmills and the like in order to run a turbine. Ingenious....... Actually a really stupid idea, but thats what im good at.

Or my other idea is we just not use any power at all....Of course we are all hopelessly addicted to it, so thats never gonna happen. Pity....

My god, the irony, it hurts.... X-rays to see damage done by radiation. Get it? Im bored okay.

fusion reactors may be viable at some future time. Maybe for use off-planet - any planet.

Most important thing is, with something this dangerous, there's no reason not to do 2000 years of very slow, very careful, largely theoretical work in preparation.

No rush.

While we still can't handle the technology there is one over-riding concern....

whatever energy source we of this generation choose to use, fine. But whatever it is, it should leave the choice open to future generations.

Way we're headed we're inflicting the control and maintenance of nuclear technology and its biproducts on the next 3000 generations of Australians.

those who take seriously the idea that one significant purpose of a human life is to be a good ancestor for descendants to come couldn't imagine imposing nuclear energy facilities and all that comes with it on those who come after us.

They're hardly likely to be placated by related profit margins in the short term.

Analingual expert Johnny Howard doesn't have any principles invested in this project.. he's just serving corporate masters. The nuclear industry is failing and needs a boost. And Howard and his little team of rednecks are just the fools to revitalise the profit margins for the benefit of worried executives in the US and elsewhere, who are seeing their profits fall as more rusty reactors go offline.

Let's wait 2000 years then have this debate again, when we're capable of dismantling what we've built.

I haven't heard much comment on the irony of using highly toxic nukes to patch up an environmental problem created by rampantly unsustainable industry.

Howard has already lost this one. Seems his impeccable electoral radar has taken a direct hit from his own hubris. He's whinging about being sledged by Bomber Beazley. Oh the irony..again! He wants an open debate, on the merits of the issue.

Will they be taking into account the cost of managing nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years? No, that would be outside terms of reference.

Will they be taking into account the fact that one billionth of a gram of reactor waste can kill a human? Noooo, that's just scaremongering. We have to have nukes to put a bandaid over climate change or we'll all be rooned!!!

The Nuke issue is a geosequestered WMD, theres nothing really there, it’s a ploy, a distraction, a mirror and a cloak for the dagger, and its not even very clever its completly transparent.

Enviromentally friendly like my arse

Let look back in human history and find one-thing humans have kept safely guarded and protected for thousands of years.
There is nothing, not one example that we intended to preserve.
Now let’s factor in climate change, rising sea levels, earthquakes and war, not to mention all the other environmental concerns that will lead to abandoning land,

Sure! lets find a place on the planet where we can store Nuke waste and be assured that it will be safe for generations.

Safety is not really not up to us, is it? but the choice should be.

John's Political Harp
Submitted by Joe Public (not verified) on Thu, 2006/06/08 - 3:32pm.

John Howard is playing the political harp like he always has.

He will put a wedge issue in the policy bill that he does not really care about and is prepared to lose to distract the opposition while he slips in the policies he really wants.

The Nuclear debate has begun and these political tactics are in play already.

If he can get the public to argue over the merits of nuclear power stations, which he knows we will not accept, then he gets the opportunity to include uranium enrichment for export and Fee paying nuclear waste dumps in the same bill without debate.

Example: The first question the apposition asked is "where are the power stations going to be?" as if it was a forgone conclusion that we WILL have nuclear power. Watch the passionate debate about the trivia while the really dangerous issues are ignored.

At the end of the bun fight all Johnny has to do is concede a bit and say "OK, we won't have nuclear power but we will have the rest of it, which is all he wants anyway. The giveaway line has already been heard in John Howard's quote "I think nuclear power is inevitable, but we need a debate"...........................whats to debate about the inevitable?

We need to pay attention this time, as we cannot let this one slip out of our control........or we will end up living in a Nuclear waste zone, while Johnny and crew more to South America.