I won`t argue with that statement TWT. So do you mean to say that we should not at least talk about it on this forum?:confused:

And if not, why not?

Coal mining has caused a few deaths, Worrals. You may be not in favour of coal mining, but it's usually necessary in the absence of nuclear power generation.

And a bunch of sailors in the adverse conditions of a submarine can safely operate a nuclear reactor.

No,not at all Pinky.Debate is a good thing.

It's all good saying that you're for or against but without any of us having the slightest clue about what exactly is involved from an engineering and cost perspective not to mention the environmental and geological siting perspectives then it will remain just that : our own opinions based only on what we think we know.

Then add in the effect of NIMBY's or local,state and federal politics :)

Are there any credible feasibility studies out there ?

I would be surprised, allowing even a feasibility study would be a surefire way for an MP to guarantee themselves a new career come the next election.

Sad really.

I don't know what it would take to get the ball rolling in this (at times, frustratingly :oh:) democratic country.

As far as I am aware, in South Australia at least; No.

And the Watermelon party would never ever even agree to a study being carried out! I suspect that they would scream,:eek: scream,:eek: scream:eek: if the suggestion to consider to even carry out a feasibility study was even mentioned!

SHY would have an attack of the vapours at even the thought!:*:ugh:

Struth; She would probably even have a coronary!!:eek::eek:

Hang on a bit there.....:ooh::ooh: Hmmm.:E:E

That's not funny.

http://i57.tinypic.com/1zbw7df.jpg

Oh RJM; Did you have to???:yuk::yuk::yuk:

I had a great Japanese style dinner here this evening and the sight of that...that..:yuk: just curdled everything!

I may even have to go outside for a chukka!!:D:=:E

Could have been worse... Julia, or Christine, or Natasha... :uhoh:

Point conceded. Especially the first and last named.:yuk::yuk:

I'm not overly discerning, but I wouldn't touch her with Pinkys :mad:

although Natasha went ok. So did the ex-NSW 'related to a famous person' Premier and Kate Elli-whateverhernamewas.

Ok, let's do it, just to see SHY go into vapours...closely followed by my sister.

“100 snakes in a dark room, only one is deadly. Would you have no fear to walk in? It is only 1% after all”

A simplistic way of viewing a complex problem. Is there any evidence to suggest the Muslim population are more prone to law breaking? The 1 % you fear will always be present regardless of immigration policy.

As for the general anti “Lebbo” brigade here on this thread, I strongly suggest reading the NSW police report on the Cronulla riots. It makes interesting reading and points the finger at drunk white racist Australians.

I hate to have yet another crack at SHY :E but it seems that, like a lot of politicians, especially those in upper houses whose income relies on appealing to a percentage of voters rather the a majority in an electorate, she usually acts to massage her image. Her particular schtick is compassion for refugees. That it's a schtick is demonstrated by her silence while her friends in the Labor government facilitated the drowning of hundreds of asylum seekers and the incarceration of thousands including children, yet her tearful concern for the few asylum seekers being dealt with by the LNP government. These double standards expose her either as dim-witted, or cynically self-interested. Possibly both.

As Pinky says, Fukushima was due for closure but it wasn't just scheduled for closure, it was past it's 'use by' date and should have been closed at the time of the Tsunami, the instruction had come from central government but local government hadn't actioned it.

Chernobyl was brought about by engineers carrying out unauthorised tests on the night shift - I would say unlikely in Australia?

I see quite a few posts here displaying very negative thoughts on the nuclear option. As I mentioned before, Robert Parker addresses nearly all the questions raised and offers answers giving detailed information as to what is required to see a nuclear power grid serving all of Australia.

He proposes a specific type of power plant, says what each would cost, and says we would require 39 such stations, acknowledging the NIMBY factor and even goes into detail about how much land each station would require.

Anyone living anywhere near Sydney who is remotely interested in this topic - particularly if you are against nuclear power - should do him/herself a favour and attend the lecture at Chatswood on 22 July. Parker is a breath of fresh air - a self-confessed Greenie and an engineer coming up with clear proposals that are well worth hearing, if only to be rejected should you choose to.

I came away convinced he was on to something and should be given a hearing by our State and Federal politicians.

http://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/

Thanks 410,I'll have a look at that :ok:

410, You realise that you may be banned from this thread, and possibly even Jetblast, for transgressing these guidelines: :=

1: Only post stuff that makes no sense to anyone other than the poster. Your transgression: your post makes sense :ok:

2: Denigrate other posters, or if not the poster personally, at least denigrate their opinion/position/belief and/or understanding. Your transgression: your post didn't attack anyone :ok:

3: Rehash old positions ad-infinitum. Your transgression: your post is a breath of fresh air :ok:

Thank you :D for risking banishment :)

Concur ... and you yourself sir, are risking at least a two week holiday from this site, for daring to praise another poster. :=

Hempy; At least we agree on one thing!:ok:

I wouldn`t touch her with my :mad: either.:ugh:

Thanks for the link, 410. I'll have a read. And yes, David is correct...:}
Currently, nor will Labor. The issue came up in Queensland a couple of years ago and was promptly shut down, albiet with a vocal minority dissent. My hunch is that even Labor types who are not vehemently anti-nuke will not advocate for it because of the potential political fallout; coal-fired power plants are the devil the electorate knows. My other hunch is that within Labor (and I'd guess within the Coalition), at least part of the reluctance is due to influence from the coal industry; whether it's from workers or the big mining companies, they're very happy with the current status quo.