Nuclear emotions belong in the cooling tower
Sydney Morning Herald
Friday July 17, 2009
Larry Buttrose's opinion piece is a travesty of journalism ("Global madness creates a neighbourhood tragedy", July 16). His points seem to be: my very nice neighbour died of cancer, it must have been the fault of Chernobyl, therefore we must ban nuclear power.It is certainly possible his neighbour's cancer was a result of Chernobyl, but no more likely than that it was caused by other industrial pollutants or simple genetic predisposition. But to Buttrose the link is taken as fact.In his mind, nuclear power and atomic weapons are the same. Only scientific illiterates could believe that. There we have the nub of the problem. The anti-nuclear faction resorts to emotional myths to deny science. Elsewhere large and growing populations enjoy carbon-free nuclear energy in perfect safety.I have no idea of the size of Buttrose's roof, but I doubt his expectations of solar self-sufficiency will even come close to being met.Barry Wells Cairns, QueenslandLarry Buttrose paints a sad, emotive picture of a woman's death from cancer, apparently from exposure to Chernobyl's radioactive fallout. Chernobyl was a shocking accident, with about 4000 deaths as the final, future death toll. The resultant inquiries will have tightened all aspects of nuclear energy and reduced the likelihood and size of future accidents.But how do the risks and costs of nuclear energy compare with the risks and costs from alternatives? We don't know. We haven't analysed the options. It is known that deaths in the coal industry greatly exceed those from nuclear energy, including Chernobyl. But this is just one comparison. All alternatives, including Buttrose's solar preference and carbon capture and storage, need to be assessed against the enormous costs and disruption estimated for climate change.The bottom line is that we must objectively compare and assess all options. Fear without understanding is no basis for policy decisions.Harley Wright RosevilleIf nuclear power is the solution to our energy and greenhouse gas worries, the market will rush in to build, run and decommission power stations without any government subsidy. The truth is there is no nuclear power industry in the world that could survive without massive subsidies, tax breaks or straight cash injections. The industry has always been a mendicant to governments and always will be.Les MacDonald BalmainOne wonders when we will have a sensible, non-emotive debate on the use of nuclear power to generate electricity. While France, the US and many other nations use nuclear power stations widely, there is barely a mention of doing the same here. It as if the subject is taboo or just beyond the intellect of Australians.I want a rigorous scientific debate to initiate a political debate and then a strategy for the removal of coal-fired power stations from electricity generation any takers out there?Geoff Suggate TurramurraDavid Sayers (Letters, July 16) hopes we will have a coal-dust free nuclear future thanks to Peter Garrett. Unfortunately that is not the case. In April last year he approved a new coal terminal at Gladstone. What we have here is another episode of Animal Farm.Matt Mushalik Epping
© 2009 Sydney Morning Herald