Dangers of a green signal (newspaper comment piece)

 

Just got sent this... only one journo's opinion, but a pretty strong one!

· Andrew Bolt

· From: Herald Sun

· July 21, 2010 12:00AM

ONE election result is already clear - and makes this debate about Tony Abbott's "secret" plans even more brainless.

Wake up, people. The Greens will have the balance of power in the Senate.

Labor sealed that deal when it agreed this week to swap preferences with a party that its wiser heads know would devastate the economy if it could.

That's politics, I guess. Winning is all, and to hell with the national interest.

But how grotesquely irresponsible.

Labor is helping into power a party that demands we scrap our power stations and close industries that earn us at least $60 billion a year.

Oh, and it wants us all to have more holidays, because hard work and making money really sucks.

12% of Australians think this isthe party for them, and even Labor now says it's the best of the rest. Yes, that really is how infantile our society, and our politics especially, has become.

But Labor, whose primary vote has been unusually low, says this only because it badly needs Greens preferences to tip it over the line.

In exchange, it's agreed to help the Greens save its own five Senate seats - and to probably win a couple more.

It was already virtually inevitable Labor would win back some Senate seats from the Coalition, which overachieved in 2004, the Mark Latham election.

But this deal also kisses goodbye to Victoria's Family First Senator, Steve Fielding, who lucked his seat in 2004 when Labor absentmindedly preferenced him but will lose it now Labor is steering its second votes to the Greens instead.

That will be all it takes. After this election, no Government will be able to pass a law against the Opposition's objection without the support of the Greens, and Greens alone.

Never before has this party had so much power - and so much opportunity to finally inflict on us some of the policies that so many innocent voters have treated as a just-dreaming position statement, rather than a deliberate manifesto for the de-industrialisation of our economy and the tribalising of our society.

This now is the real issue: how much of our future did Labor sell off just to get these Greens' preferences?

Never mind this week's faked scare campaign about what workplace laws Opposition leader Abbott might secretly plan. The hapless schmuck couldn't get them through a Greens-Labor Senate even if he wanted to.

No, what really needs debate is what the Greens might now demand from a Gillard government in exchange for its vote. And that, in turn, needs journalists especially to at last take seriously this party's policies.

The truth is that the Greens' manifesto has not been written down just for a joke or some mood music. It is the serious work of the serious ideological warriors hiding behind Bob Brown's amiable front.

Vote Greens in this election and you won't get cuddlier koalas, bigger hugs and cleaner rivers.

In fact, you'll be voting to "transition from coal exports", which means ending a trade worth $55 billion a year .

You'll be voting to "end .. the mining and export of uranium", worth another $900 billion a year.

You'll be demanding farmers "remove as far as possible" all genetically modified crops, which includes GM cotton worth about $1.3 billion a year.

You'll be voting to close down many other businesses and industries, including the export of woodchips from old-growth forests, certain kinds of fishing, oil and mineral exploration in parks or wildernesses, and new coal mines of any kind.

You'll even be voting to close the Lucas Heights nuclear facility, even though it actually produces treatments for cancer.

In fact, you'll be voting for policies deliberately intended to make us poorer. Less industrialised. Or as the Greens' policy puts it, for a "reduction of Australia's use of natural resources to a level that is sustainable and socially just". Whatever that formula means.

Maybe you think it won't matter if a few industries get shut, as long as the rest make up for this loss of 6 per cent of our national income each year. Maybe you really are that stupid.

But you haven't heard the rest of the Greens' policies yet, have you?

YOU see, the Greens also plan to shut the coal-fired power stations that produce 80 per cent of the electricity used to run our homes, factories, offices, hospitals, shops, traffic lights and airports.

They not only "oppose the establishment of new coal-fired power stations" - claiming they make the planet dangerously hot - but intend to ban new coal supplies for those we already have.

What's more, they'll hit our power stations with a new carbon tax to make wicked electricity too expensive for you.

Do you have any idea how many businesses would be driven broke by this green frolic? How many hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost?

Already Labor's threat to bring in emissions trading some time after 2012 has caused power station operators to cancel half the $18 billion they'd planned a year ago to spend on maintaining the ones they had or building the new power stations we'll need as we grow bigger and richer. Power shortages now seem certain.

But if you think the Greens must surely have alternative power sources in mind to make up for the 80 per cent they'll switch off, you're dreaming.

The Greens want to keep Labor's ban on nuclear power, the most likely alternative and greenest source of base-load power. They even want to scrap government-financed research into carbon capture and storage, which is Labor's one hope of making coal-fired stations still greenhouse-friendly.

Sure, the Greens do promise to somehow get 30 per cent of our electricity from "renewable" sources within just 10 years, but there's a small problem. Correction, huge one.

We've only managed to lift our renewable energy to 6 per cent after all these years of subsidies, and three quarters of that is from hydro-electricity. But guess which party bans any more of these river-killing dams?

So consider. If the Greens get their avowed way, we'll have huge industries banned, businesses driven broke and power prices driven through the roof, with not enough electricity for what industries will be left.

So with our income slashed to ribbons, what do the Greens propose? Not deep cuts in every government program, but a spending spree to make Kevin Rudd seem a miser.

It's free money for everyone. If you vote for the Greens, you're voting for an extra week of holidays for all, "mandated shorter standard working hours", more pay to women workers, higher pay for casuals, and better weekly benefits to students and artists.

More pay for less work, at the mere stroke of a green pen. Isn't this a darling way to reorganise the economy? What could possibly go wrong?

Too spendthrift, you complain?

Wise up, friend. The Greens have barely started.

They promise to lift foreign aid to "a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2010", which means an instant rise in handouts of $4 billion a year.

Another $2 billion a year will go to scrap tertiary fees and forgiving all HECS debts. Billions more will go on putting train lines underground and subsidising "green" power.

On and on the spending spirals, as if the Greens are the party for spoiled children using daddy's credit card, with not the slightest giddy thought of how it's all going to be paid for.

Oh, excuse me - the Greens do lazily assume that the bill will be covered by hiking corporate taxes, hitting the richer 5 per cent of us with wealth taxes, and slugging air travellers.

Show us your costings, Bob. Wouldn't come within a bull's roar.

I'd be amazed if after a year of two of this that anyone would want to come to a country that by then would be a smoking hole in the ground.

Yet the Greens plan to do their airy best to attract more beggars to their new nation of freeloaders.

Any "asylum seeker" making it here by boat would be freed into the community within 14 days, security checks permitting, and rewarded with instant benefits, medical services and school for the children. These tempting goodies will be offered to "environmental refugees", too.

Guess to the nearest 10,000 how many people from Third World countries will want to cash in? Guess how many more billions this will cost, and what fresh tensions we'll import?

By then, though, we'll have more of our own ethnic tensions than ever, as the Greens divide us into tribes, squabbling over precedent and spoils.

Aborigines will be written into the constitution as having "prior occupation and sovereignty" over this shared land, and will be allowed to "reclaim language, heritage and cultural practices". Like payback?

The more newly arrived will win the right to have government programs "implemented in languages other than English", and to have their "cultural and linguistic diversity ... respected". Like shariah law?

AS for our defence ties with the United States, well, phooey to those white capitalist imperialists.

The Greens want to close the joint bases here, pull out of the US missile defence program and end the ANZUS treaty. Naturally, many counter-terrorism laws will also be "reformed". Which means weakened.

There's not much point in going on, picking out the economic idiocy and social lunacy of a manifesto that would leave us poorer, more divided and more defenceless. The laughing stock of Asia.

It's all so crazy that you may dismiss it as the idle dreams of homoeopaths in tofu sandals. But a new, militant industrial agenda is also buried in this New Age madness, signalling the arrival in Bob Brown's party of "watermelon Greens" - green outside and red in, and meaning business big time.

These, like lead NSW candidate Lee Rhiannon, seem Greens more of convenience than faith, using this doctors' wives party to smuggle in the kind of hard-Left politics that would scare off the voters if they saw it coming under a hammer and sickle.

But be clear: vote for their Greens and you're voting for a return of union muscle of the most bullying kind.

Secret ballots for industrial action would be abolished. Unions would have a formal right to strike, and their victims less right to sue for damages.

Union bosses would have more power to barge into your workplace, and to dragoon workers into "industry wide agreements that are union negotiated".

This is what a vote for the Greens really means. And it's this party of vandals, tribalists and closet totalitarians that shameless Labor now helps to such threatening influence.

 


madfishoholic's picture

Posts: 187

Date Joined: 25/03/10

a very intersting read

Tue, 2010-08-17 11:03

a very intersting read

____________________________________________________________________________

I dont need counselling just a bigger boat

hlokk's picture

Posts: 4293

Date Joined: 04/04/08

Saw this on another forum.

Tue, 2010-08-17 11:17

Saw this on another forum. Dont know what Andrew Bolt is smoking if he thinking Uranium mining is worth $900B/year.

And just because the greens want to scrap coal plants, does not mean they will.

And even if they want to scrap OPAL (not sure if they do), it doesnt mean we run out of nuclear medicine. Lots of nuclear medical isotopes are produced in cyclotrons, not reactors. Though, lots still are. Though, the types you can produce in reactors are longer lived, and you could import them. (Though, I dont think we should).

 

I wont be voting for the greens, and i'll probably vote below the line and put them low on the list, but just because the greens are idiots in a lot of ways does not mean everything claimed about them is true and that people on the opposite side of the fence arent spewing just as much crap Wink

Tony Halliday's picture

Posts: 2500

Date Joined: 14/06/07

he got his millions and

Tue, 2010-08-17 13:45

he got his millions and billions crewed up. Uranium is worth about $900M to $1B a year to Australia. World wide it it's at about 53,000 tons a year now, Kazakhstan (27.3%), Canada (20.1%), Australia (15.7%), Namibia (9.1%), Russia (7.0%), and Niger (6.4%). working around $46.00 per lb U3O8, you get an idea of it's value.

Australia use to be number 1 in the world, but with no new mines and little expansion they slipping off the top three on the chart, soon to be ovetaken by Namibia and other African deposits.

As for nuke medicines, well one day your kid may have cancer or something worse and then you'll think about it in a different view when they say you can't afford the imported isotopes to save their lives....
ps cclotrons are nuclear as well, just not in the convetional sense, I did some work back in 1984 on the cyclotron for accelatrion of protons for nuke medicine in Cape Town, and we had to stand behind 4m thick concrete walls to be safe!

Bottom line of that whole peace is the Greens don't live in the same world as the real people, they think we can live off veggies patches, sunshine and all ride bicycles to work. No model ever produced has shown a Green society capable fo surviving unless it goes back to subsistance living and a barter ecconomy.

at first it all reads good, but the devil is in the detail:
http://www.greennewdealgroup.org/?page_id=88

http://www.australianfreedom.com/newsletter.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/07/2812419.htm
just moving to a "more green" form of coal can push power bills up 20% on it's own.

Moving away from Coal and gas fired power, without going nuke will push the cost of business and regional power from 15~18c/kW to 45~50c / kW based on the last major study done.

____________________________________________________________________________

Tony Halliday: ~Meals on Reels ~

 It takes a strong fish to swim against the current. Even a dead one can float with it

"It is always in season for old men to learn." Aeschylus (525-456 BC)

"In a mad world only the mad are sane." Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998)

hlokk's picture

Posts: 4293

Date Joined: 04/04/08

Makes you wonder if it was

Tue, 2010-08-17 14:05

Makes you wonder if it was deliberate? Wink. The whole piece just seems like a sensationalist, over the top rant, and only half factual. One extreme to the other.


Though, for the record, I am for uranium mining, and I think we should build nuclear power plants (provided its done safely, but modern reactors are very safe).

Its not just affording the imported isotopes, its also, any delays are delays in time, but also yield as they decay shortly. We should definitely keep OPAL up and running. As you mentioned having a sick kid, I wonder how many greenies would conveniently skip their previous positions and use nuclear medicine. Though, one greenie thing I read said they werent against nuclear medicine, but just wanted it imported only. So they dont have problems as long as its NIMBY? Someone elses problem, out of sight, out of mind?
Hmm, so radiation used to helping people, good, but completely contained radiation for reducing greenhouses gasses, bad.

And yeah, cyclotrons are nuclear too, but you dont hear the greens complaining about them, hmmm. Plus then you have all the other radiation sources in medicine like xrays, CAT scans, PET scans, etc. Then you have the extra radiation dose you get from flying. Seems some people only worry about nuclear power plants because "they're nuclear and they produce harmful radioactivity" when the radioactivity is container (better than other things like coal plants) and that they happily do other things with vastly higher doses of radiation. But then, i guess its not an actual rational decision....
As you go into leederville, theres a sign that says "Town of Vincent, Nuclear free zone". Uh-huh, sure they dont have any clinics that might do that. Even most smoke detectors contain nuclear material, haha.


The greens have some admirable goals, after all, I would like to see us having less impact on the environment, reducing carbon, reducing pollution, ensuring fish are conserved, but after that, then I differ. As you said, their principles of applying it just dont work in the real world. Ideologies dont work well without any afterthought of whether they'd actually work in the real world. Though, we may have to take some cuts in some areas in order to acheive some goals (and thats going to be hard), just saying get rid of coal and having nothing to replace it isnt a well thought out idea. The question is whether greenies actually want to go back to subsistence farming, or if they want all their goals acheived, and going back to subsistence farming is just a byproduct of a not completely thought out idea? I dont think its impossible to move towards a much greener society and not destroy everything else we have, but the greens arent the ones to do it :p.

 

"clean coal" as they call it, isnt really a good solution anyways. I'll see if I can dig up something someone posted about it on another forum a while ago. Either way, its a long way off, and its not really even proven technology in the first place. Its just a way to appease the coal industry without really caring about the actual feasibility or cost.

 

As for Australian uranium exports, my sources say they're actually increasing. (though they might have decreased before the current increase)

 

 

 

And, uhhh, Tony, you know that first link is for the UK greens, not the AU greens.

 

Tony Halliday's picture

Posts: 2500

Date Joined: 14/06/07

yeah hlokk, but Greens are

Thu, 2010-08-19 08:23

yeah hlokk, but Greens are Greens and Reds are Reds...lol
I am still waiting for our Greens rep for Midlands Swan to give any statement back on horses on properties, fishing and walking you dog on park trails!!!!
Seems they love all things natural, except our pets, hobbies or outdoor activities.

____________________________________________________________________________

Tony Halliday: ~Meals on Reels ~

 It takes a strong fish to swim against the current. Even a dead one can float with it

"It is always in season for old men to learn." Aeschylus (525-456 BC)

"In a mad world only the mad are sane." Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998)

synthos's picture

Posts: 522

Date Joined: 23/06/07

it does sound extreeme

Tue, 2010-08-17 12:01

It seems rather extreem did librals not do similar with greens or democrats when they won wa election ? does labour not also have to actually let the greens do this they might have their prefrences but if thgey say no to a policy then greens wont be able to pass it in parlament aghh who da fark to vote for is ther enot a naked sex or pirate party ? at least we go down havin a blast :)

hlokk's picture

Posts: 4293

Date Joined: 04/04/08

There is a sex party and

Tue, 2010-08-17 12:22

There is a sex party and they oppose the internet filter so somewhat a combination of the two :p

Salmo's picture

Posts: 913

Date Joined: 15/08/05

old enough to vote?

Tue, 2010-08-17 13:34

 

The only reason the last 2 Labor gov's got in here in WA was with Green preferrences...

Colin got in because Lib offered the best region deal to the Nats

 

7739ian's picture

Posts: 948

Date Joined: 25/06/08

Bob Brown?

Tue, 2010-08-17 13:26

only in Tasmania heh? Just wait until HE becomes PM. He and his partner Bruce will not move into the Lodge but will take up residence in a timber ( only native species that died naturally ) hut on the banks of where Lake Burley Griffin was before they filled it in as a man made abomination. They will double dink around Oz on Pushbike 1 spreading the gospel according to Bob to the Forester driving faithful with their arts degrees and secure government jobs who deride big business, us peasants and anything that vaguely smells of pleasure. I say make him Foreign Minister and parachute him out over the Afghan border to negotiate a clean green peace with the Taliban.

Posts: 247

Date Joined: 09/03/08

Read the press release and

Tue, 2010-08-17 13:43

Read the press release and then the quote from their own policy paper below...

Greens candidate sets record straight on marine parks

Aug 16, 2010 2:30pm

The Greens candidate for Lyne says he wants to set the record straight on his party's plans for local marine reserves.

The Greens candidate for Lyne says he wants to set the record straight on his party's plans for local marine reserves.

Ian Oxenford says the Greens do not want to close down the fishing industry, but a balance is needed between commercial fishing and environmental protection.

Mr Oxenford says the Nationals are using scare tactics in Lyne.

He says the issue of marine reserves worries locals who are being misinformed.

"There's a thing going out, it's a myth that the Greens propose to lock up 30 per cent of marine areas and make them no take areas," he said.

"As I've pointed out, that is incorrect. It's only 30 per cent of marine parks and reserve, and that's comes down to something less than 7 per cent of the total marine area."

And yet their own policy paper says:

"ensure that the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas program has legislated targets of a minimum of 30% ‘no take’ areas per bioregion by 2012.

Porky pies or do they not know their own policy?

Tony Halliday's picture

Posts: 2500

Date Joined: 14/06/07

it's all about spin mate and

Tue, 2010-08-17 13:57

it's all about spin mate and how you hide the lies.

when the Greens put out a true and acceptable scientific backed paper and show how they going to lock up what and where and how it will benefit the ecology, then I'll listen to them.
until then Mr Brown and his hemp threaded friends can go smoke some weed some where else thank you!

____________________________________________________________________________

Tony Halliday: ~Meals on Reels ~

 It takes a strong fish to swim against the current. Even a dead one can float with it

"It is always in season for old men to learn." Aeschylus (525-456 BC)

"In a mad world only the mad are sane." Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998)

hlokk's picture

Posts: 4293

Date Joined: 04/04/08

Exactly   Just remember,

Tue, 2010-08-17 14:01

Exactly Wink

 

Just remember, you have spin from both sides. Just because someone said 30% locked out, doesnt mean that was without spin. It could be closer to what the greens said (that is 30% of a subset, not whole). Not particularly clear, but without clarity, bit hard to pick one group to listen to over another (remember, whichever party you go for is still putting out spin, dont blindly accept it just because they're your party)

Shorty's picture

Posts: 1549

Date Joined: 10/05/08

Maybe we should all take

Tue, 2010-08-17 14:11

Maybe we should all take Mark Lathams advice,,just put in a blank voteing paper,,

 

They are all a mob of wombats i reckon,,lol

Posts: 1081

Date Joined: 30/03/08

Dont listen to Latham. Vote

Tue, 2010-08-17 18:31

Dont listen to Latham.

Mark Latham has revealed that he will be lodging a 'donkey vote' at this Saturday's election and has urged others to do the same.

Vote for a fishing party rather than a Donkey vote.

A blank paper can be counted in order of the ballot listing with the Greens at the top by default.

 

 

A donkey voter is someone who votes for candidates based solely upon the order they are listed on the ballot paper. In Australia, where all federal and state and territory electoral systems combine compulsory turnout with some form of preferential voting, a donkey vote refers to the practice of numbering the candidates' boxes sequentially from top to bottom of the ballot-paper, rather than taking the time to number the candidates in the voter's own thought-out order of preference.

____________________________________________________________________________

Angling tourism is worth $10 billion to the Australian economy - 90000 jobs; more than any sport; spread the word

Posts: 9358

Date Joined: 21/02/08

A blank paper can be counted

Tue, 2010-08-17 20:10

A blank paper can be counted in order of the ballot listing with the Greens at the top by default.

 

Bwahaha, may be the most rediculous mistruth spread this campaign. I'm sure the AEC wouldn't even dignify that with a reply, but thats all party of the conspiracy right?

____________________________________________________________________________

hlokk's picture

Posts: 4293

Date Joined: 04/04/08

I was under the impression

Tue, 2010-08-17 22:56

I was under the impression that if you dont fill it out at all it doesnt get counted as a legitimate vote. Though, at least you wont get fined, and dont actually vote for any of the parties?

uncle's picture

Posts: 9534

Date Joined: 10/02/07

the bolter

Tue, 2010-08-17 19:11

he used the same tactic about carbon trading and all the crap that goes with it,hes out there, but in this case (ct) was vindicated by everyone in copahagen

____________________________________________________________________________

all aggressive fish love bigjohnsjigs

big john's picture

Posts: 8769

Date Joined: 20/07/06

Gone

Tue, 2010-08-17 21:22

Nothing wrong with effective marine management, but once something gets locked up it NEVER gets re-opened.

I understand the precautionary principle but I'll be stuffed if I'm gonna take a risk of losing key habitat due to a cosy labour/greens arrangement.

Get some decent science, effective policing of illegal fisherman (small and large) and then get back to me.

____________________________________________________________________________

WA based manufacturer and supplier of premium leadhead jigs, fligs, bucktail jigs, 'bulletproof' soft plastic jig heads and XOS bullet jig heads.

Jigs available online in my web store!

joe amato's picture

Posts: 731

Date Joined: 21/12/08

dont vote liberal ,national party(its a dictatorship)

Wed, 2010-08-18 06:06

ok greens have got their heart in the right place and the liberal coalition bought in the gst after promising they wont and they did,every bloody liberal commercial says labor has got us deeper in debt,what a load of crap are they going on about(noone said no to the stimulas package) which kevin rudd saved our ecconomy,thats why we suvived the global finnancial crisis,so guys think about it,the rest of europe even america are still in reccession,and as far as im concerned we should all vote labor to send a message to the state liberal party about our prediction for the next state election and no i wont vote greens as my next preferance,i would rather an independant party,as far as im concerned all urainium should stay in the ground,remember  chenobyl what happened to a nuclear power plant,which in fact poisoned all water in europe, no body was meant to live withing a 60km radius of it, but still did as there was no where else they could go.  If you mine uranium, you disturb the earths crust and its layers, uranium is in the ground for a reason, one that we are not meant to know about.  As far as Colin Barnett saying he is going to use Pains Find as a dumping ground for the nuclear waste, that is disgusting, sure it is a clean power source, but storage of the waste is the problem, in my thoughts the downside to this out weights the benefits.  Liberals always talk about being the same as the rest of the world, catching up to them, i love Australia for what it is, i think its great that we have a slower pace, easy layed back, more people in other countries die from stress related incidents a year around the world than in australia, we have a beautiful country here lets leave it that way.

Tony Halliday's picture

Posts: 2500

Date Joined: 14/06/07

joe have you ever lived near

Wed, 2010-08-18 08:52

joe have you ever lived near a nuke power plant?
Have you ever been inside one?
Have you read the real stuff that has had peer reviews and not off some Greens laptop while on his weed-gig?

I have, I could see the nuke plant every day from Cape Town.
I have been inside two different types of reactor set-ups and have friends that work in the industry. AND I work for one of the largest companies in the world that dismantles Nuke plants at end of life, in fact this is my second company that I have worked for that does nuke work.
As for Chernobyl go read the facts, we as Australians could never go down that road, and it does rank up their with the top twenty industrial disasters ever, but there a lot worse others.
Just look at some of the gas plant explosions around the world. Refinery explosions, toxic chemical spills, deaths from sulfuric rain and Nox lung disorders after 200 years of uncontrolled coal fired pollution. Hell nuke is a baby compared to those death tolls.

http://www.lenntech.com/environmental-disasters.htm

Also if you want to see natural radiation worse than any nuke plant, go swim at Radon Springs in the Kakadu park! more danger their in the park than any nuke plant with extreme natural amounts of Radon bubbling out.... just like God planned it to be...

____________________________________________________________________________

Tony Halliday: ~Meals on Reels ~

 It takes a strong fish to swim against the current. Even a dead one can float with it

"It is always in season for old men to learn." Aeschylus (525-456 BC)

"In a mad world only the mad are sane." Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998)

hlokk's picture

Posts: 4293

Date Joined: 04/04/08

Chernobyl happened because

Wed, 2010-08-18 10:30

Chernobyl happened because it was an old (and stupid) reactor design, not one of the ones we would use. Some idiot who didnt know anything about nuclear power was allowed to do a test because a soviet government official wanted to show off to the west that they could get an extra 10% power. So, as they were doing something they didnt need to do on a reactor with a stupid design, approved by a bureaucrat with more power than Australian ones would ever have. Now, once they were doing that, they shut down ALL the safety systems (some 5-6 of them). Then, they removed too many rods (which they shouldnt have done, and the rods were a silly design). Then, by bad luck they had a power spike. Then by more errors they didnt control that properly and there you go, runaway reaction. Keep in mind the explosion was a boiler explosion (one that could happen in a coal plant) not a nuclear explosion. Yes, radioactive dust did fall out, but keep in mind they didnt even build a proper containment facility in the first place (which a proper, new reactor will have). In terms of deaths, there were only about 30 direct deaths. There were maybe 20 more from people who worked at the site/on containment who died many years later (but could not be confirmed they died due to radiation received). No-one off the site received acute radiation sickness. Also when you say 60km, do you mean before or after the event?

So It was a stupid design no-one else would use, had lax government checks, was experiemented on by someone who didnt know what they were doing and had all the safety systems disabled (even then, it was a rare power spike that was unfortunately timed). None of that would or could happen in any reactors we'd use. Even if you cut all power, it still wouldnt be a problem.
"However, the design of the reactor is unique and the accident is thus of little relevance to the rest of the nuclear industry outside the then Eastern Bloc." link.
The radioactivity level from living near a coal power plant is 100 times more than living near a nuclear plant.

Dont know about poisoning all the water in europe either... Within a few weeks/months, the priyiat river (the closest one) was back to safe water standards. It was still a distaster of course, but its not one that would be repeated, due to multiple, multiple reasons. There have also been many many more industrial disasters that were worse in terms of environmental damage and death. Even the deepwater horizon that spewed out countless tonnes of oil into the gulf of Mexico had 11 people die in an explosion (remember, Chernobyl was 30).

 

As for mining it and disturbing the earths crust: Joe, you're reading this on a computer that was produced with at least 20+ different products that were mined from the earth. The silicon the chip was made out of had to be mined, the aluminium used in the heatsinks had to be dug out from the ground as bauxite then smelted down, the copper again, from the ground, same with the glass (probably from sand mining). The steel chassis had to be dug up from iron ore, processed, transported, smelted, shipped, processed, shipped again, etc. Theres also other elements like nickel, zinc, chromium, etc. Its likely theres some gold coated contacts in there two, and you need to dig up a lot of earths crust to get even a small amount of gold. Then you have all the plastic bits. The whole thing is powered probably by a coal fired power plant which again had to dig up the earths crust in order to be mined. So not quite sure why the crust can be disturbed for all that, but not uranium?

 

The waste has to be properly disposed of. You're not allowed to anything else in Australia, we have very strict controls (and they dont do anything that is harmful - only unless you listen to greenies who dont listen to any science). Of course, I would not support uranium mining and nuclear power plants if the waste could not be safely disposed of. It can however (link).

Even if you lived attop uranium mine tailings, you'd only receive twice the radiation dose average Australians would receive from living anywhere else (average is 2mSv for most people). And the radioactivity is there whether you mine it or not (though you are moving it within the site). Of course, you wouldnt live on top of mine tailings, but its just an extreme example. Now, this extra 4mSv you'd receive for literally living on top of uranium tailings is pretty much the same as you'd get if you were an international pilot or cabin crew (link).

 

Uranium mining, nuclear power, nuclear waste are all a LOT safer than greenies want you to believe.

 

As for the last part Joe, I agree with you on that, but we cant stop mining (though it can be managed to maintain the least impact on the environment) and we cant single out just one type of mining when theres multiple other types going on.

Berin's picture

Posts: 150

Date Joined: 15/07/10

why Forrester ?

Wed, 2010-08-18 07:21

If I could nuclear power my Forrester I would. Come to think of it, with all the crap the kids leave in it it possibly already is.

 

synthos's picture

Posts: 522

Date Joined: 23/06/07

mmmm I liked

Wed, 2010-08-18 10:26

I liked Good News Week

 

Everybody vote greens as it would jab it to the other two parties and bob brown would go wtf ? :) funny as hell :) have to see it to get it

 

OH I did chat to a mate who had an intresting opinion he said vote whichever your area is not. ie if were a safe labour seat vote libral as that is the only way to have things happen in your area because once you become a marginal seat they really care  and pay attention and do things for you. Seems tru too where do the wanabee pollies keep flying anf promising $$$ ? the marginal areas in QLD

joe amato's picture

Posts: 731

Date Joined: 21/12/08

who has been to europe

Wed, 2010-08-18 19:42

who has been to europe to live ,i bet none of you guys,when i went over there back in 1987 people were buying imported water ,because all the natural dams were so affected by chenoble,by the dust that settled in the water resources,and people are still doing it now,so work that 1 out,nuclear power is not safe,also you need water to keep the core temperture down,which at the momment we need water to survive,there are other alternitives outthere,like wave power,and solar power, and wind power,and no im not a greenie ,idont understand why these alternitives to nuclear power havent been implemented by all the goverments in power of this great country and state of ours,anyway critisise me if you want but i wont vote liberal or greens,thats all guys

Tony Halliday's picture

Posts: 2500

Date Joined: 14/06/07

Joe, I was over in 1998,

Thu, 2010-08-19 08:43

Joe, I was over in 1998, 2000, 2002 And each time we drank from tap water and swam in the rivers...
I was in Finland in 2002 when they did the snow fall survey of the area and found no new increases in radiation above normal and same for the lakes ( oh and Finland is next door to Russia)
Just remember people lived in Japan for 60 years now on the two historical nuclear bomb sites and still do today, also you can go to ground zero off the Monties... and not die!

If you think this country is "green power" friendly, try putting up a windmill instead of a diesel powered water pump on your property in Swan Valley and see how fast the Shire rejects it. YES they would rather have you burn diesel than put up an unsightly windmill... WTF tell me the logic in it. Try get a licence for a windfarm and power contract in Australia, hell mate it's easier to dig coal and burn the cr@p into CO2.

As for alternative energy, it only works for Australia if we cut our power hungry life style by 70% electricity consumption. Go do the maths, the info is all out there, even the " Green Power Loans" people admit it's only an option for the rich with no problem in tripling they cost of power..lol.

http://www.science.org.au/nova/122/122key.html
http://www.renewableairenergies.com.au/
http://www.solarshop.com.au/

ps we looking at building a new home right now and we doing the costings for a Green Power vs tradional power set up. I'm battling to justify a 20 year payback for infrastructure and maintenace of susch systems. We will go solar/gas water for now and gas cooking & heating, with grid power for the balance.

____________________________________________________________________________

Tony Halliday: ~Meals on Reels ~

 It takes a strong fish to swim against the current. Even a dead one can float with it

"It is always in season for old men to learn." Aeschylus (525-456 BC)

"In a mad world only the mad are sane." Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998)

joe amato's picture

Posts: 731

Date Joined: 21/12/08

i dont live in the swan valley

Fri, 2010-08-20 06:00

ok tony whatever mate i dont live in the swan valley ,i live closer to the city tony,i am also building an average home in the suburbs,you might have me mixed up with an old joe amato that is pretty well off and lives in the valley,no relative of mine,anyway i had to laugh,all good mate

Tony Halliday's picture

Posts: 2500

Date Joined: 14/06/07

no worries mate, I'm not

Mon, 2010-08-23 13:38

no worries mate, I'm not rich either, just work hard for my toys. ( and only rent in the Valley)

Wish I could own land in Swan Valley, but at $1m for 10arces and no house, :-( no chance for me. Thats why I'm probally going to end up further out where land is cheaper and power less reliable.
point I was making is it's just too expensive to go Green Power under any goverment of the day, and so we carry on polluting the air.

cheers mate

____________________________________________________________________________

Tony Halliday: ~Meals on Reels ~

 It takes a strong fish to swim against the current. Even a dead one can float with it

"It is always in season for old men to learn." Aeschylus (525-456 BC)

"In a mad world only the mad are sane." Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998)