Hah! Lathams a liar? All politicians are liars... John Howard is the most deciectful priminister Australia has ever had. Go to johnhaowardlies.com if you want to quote all the lies hes preported. He is without a doubt one of the most skillful politicians australia has ever seen, and therefore a skillful liar. I dont particularly like latham and was considering voting greens, but if you vote for labor its the lesser of TWO evils. Get rid of farkin howard finally. PLEASE!
The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
toodles
Wheel size expert
I'm a bit more cynical than that. I don't think that he would openly state that there would be consequences for those that will not convert, and I believe it would be foolhardy for us to believe that he does not have this in mind. He has made it apparent that he believes people should be punished for the immoral (non-Islamic) lives they lead and to me that constitutes an opposition to those who choose their own path.johnny said:
Yeah, I probably sit halfway between your opinion and my previous post that you've quoted. Part of me goes with what I have said, but the other half of me is as distrustful and as cynical as yourself. Once again though, take away the percieved injustices of the Arabic world and he may still want to convert us all, down the barrel of a gun if need be, but he wouldn't get the support needed to do this because only true loonies would follow (that is of course only my analysis of the situation and I can't back that up with any kind of evidence).toodles said:
People will fight enmass for political fand economic freedoms, but I don't believe enough would fight on a religious basis to make it a global concern. Many people say that religion is the basis for all wars, I hope Farkiners are smart enough to see this as the myth that it is. WW1 & 2 were about power politics, same goes for Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, E. Timor (not that you could call that or Somalia a war) the cold war was power politics, same again with India/Pakistan, China/Japan, Rwanda, Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo/Albania/Macadonia/etc. Turkey/Greece/Cypress and so on. Can anyone actually give me an instance of a modern war that was based on religion? I'm surte that it does happen, I just can't think of any right now.
Back O/T, I will vote for anyone who formulates a foreign policy that gains security through mutual prosperity and security. Mutual destruction kept us alive in the cold war period because we were dealing with ideologues armed with inter-continental ballistic/nuke missiles. Now we are dealing with non-nation state actors who are not fighting for power with conventional arms, but underprivalliged (sp?) or proxies of, that are seeking prosperity, security and political independence. Therefore in my eyes what was once safety through mutual destruction is now safety/security through mutual sustainability , and that's the only thing that will allow us to end this dumb arsed war on terror.
That's why I will not only vote for Andrew Wilkie, but am also actively supportting his campaign in my local area, which also happens to be John Howards seat............BRING IT ON MOFO :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
danv
Likes Dirt
Johnny posted some good stuff above, but if your interested in a clearer picture of the terrorists, also checkout www.islamistwatch.org once you make it past the name and front page, its a very good resource.S. said:[Maybe if the terrorist groups would actually let us know WHY we're at war (other than "You're our enemy!" from them and "You attacked us!" from us), it'd make more sense.
S.
ex offender
Er, actually:johnny said:
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them – peace be upon them all.
It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah’s Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.
I also like that last line "...and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex or language" - says the people who (as you mentioned) force women to wear full-body coverings, stone them to death for extramarital sex, refuse them education, etc etc... x-tremely equal.
Yeah, point taken. He has actually contradicted himself in what he has said previously concerning religion (which seems to be the standard for him), I guess my main point was that sanction is not suggested for not converting as it is with security and political issues. Once again I point to my previous posts that state support for political/prosperity matters as opposed to religion is the key to resolution.S. said:
He may have some valid grievances, but he's still a dick!
S.
ex offender
Because I'd have to be retarded to try and argue with somebody who is prepared (and able) to write a thesis on something I know bugger all aboutdanv said:
Honestly - a far more considered opinion DOES make him (or her) "right" by my standards, because I read what he said and couldn't fault and/or remember much of it. Not to say that anyone knows it all, but this is subjective - it's not maths.
Carlin
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Put it back in the ground. It sounds simple but who wants a nuclear waste dump in their back yard. Once it is spent there is bugger all else you can do with it.wombat said:
Some argument against nuclear energy are:
The nuclear fuel cycle is not entirely green, alot of regular power sources and emmissions are involved in the nuclear fuel cycle, including mining for fuel, and the steps involved in making it possible tu use in a reactor.
Once you have a nuclear power plant it is relitivley easy to produce nuclear weapons with the spent fuel, (I forget the process exactly). Our "research" reactor at Lucas Heights was part of an Australian bid for the atom bomb after World War Two, as was the nuclear power plant that was to be built at Jervis Bay.
Environmental issues regarding uranium mining. They say it is safe, but there is still alot of radio active shit being disturbed.
There are also arguments for nuclear power as an efficient source of energy in an ever growing energy demanding planet, especially countries such as China will have an increasing demand for power in the next 50 years.
I'm not sure were I stand in the debate.
danv
Likes Dirt
In all seriousness, please don't think that because its more considered, or you can't argue with it, that it is the right opinion. It just means that you don't know. You are not restricted to agreeing or providing a counter argument. You can just not know. I think that would in fact be more accurate frame of mind, rather than agreeing because you don't know any better.S. said:Because I'd have to be retarded to try and argue with somebody who is prepared (and able) to write a thesis on something I know bugger all aboutdanv said:
Honestly - a far more considered opinion DOES make him (or her) "right" by my standards, because I read what he said and couldn't fault and/or remember much of it. Not to say that anyone knows it all, but this is subjective - it's not maths.
S.
ex offender
Goddammit, you won't even let me say "yeah I was wrong". Is there any freakin way I can back out of this debate without getting shoved back in?danv said:In all seriousness, please don't think that because its more considered, or you can't argue with it, that it is the right opinion. It just means that you don't know. You are not restricted to agreeing or providing a counter argument. You can just not know. I think that would in fact be more accurate frame of mind, rather than agreeing because you don't know any better.S. said:Because I'd have to be retarded to try and argue with somebody who is prepared (and able) to write a thesis on something I know bugger all aboutdanv said:
Honestly - a far more considered opinion DOES make him (or her) "right" by my standards, because I read what he said and couldn't fault and/or remember much of it. Not to say that anyone knows it all, but this is subjective - it's not maths.
Im a cheat though. I post on a lot of forums and many of the same arguements come up often so I can just cut and paste old material..
Sorry, I agree with everything that is said. Just one little Western assumption irks me, and that is that wearing full body coverings is opressive to women.
It certainly isn't, what IS certainly oppresive is the lack of choice in wearing full covering clothing Let me explain.
I know a few Islamic women who live in Australia and abroad and they get very upset when Westerners feel like they need to liberate the women of Islam. Don't get me wrong women in Afganistan who as S spoke of are clearly forced to wear that clothing and are denied education and all their fundlemental rights is a tragety (but I am sure an English professor would disagree with me "its tragic, but its not a tragety"..
).However my friends often get people coming up to them in the street telling them how sorry they are, or that they need to do something to be "freed". Its very ethnocentric and offensive.
First lets identify that Christainity, the old testiment anyway is very similar to Islam because their derivatives of each other somewhere back. Bigamy with at least 5+ wifes is comon to both religions, and both involved a very represive guidlines in raising children and treating partner(s). Some of this is reminisent in the current Christian bible which talks of stoning children as an acceptable means of punishment. I am so glad Christian families pick and choose arbitrarily which word of God they follow in the same text.
Basically in Islam it includes another commandment. And that basically descibes "Thou Shall not be Vain". And its an assumption in almost all cultures (I know of two that dont) that perceive women as naturally delicate, feminine and beautiful. The Islamic religon says that Women should all wear veils so that they are 1) Dont get obsessed with their image and be vain (i.e. sin) and 2) So all women no matter their appearence are treated equally.
So many women choose to wear their veils and see western women as being vain and too focused on their image.
I personally dispise all oragnised religions (thats great if you don't) but I dont judge those that hold those beliefs.
I know its very picky, but I know how many people it makes upset, the act of wearing the full veil isnt repressive but their lack of choice in many situations is. Oh and everything else about women in those traditional Islamic families is repressive as well.
Thats pretty much my stance on the subject as well, but a lot more brief.
Yes, Any other reasons? Besides fear? Under the same reasoning why use any new technology ever? Why not just become Amish and not use eletricity with its scary EMR. I see it everyday, I wanted to get a Wireless Internet Connection, but my room mate was scared of the "Rays" from it, he was even scared of having a Cat5 Network cable going behind is bed as well. The same friend is scared of using Spray N' Wipe on surfaces because of the "Chemicals" with his justification being "My mother never used 'Chemicals' and I tuned out alright". He's scared of Monitor radiation, mobile phones any EMR (Eletro-Magnetic Radioation) and everything else under the sun.
People focus on the negative's they offer four or five examples of technology that are harmful and forget all the technolgoies that aren't.
Dr Norman Borlaug the greatest man this century has ever produced is an 80 year old Botonist. He, like Charles Darwin travlled the world and made observations, and much like Darwin he is a great Scientist not because of his book smarts, but his field work. Dr Borlung saves per day 1 Billion people with GM food. Thats 1/6 of this planet's population. I am glad we live in a western society where we have the luxory to pick and choose our food. However those 1 Billion people aren't as lucky. Dr Borlaug should be a household name, I cant think of any person in history who has saved that many people, let alone per day. He's Birthday should be a national holiday.
What people dont understand is that the process of GM plants is no different to getting two different plants and cross polinating them. It is a form of genetically modifying the plant. The process is no different. People also have this assumption that they are putting pig DNA in Plants or silly things like that. Dr Borlung is getting a tough plant that can surive in harsh climates and poor soil conditions and is cross polinating it with Wheat so now wheat can be grown in much worse conditions then ever before.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into testing GM food, and is more thoroughly tested then regular food, and don't get me into Organic food. Anything that says Organic I wont touch. 0.5% of farms in Australia are organic so shops that offer Organic produce can't shop around, so most of the produce is of a very low grade. In fact Australia had to lower its minimum requirements for quality in food just to let that 0.5% organic through... yuk!
Since GM food is so thoroughly tested by people smarter than you or I by independant studies and Government ones (which I have read in their completeness), I as an Australian Skeptic follow the evidence. The evidence suggests it safe, so I believe it. You can spend your whole life being scared of anything and everything, but their is enough stuff in our world that IS dangerous and has evidence to back that claim up, and yet nobody is scared of that.
As soon as you start distrusting independant studies and the evidence, what do you base your opinions on, scare mongering, pseudo science and nay-say? How long do you wish to wait until every group deems it as "safe", 50 years? 100 years? It passed all the theoretical test's and the multiple 10 year (ongoing) studies with no side effects, its quite selfish for a Westerner to want to wait longer than 10 years, those 1 Billion lives can't wait, when ever specialised independant groups, government agencys and credible scientist all supports it I certainly trust that. Sure some studies can be wrong but what is it when all of the independant and Government studies point to the same conclusion? Don't forget if you understood the process it turns out that it is the same as Cross Pollination which HAS been used for 100's of years by farmers which HAS got the empirical evidence out their - that proves it is safe.
The conern you SHOULD have is the corporations, who like everything else are trying to copyright Genetic Material! Scientists are great, they add to the pool of mankind knowledge, they build upon old knowledge with knew knowledge and move mankind forward. What corporations do is try to hold back mankind by Patents! They copyright the work scientists do, so no-one has the right to built upon that, so they can solely profit.
Patents used to only exist for 14 years so a company can recoop the money spent on research but are now being extended to 70+. Corporations are now trying to Copyright DNA, if you understand anything of economics you can understand the reprocussions of this when 1 Billion and growing lives depend upon it. Dr Norman Borlaug as a Scientist is strongly apposed to this, but Politics and Business is not his field.
Well lets start with Recyiling, that ones a no brainer.
Read “Eight Great Myths of Recycling,” by Proffessor Daniel Benjamin
A much better source than me.
Also Penn & Teller - Bullshit 2x05
A couple of articles in the New York Times, the Age and the Australian Skeptic Magazine, as well as the Skeptical Inquirer, I can grab exact references if need be.
Their are 8 Myths that most of society excepts from the Recyling Movement.
As it stands people all over the world recycle, it seems like the right thing to do. They do it to protect the world and their families. It certainly makes sense. This movement has existed for 20 years. Additionally people who recycle feel good about themselves. I can point you towards several Sociology studies that demonstate this (sadly no Australian ones). What makes people feel good about recycling mainly revoles around misinformation.
We have been told since primary school that Recyling saves human resources, it saves the evironment and it is going to save the world.
Recycling Craziness started in 1987 when a guy tried to make a quick buck by offering to take like 20 tons of Garbage from New York and dispose of it on a barge called the Mobro 4000, instead of by Truck straight to the tip. So he took it to North Carolina because it was close by, however they told him to fuck off, they didnt want New York's garbage. So he spend another 6 weeks traveling up and down America trying to find a place to dump it, the media jumped on this and started the rhetoric "Our Garbage Dumps are full!" the Mobro cant find a tip! The Left also jumped onto this demanding we do something about it, when nothing needed to be done. People thought that trash would bury us alive, and that started the recycling movement.
One US Government agency (written and reviewed solely by one person!) started a study on this and produced a report "The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action" any myths people spout about Recyling all orginate from this single report produced in 1989. All reports since have been counter reports.
The orginal report has been saying things like "Recyling is Absolutely Vital" which caused the US Government to set the national guidelines for recycling. Within 5 years 25% of the US recycled (with most Western countries adopting a system based on this same report), and now 30% today recycle. If anyone at home is counting only 10% of America vote.
Reasons to Recycle
1) Feels Good
Definetly, anything that makes you feel good is great, but is that really a good enough reason? Feeling good for no reason? Try Dope it can do the same for you.
2) Saves Energy
Well in fact it turns out it takes more eletricity to recycle a plastic bottle, glass bottle, tin can, ton of paper or anything else you can think of then it does to produce new ones. So that ones out.
3) Cheaper to Recyle then produce Virign Goods
This is a myth also, the Government subsidies recycling, i.e. they pay for it. Their is no net profit to recycling. To be exact, the USA spends 8 Billion a year on recycling. To get a truck and sent it to the tip and filter it etc, it costs $50 - 60 US per ton. Now the cost for a truck to come back and pick up another lot and sort it, it costs about $150 a ton. It costs three times more money to recycle then it takes to throw it away.
However the one instance where this isn't true is in Aliminum cans, it is cheaper to recyle Aliminum cans then it is to produce new ones. But this is because their is real money in Aliminum (5c if Delivered to SA), thats why poor people go and collect cans, their is a net profit. SOME companies make a net profit from plastic bottles, where they are turned into Shopping bags, T-Shirts etc, however the truth is you can get better quality cheaper stuff when you start from scratch. When that isnt true, homeless people will start to collect plastic bottles too. Anything else however is strickly a complete net loss.
4) Saving Trees
98% of all paper is produced from trees that are completely grown for the production of paper. In a few years 100% of all paper will be produced from trees specifically grown for paper. Their are only a few old growth forests being used for paper production and those are being shut down one by one around the world. Their is a big issue at the moment and oldly enough Howard and Latham and the Greens all agree to stop old tree logging in Tasmania and it will stop eventually stop everywhere.
So, do you understand? Paper comes from trees, which we grow because we need the paper. We grow Potatoes so we eat them, Potatoes aren't endangered, when we need more we grow them. Even when you recycle paper anyway a fair chunk of it comes from virgin trees anyway, which of course come from tree farms anyway. The evidence points to from all the studies around the world, that recycling does not save trees. Basically when you buy a ton of news paper, you are ordering a new tree to be planted. So the more we recycle the less trees get planted. In fact because of how much paper we use, we now have three times more trees now then we did in the 1920's. So the only way to save trees is to waste more paper. Trees are a nenewable source.
5) Provides Good Jobs
Is this really a good enough reason? Make dum-dum work that isnt required so people have something to do? Why not jsut give people brooms and make them clean the street without a Street Sweeper, its better for the envivonment and provides lots of jobs.
6) Improves the Enviornment
In fact Recyling is bad for the enviornment, its a manufacturing process, which involves a second truck arriving to your house to pick up your garbage which makes Carbon Monixide (of course twice as many trucks need to be made to begin with per town/city around the world), then it goes through a sorting machine that produces smoke and is choppped into small grains and then shipped on a second truck sometimes 150km's away then mixed with chemicals (ink, bleach) to produce a new sheet which leaves a terrible scummy chemical waste which has to be disposed of anyway, then it's shipped on another truck to where it has to go.
7) Saves Landfill Space
This lie of course was started by the Mobro 4000 incident, and the Government report "The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action" which made up we were running out of Garbage Space. The problem with that report and its statistics was that it looked at the number of landfills in the US and not the capacity, so while yes their were fewer landfills in the US most of them were a lot larger and landfill space in the US had actually increased. Even the Author of the report has either taken back or denied most of what he said. Some quotes from his scare mongering report are "We're running out of space to store our trash" ,"1/3 of the nation's landfills will be full within the next few years", "If we wait the problem will get worse". Everyone thought their was a problem because of this single report written by one single faceless bureacrat, read NOT scientist, and 8 billion dollars in the US is spend on it per year. He started a totally useless ecological movement.
Take this into consideration, if the United States was to produce a single landfill for all their garbage in one spot for the next 1000 years, it would be 40km wide. I am not saying thats what is going to happen, because over 95% of it breaks down over a 1000 year period, but if it all was dumped into one single spot it would ONLY be 40 km wide. It could be twice as big and hold the entire worlds garbage for the same period. Of course that 40km wide tip is not a suggestion its only for perspective.
Another myth being continually prepetuated is of couse that the Tip leaves a big whole in the ground and all the filth builts up at the bottom on its Plastic Layer and seeps into the soil contaminating water sources etc. Of course this is very false, regulations for garbage tips are quite long and are maintained very closely. Environmental regulations are quite stricted, even stricter in Australia then they are in America, and the American ones are overkill. However you will find some tips in Australia still burning it off..... yuk! That should be stopped! The risks of an envoirnmental incident in a modern day Garbage Tip have been identified as a 1 in a Billion chance which is of course safer than most things we accept in everyday life. They have to have a solid base, they have to be away from ground water, they have several metres of a solid clay that nothing can get through, and have filtering channels.
Of course people also worry about Methane produced from Garbage Dumps from active decomposition of food scraps that it also prepetuates the Greenhouse effect (which is another huge myth ridden topic that I am certainly not going into now). This methane potentially could explode and cause injury, however is only a risk in the REALLY big Garbage dumps only found in the US but the thing is those really big dumps have gas filters on them which carry the gas and the methane is then used to produce eletricity. In fact each major dump in America produces enough eletricty for 60,000 homes with it for about 30 years.
Additionally (and this is the best part) once you fill a landfill in, you put a layer of dirt on it and plant some trees on it and then it can be converted into a golf corse, or a wilflife preserve or a park for future generations, or even plant more trees for more paper.
After reading this their are no arguements left for recycling, and the Government has been in on it the whole time. In fact something like 60 - 70% of all the garbage picked up from recycling bins in Australia and American just gets dumped into the same locations without even being sorted, this is done because the Government knows its a wasteful activity and doesnt want to spend anymore money subsidising a useless activity to appease a few of the growing "left" inclined populance.
Sorry wombat, I cant be bothered covering Second Hand Smoke today. Maybe another day.
Your using a 20 year old argument, if people kept up with the literature they would discover things have changed. Disposal of Nuclear waste is no longer a physical problem when it comes to safety, they dont just dump it in drums which "claim" they can last 5000 years sealed. Most of this new technology is due to the late Great Professor Ted Ringwell, who developed Synroc mineralisation procedure. This Australian invention locks highly radioactive elements into an extremely stable matrix of appropriate minerals. Out of the process comes a dense rock-like cynlinder which can be buried safely. It's level of radiation depends on how long the radioative nuclides have had to cool from the initial high activity they had in a reactor and how much the activity has been reduced by dilution prior to the process, as explained above. But is minimum.
If fissile materials were disposed of in Synroc their recovery would be almost impossible to recover. It would be much simpiler for a Terrorist to steal a nuclear weapon. It's nuclear weapons that need the guards rather than blocks of radioatcive rock buried hundreds of metres underground at a remote location.
A whole slew of hypothetical problems have been dreamed up concerning radioactive repositories. The best rebuttal is the natural nuclear complex at Oklo in Africa which, because of the prsense of water as a moderator, started up spontaneously in a urianium ore deposit about two billion years ago. It ran spasmodically at six adjacent sites for several million years. Excarvation of the ore body proved that most of the high level waste remained immobilised at the reactor sites. When it comes to demonstrations, Mother Nature prefers actions to empty words and placards.
However the recently discovered technology by Nobel Laureate Professor Carlo Rubbia which is an Accelerator-Driven nuclear power reactor. The design is inherently safe and has the ability to get rid of high level nuclear wastes by a nuclear incineration process.
This is partially true. As you should know Nuclear Energy emits no green house gases what so ever, however the act of mining and construction of Nuclear Plants all do emit Green house gases, but comparitively only 1/50 of what a Coal Power Plant emits in a year. Its quite minumum and for the amount of Eletricity it produces its very worth it. I agree that we should start closing down Coal Power Plants where feasable. In fact Nuclear eletricity is the cheapest in the world.
However most of the statistics about Nuclear Power Green house emissions that Left Wing publications spout are from Military or Research reactors which werent designed for power production, and operate very differently.
It is possible to produce weapons grade plutonium from nuclear reactors, but only under constrained (and very uneconomical) conditions not generally met by commerical reactors in the West. For the early British power reactors (eg Calder Hall) eletricity generation was secondary to their role in weapons-grade plutonium production, which made their eletricity very costly in more ways than one.
The reason for this is because the fissioning of uranium-235 produces excess neutrons, which uranium-238 nuclei absorb to produce plutonium 239. It is the time of exposure of uranium fuel rods to neutron bombardment that is the important factor. If the fuel rods remain in the reactor for more than a few weeks an increasing amount of the initally formed bomb grade plutonium-239 becomes transformed by neutron capture into plutonium-240. It was discovered in 1944 that this isotope has such a high spontaneous fission rate that its pressure renders a plutonium bomb unreliable and inefficient.
On the other hand the grade of plutonium is of little concern in a commerical power reactor where the fuel rods are left in for two or more years. Using the rods for as long as possible maximises their energy yield (and gets additional energy out of the plutonium as well as uranium fissions). In this scenario the plutonium isotope mix they yield is extremely difficult to refine into weapons-grade material.
In otherwords, to make bomb material a reactor must be operated uneconomically with rapid fuel turnaround. This was the give-away that exposed the North Korean program for producing nuclear weapons by employing plutonium from their nuclear power reactors.
It is insanely difficult to produce these home construction nuclear weapons. I havn't heard this argument for about 15 years pre Gulf War 1. After the first Gulf War and saw the unsuccessful efforts by the Iraqis and others to build a bomb is now better known. Fabrication and quality testing of the precisely lensed explosives of two different detonation characteristics would be next to impossible in a workshop. Then the detonators and the production of an initiating neutron souce would defeat the would-be terrorists unless they could obtain the restricted eletronic components and scarce tritium. Their are other daunting problems in making a successful nuclear weapon.
A far easier option as stated earlier would be to steal an existing nuclear weapon. Using non Weapon-grade plutonium from a civil nuclear power reactor would be quite impractical for the construction of any nuclear explosive device.
As it stands no one is sure the exact number of American Nuclear War heads. UN Weapon inspectors are not allowed in America, even though America whines when other countrys to the same. However Nuclear Weapons have a half-life of like 20 - 30 years, and the last time they were made was during the cold war. And because no one in America has been building Nuclear Weapons for 20+ years the American government is scared they are going to "lose" the technology.
So America has last year opened up a new school where the 4 - 5 Americans who know how to make a Nuclear bomb are training other people the "craft". However to be qualtified to enroll in this class, you need at least 2 PHD's in two of Engineering, Physics or Chemistry. So it is more difficult then the media and the Government likes to admit, that most countrys wont be able to produce their own Nuclear Weapons. 33 Countries have strickly peaceful Nuclear Power only 8 countries have nuclear weapons capabilities. And that number is not likely to change due to the difficulty required in such a process.
What DOES matter is the possibility of a group stealing existing weapons.
How is this an arguement against Nuclear power? Research Reactors are very different to Power Producing Nuclear reactors?
As descibed above we now use Synroc mineralisation which makes the radiactive material radiation level at a minimum. You would gain a more heafty dose of natural radiation in an Airport. All the evidence and independant studies point to the high levels of safety in Nuclear Power. Once again, it's healthy to be skeptical. But a skeptic has a neutral opinion until the evidence points one way or the other. We have the evidence. Scientists are not the enemy, Corporations are, its the Independant Universities and research centres that provide credible evidence. All of these get peer reviewed, unlike Corporation "pamphlets"...
Their are alot more possitive arguments for Nuclear Power then that.[/quote]
Carlin
Likes Bikes and Dirt
It is not a twenty year old argument. I am sure that South Australia has objected to plans to have a dump for nuclear waste within the last twenty years.Access said:
I am aware of synroc, but as safe as it may be it still gets put back in the ground. You appear to know alot about it so I will ask you how widely it is used when disposing of nuclear waste world wide at the moment? I was under the impression that the technology is not used widely.
It was a side note, I'm a historian not a scientist. But it has been argued that the push for a nuclear power plant at Jervis Bay was part of a bid for nuclear weapons, thus drawing a link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. So was the construction of the Lucas Heights reactor.
I know that this is no longer the case, and I support the idea of having a research reactor. I also know that the new research reactor being built to replace the current one will operate in a way that is not as geared to weapons production as the old reactor was.
After decades of brainwashing it would be too much to expect anti-nuclear beliefs to be overcome by enligtenment overnight thats why SA and other states dont wish for it to be buried their. The general populance has a fear of Nuclear and the Government must respond to its fear, otherwise their party won't stay in power. Disposing of Nuclear Waste is no longer a physical problem but only a political one.
Yes which is the best place for it. The radiation emitted from a syncroc cluster of minerals is very low. The level of natural radiation required to contaminate anything is very high, like 10,000 fold what a Cynroc cluster does. We understand the effects of what happens when nutrons bounce of the appropriate minerals. It is impossible for surrounding soil to be effected by radiation emitted by a cynroc cluster.
Not as wide spread as I would like. In Australia it is completly used (I dont think on the Military ones yet though). This is something to make a stink about, not Nuclear power itself. Of course Nuclear Waste was safe before, but Synroc is scientists prepetual method of making things pregressively safer. Fingers crossed for the New Chamber's design as mentioned in my original post.
Yes, as I said in my earlier post plants geared to produce weapons-grade Plutonium have to be under constrained and very uneconomical conditions. Electricity generation is a secondary role to producing weapons grade plutonium, thats why the new reactor is so important.
Weapons expert's fight to warn PM
Date: September 25 2004
By Tom Allard
Australia's leading expert on weapons of mass destruction defied political and bureaucratic barriers to warn the Prime Minister that his case for war against Iraq was based on falsehoods and would make Australia a bigger terrorist target.
Bob Mathews, a 35-year veteran of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, wrote to John Howard as a private citizen three days before he committed Australia to the war - a last, desperate act after the expert's superiors repeatedly blocked him from expressing his views.
Dr Mathews was a principal research scientist for weapons of mass destruction and arms control at the organisation when he wrote the letter and has an esteemed international reputation in WMD and counter-terrorism.
The Herald has obtained a copy of Dr Mathews's letter and been appraised of what one colleague described as his "disgraceful" treatment both before and after it was sent to Mr Howard.
His actions were investigated, his travel was curtailed and charges were contemplated.
Dr Mathews's lengthy critique called on Mr Howard to reconsider his position and take action to dissuade the US from its path. In the letter, he said:
There was not even circumstantial evidence to back the view that Saddam Hussein had substantial stockpiles of usable WMD.
If he did have WMD, and if Iraq were invaded, there was a "high probability" they would be passed on to terrorists. He said there was no chance of their falling into al-Qaeda's hands while Saddam remained in power.
Australia would "face an increased risk of terrorist acts" if it joined the invasion, which was a "serious distraction to the fight against terrorism".
Australia would have greater difficulties dealing with South-East Asian nations in combating terrorism due to the Iraq war.
The United Nations must be given more time for inspections, and was an important curb on Saddam's WMD ambitions."There are no reasons at the present time to justify supporting a US-led invasion of Iraq," Dr Mathews told Mr Howard, urging him to make a last-ditch effort to persuade the Americans to abandon their war plans.
Dr Mathews sent his letter to Mr Howard on March 17 last year, three days before the Prime Minister formally announced Australia was at war.
In his televised address, Mr Howard said "the reason above all others" for the Iraq war was the threat posed by terrorists with WMD. "Far from our action in Iraq increasing the terrorist threat, it will, by stopping the spread of chemical and biological weapons, make it less likely that a devastating terrorist attack will be carried out against Australia," the Prime Minister said.
As he directly contradicted Dr Mathews's advice on several fronts, Mr Howard and his office were already aware of the contents of the letter. Indeed, his office - and the Minister for Defence, Robert Hill - had already begun a furious damage-control plan to discredit Dr Mathews.
Mr Howard's spokesman did not respond to calls from the Herald yesterday.
Jane Errey, the assistant to the then chief defence scientist, Ian Chessell, was asked to deliver a brief to Senator Hill that he would use as "talking points" should the media get hold of the story. That brief was undertaken the day before war was declared, she said.
She immediately took leave because she did not want to be associated with false "propaganda" that would have misled the public.
Dr Mathews wrote the letter to Mr Howard in a personal capacity because senior figures in his organisation had for months thwarted his attempts to relay his concerns up the chain of command.
Dr Mathews faced reprisals after he sent the letter, including having his top-secret security clearance frozen while he was investigated. His travel abroad was restricted while senior Government advisers considered prosecuting him for passing on classified material.
"They treated him appallingly," a former colleague said.
Dr Mathews, who has been overseas and could not be contacted, remains at the organisation. Friends say he faced a distressing decision about whether to "pull the pin or stay".
War not the answer, letter told Howard
Date: September 25 2004
By Tom Allard, Defence Reporter
Bob Mathews has a missionary's zeal when it comes to combating weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, and the countenance of the archetypal public servant.
Mild-mannered and self-effacing is how friends and associates describe him.
As he watched the seemingly inevitable march to war, this quiet, loyal public servant grew so alarmed at the misrepresentation of Iraq's weapons capability and the consequences for Australia if it went to war he took the extraordinary step of going outside the chain of command to deliver his views and plead with the Prime Minister to change his mind.
Curiously, what worried him most about the Iraq war was the same thing John Howard had been warning the public about for months as he attempted to massage opinion in favour of the conflict.
That is, the prospect of extremists using weapons of mass destruction, heralding a horrifying era of mass-casualty terrorism. No doubt he agreed with Mr Howard's characterisation of this scenario as the "ultimate nightmare". But, as he wrote to Mr Howard last year: "Where you and I differ is in the assessment of where the greatest threat lies, and how the various threats should be tackled."
Dr Mathews said Australia would become a greater target of terrorists if it joined the war and crucial counter-terrorism efforts in the region would be set back.
The greatest threat of WMD - or, more importantly, WMD "know-how" - finding its way to terrorists was from the former Soviet Union, Dr Mathews said.
As for Iraq, there was not even "convincing circumstantial evidence" to show that it had in fact held on to such weapons.
US intelligence had directed UN inspectors to 30 different locations in Iraq to find the elusive weapons in the lead-up to the war. The UN teams found empty fields, empty sheds and a chicken farm.
Dr Mathews did not rule out the possibility that Saddam had kept some WMD stockpiles. He rated it a 50-50 chance.
But the UN weapons inspectors must be allowed to finish their work, not least because it would ensure "that Iraq does not recommence production of CBW [chemical and biological weapons]". And, as unpalatable as it may seem, Saddam's paranoid but secular regime was a great defence against WMD being delivered to Islamic extremists.
It was an analysis shared by the CIA and British intelligence, yet one ignored by the politicians.
Frighteningly, there can only be two explanations for the unfound weapons in Iraq: either they did not exist or, if they did, they have been spirited away to others in the postwar chaos.
Reports of a plot by al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to use chemical weapons in Amman in April - foiled by intelligence officers - is a concerning sign that Dr Mathews's worst fears may well come true.
A vote for Howard, in my opinion, is just the same as saying "I want to be lied to, I want you to ignore the advice of EXPERTS and tell me what you want me to know. I think you are smarter than any of the people who have years of experience in DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY and you should disregard any opinion that conflicts with your own personal political agenda". So, does anyone know what Howards political agenda is, or are we just happy to let the captain steer our ship with no idea which port he shall dock us into?
This has gone far enough, if the liberal gov't doesn't get voted out or Latham does the same crap I will be moving to Northern Europe with my Swedish girlfriend and won't come back until our elected leaders treat us with some respect.
Fuck the economy.
Date: September 25 2004
By Tom Allard
Australia's leading expert on weapons of mass destruction defied political and bureaucratic barriers to warn the Prime Minister that his case for war against Iraq was based on falsehoods and would make Australia a bigger terrorist target.
Bob Mathews, a 35-year veteran of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, wrote to John Howard as a private citizen three days before he committed Australia to the war - a last, desperate act after the expert's superiors repeatedly blocked him from expressing his views.
Dr Mathews was a principal research scientist for weapons of mass destruction and arms control at the organisation when he wrote the letter and has an esteemed international reputation in WMD and counter-terrorism.
The Herald has obtained a copy of Dr Mathews's letter and been appraised of what one colleague described as his "disgraceful" treatment both before and after it was sent to Mr Howard.
His actions were investigated, his travel was curtailed and charges were contemplated.
Dr Mathews's lengthy critique called on Mr Howard to reconsider his position and take action to dissuade the US from its path. In the letter, he said:
There was not even circumstantial evidence to back the view that Saddam Hussein had substantial stockpiles of usable WMD.
If he did have WMD, and if Iraq were invaded, there was a "high probability" they would be passed on to terrorists. He said there was no chance of their falling into al-Qaeda's hands while Saddam remained in power.
Australia would "face an increased risk of terrorist acts" if it joined the invasion, which was a "serious distraction to the fight against terrorism".
Australia would have greater difficulties dealing with South-East Asian nations in combating terrorism due to the Iraq war.
The United Nations must be given more time for inspections, and was an important curb on Saddam's WMD ambitions."There are no reasons at the present time to justify supporting a US-led invasion of Iraq," Dr Mathews told Mr Howard, urging him to make a last-ditch effort to persuade the Americans to abandon their war plans.
Dr Mathews sent his letter to Mr Howard on March 17 last year, three days before the Prime Minister formally announced Australia was at war.
In his televised address, Mr Howard said "the reason above all others" for the Iraq war was the threat posed by terrorists with WMD. "Far from our action in Iraq increasing the terrorist threat, it will, by stopping the spread of chemical and biological weapons, make it less likely that a devastating terrorist attack will be carried out against Australia," the Prime Minister said.
As he directly contradicted Dr Mathews's advice on several fronts, Mr Howard and his office were already aware of the contents of the letter. Indeed, his office - and the Minister for Defence, Robert Hill - had already begun a furious damage-control plan to discredit Dr Mathews.
Mr Howard's spokesman did not respond to calls from the Herald yesterday.
Jane Errey, the assistant to the then chief defence scientist, Ian Chessell, was asked to deliver a brief to Senator Hill that he would use as "talking points" should the media get hold of the story. That brief was undertaken the day before war was declared, she said.
She immediately took leave because she did not want to be associated with false "propaganda" that would have misled the public.
Dr Mathews wrote the letter to Mr Howard in a personal capacity because senior figures in his organisation had for months thwarted his attempts to relay his concerns up the chain of command.
Dr Mathews faced reprisals after he sent the letter, including having his top-secret security clearance frozen while he was investigated. His travel abroad was restricted while senior Government advisers considered prosecuting him for passing on classified material.
"They treated him appallingly," a former colleague said.
Dr Mathews, who has been overseas and could not be contacted, remains at the organisation. Friends say he faced a distressing decision about whether to "pull the pin or stay".
War not the answer, letter told Howard
Date: September 25 2004
By Tom Allard, Defence Reporter
Bob Mathews has a missionary's zeal when it comes to combating weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, and the countenance of the archetypal public servant.
Mild-mannered and self-effacing is how friends and associates describe him.
As he watched the seemingly inevitable march to war, this quiet, loyal public servant grew so alarmed at the misrepresentation of Iraq's weapons capability and the consequences for Australia if it went to war he took the extraordinary step of going outside the chain of command to deliver his views and plead with the Prime Minister to change his mind.
Curiously, what worried him most about the Iraq war was the same thing John Howard had been warning the public about for months as he attempted to massage opinion in favour of the conflict.
That is, the prospect of extremists using weapons of mass destruction, heralding a horrifying era of mass-casualty terrorism. No doubt he agreed with Mr Howard's characterisation of this scenario as the "ultimate nightmare". But, as he wrote to Mr Howard last year: "Where you and I differ is in the assessment of where the greatest threat lies, and how the various threats should be tackled."
Dr Mathews said Australia would become a greater target of terrorists if it joined the war and crucial counter-terrorism efforts in the region would be set back.
The greatest threat of WMD - or, more importantly, WMD "know-how" - finding its way to terrorists was from the former Soviet Union, Dr Mathews said.
As for Iraq, there was not even "convincing circumstantial evidence" to show that it had in fact held on to such weapons.
US intelligence had directed UN inspectors to 30 different locations in Iraq to find the elusive weapons in the lead-up to the war. The UN teams found empty fields, empty sheds and a chicken farm.
Dr Mathews did not rule out the possibility that Saddam had kept some WMD stockpiles. He rated it a 50-50 chance.
But the UN weapons inspectors must be allowed to finish their work, not least because it would ensure "that Iraq does not recommence production of CBW [chemical and biological weapons]". And, as unpalatable as it may seem, Saddam's paranoid but secular regime was a great defence against WMD being delivered to Islamic extremists.
It was an analysis shared by the CIA and British intelligence, yet one ignored by the politicians.
Frighteningly, there can only be two explanations for the unfound weapons in Iraq: either they did not exist or, if they did, they have been spirited away to others in the postwar chaos.
Reports of a plot by al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to use chemical weapons in Amman in April - foiled by intelligence officers - is a concerning sign that Dr Mathews's worst fears may well come true.
A vote for Howard, in my opinion, is just the same as saying "I want to be lied to, I want you to ignore the advice of EXPERTS and tell me what you want me to know. I think you are smarter than any of the people who have years of experience in DEALING WITH NATIONAL SECURITY and you should disregard any opinion that conflicts with your own personal political agenda". So, does anyone know what Howards political agenda is, or are we just happy to let the captain steer our ship with no idea which port he shall dock us into?
This has gone far enough, if the liberal gov't doesn't get voted out or Latham does the same crap I will be moving to Northern Europe with my Swedish girlfriend and won't come back until our elected leaders treat us with some respect.
Fuck the economy.
