illuminating science

More news quote commentary today. Labor (Australia’s opposition party) has said that if elected they will scrap the “no new uranium mines” policy, and allow companies to open new uranium mines under tough terms and conditions. Personally, I think it’s a good idea, provided the mining can be done with minimum impact to the local environment. I guess, being very utilitarian here, I’d also be willing to accept damage to a non-critical part of Australia if the companies were then required to invest large sums in restoring/maintaining other parts of the Australian landscape. One of Australia’s former Prime Ministers proposed recently that Australia should become a leader in the “nuclear economy”, not only in terms of exporting uranium, but also storing the waste in the outback, where we are very geologically stable and sparsely populated. Obviously, there are many issues that would need to be very carefuly considered, but economically it would be a Very Good Thing for Oz. And probably even in terms of safety, it’s better to have all the the processing, etc, done by one group who really knows what they’re doing.

Anyway, what sparked this post in particular was Greenpeace’s comments on the issue.

Firstly, Greenpeace’s campaign manager says:

Nuclear power is not a solution to climate change - it’s not a good business to be in and certainly you can’t divorce nuclear power from the nuclear weapons industry,” Mr Kennedy said.

Well, yes and no. Firstly, no, it’s not a perfect solution to climate change, but I’m becoming a strong believer that it provides, at least partially, a better solution than what we have now. As I understand it, nuclear power couldn’t power all of Australia, at least not in the short term - setting up the infrastructure and the number of power stations etc is going to be expensive and time consuming, and you need lots. But the key thing is that expect for nuclear waste (!) it’s a clean power source. No pollution, no greenhouse gas emissions. We still have to deal with the waste, which lasts for 10,000 years, give or take, but at least we can control the waste. Does anyone have estimates on how long it will take green house gases to return to their normal levels? Let alone the fact that extinctions are irreversible, and that several models of climate change propose a run away scenario where our global climate will be dramatically changed (no, not like “Day after tomorow”…truly terrible movie…)

Then the clincher:

The fact that the reason we have the threat of nuclear war on Earth is because of the nuclear industry itself.

Well, not really, guys. The fact we have the threat of nuclear war is because of that constant arms race. And if it wasn’t nuclear, it would just be increasingly big bombs, or germ warfare, or something else again. There is the issue of terrorists getting nuclear bombs or nuclear waste which can be put into “dirt bombs” (which just explode and spray radioactive waste everwhere), but this then becomes an issue more of better controls and safety around nuclear power than actually of nuclear power itself. As well say that the reason I risk getting stabbed walking home is because of the food industry, producing a market for sharp knives. (Okay, maybe that’s stretching it a little, but you get the idea.)

I’d really like to support a conservation group, but I guess what I really want is one run by scientists. People who actually understand the issues involve and don’t protest something just because it has the word “nuclear” or “genetic” in its title. I want to support the anti-whaling ban, I want to support sustainable forrest industries, and I want to support more humane, sustainable animal treatment. But I don’t want to protest against food irradiation (sound scary? Scientists need to work on their naming skills…) or genetically modified foods in all forms. I’m open to suggestions here!