Thwarted on Nukes Issue

I sent this letter to the editor of The Australian last week but it seems they never published. I have in the past had a hit-rate of something like one in five so such setbacks are to be expected. Still it is frustrating particularly if it is anger that has motivated the drawing of the pen.

Uranium industry spokesperson Michael Angwin says that his lobby should "be robust in challenging myths that substitute for insight" regarding the nuclear industry. What are these myths that need debunking, and if they are myths, can we have them debunked, once and for all?

Is the massive use of water in mining uranium, or the intractable problem of nuclear waste disposal, or the projections that it will take decades for nuclear energy to come online in Australia (making its status as a timely solution to climate change questionable) all objections without foundation? Or does the industry simply hope that shouting 'myth' loud and long will bring debate to an end?

Maybe The Australian should publish, in tabulated form, point-by-point, the objections of critics, and the responses of industry representatives, so that we can focus on facts rather than put blind faith in a questionable technology.

I think the content is pretty self-explanatory. In part my frustration is with The Oz itself which seems to be taking a pretty pro-nuclear line despite its own concerns for open and rational debate. Possibly that is why the letter was rejected. Well there is always next time.