How I learned to stop worrying and love the ALP’s abandonment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Posted on 4 December, 2011 | 5 Comments

Dan Cass reacts to the ALP’s decision this weekend to abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and flog uranium to India.

I do like the way the industry that creates indestructible waste that stays toxic for tens of thousands of years has managed to clutch onto the coat-tails of the environmental movement, even while the environmental movement tries valiantly to shake it off.

This entry was posted in Environment. Bookmark the permalink.

5 responses to “How I learned to stop worrying and love the ALP’s abandonment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”

jordanrastrick | 5 December, 2011 at 10:42 am |

While they are a clear minority, there are plenty of environmentalists who are in favour of nuclear power in the medium term.

I feel very torn about the particular decision regarding India. There are compelling arguments on either side. Particularly:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/uranium-sales-to-india-would-spread-trust-not-nuclear-arms-20111201-1o94z.html

and

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/australias-dangerous-hypocrisy-on-nuclear-proliferation/

have impressed me lately.
narcoticmusing | 5 December, 2011 at 10:52 am |

It’s not like coal power etc don’t produce radioactive waste – they just don’t make it well known.
Splatterbottom | 6 December, 2011 at 11:41 am |

The long-term waste issue may be able to be managed, but the real evil of uranium reactors is proliferation. This is no accident:

“Weinberg and his men proved the efficacy of thorium reactors in hundreds of tests at Oak Ridge from the ’50s through the early ’70s. But thorium hit a dead end. Locked in a struggle with a nuclear- armed Soviet Union, the US government in the ’60s chose to build uranium-fueled reactors — in part because they produce plutonium that can be refined into weapons-grade material. The course of the nuclear industry was set for the next four decades, and thorium power became one of the great what-if technologies of the 20th century.”

Human ingenuity will eventually destroy humanity. All it takes is a weapon powerful enough to do the job. There are enough weirdos willing to do the job given the opportunity. Actually they are not weird in the usual sense. What marks them out is the crystal clarity of thought that drives their fanatical certainty as to the right actions. Whether it is a new Unabomber or a fringe group who would rid the planet of humanity to save it from despoilation matters little.
narcoticmusing | 6 December, 2011 at 1:11 pm |

It is unfortunate and I agree SB. Indeed, even Oppenheimer was horrified at what he’d brought to fruition, realising far too late the warnings of Einstein et al. His quote from Vishnu always stayed in my mind when I consider scientists dreaming up new ways that could destroy us – although, so does Linda Hamilton’s rant against such advances (as Sarah Conner) in Terminator II 😉
jordanrastrick | 6 December, 2011 at 2:54 pm |

The long-term waste issue may be able to be managed, but the real evil of uranium reactors is proliferation.

True. Proliferation resistance is the critical feature for new reactor technologies; waste management and accident prevention are sideshows in comparison.