if nuclear is the answer, it's the wrong question

Not sure on why some of the important issues are not being recognized in such a discussion involving nuclear power plants….

Has processed uranium gotten any less radio-active?

Are nuclear power plants any less attractive a target for terrorist activities?

And, can anyone categorically state an error (or malicious act) be prevent when humans remain involved in the process?

http://villageofjoy.com/chernobyl-today-a-creepy-story-told-in-pictures/

From: powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of Tom Spencer
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:26 PM
To: powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: [powderworks] Keep us radioactive free!

Dear Chris

Thanks for the detailed response. I'm not an engineer, but apart from your point about the might of Treasury and my understanding that there's only 45 years worth of uranium world-wide even if we went full tilt at it, alternative energies keep getting sidelined by the coal and oil industries, in Australia at least, making the utility of nuclear unclear.

A lobby group calling itself "the Greenhouse Mafia" has been proud of its ability to knock back attempts by former Senator Robert Hill (once with "Mr Fishnet Stockings" Alexander Downer!) to promote alternative energies. Backed by the coal and oil industries, they are reported to have sidelined even the insurance and gas industries in Australia.

So I'm very sceptical when a cashed-up industry like nuclear comes ahead of renewables such as wind, geothermal and solar energy.

"Keep us radioactive free!" as the Environment Minister sang (though not on any night in Canberra or Melbourne recently, methinks. Or, so many songs and band members, so little time?)