2006-11-01 13:16:57 · 8 answers · asked by Richo Fev 5 in Travel ➔ Australia ➔ Other - Australia
Absolutely. Not only is it cleaner, but it is also safer
Comparing Lucas Heights to Chernobyl is like comparing Qantas to Aeroflot. 56 people died in 1986 as a result of the Soviet reactor melting down. People thought that thousands of people will then die prematurely due to leukemia and thyroid cancers. Fast forward twenty years, and the death toll stands at (drum roll)...56. No increase in these diseases has been recorded (see link below)
Far more people die each year in coal mining disasters.
2006-11-02 00:05:24 · answer #1 · answered by Mardy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we should seriously look at it as an alternative to burning fossil fuels (that won't last forever). The problem will be - where do we build the nuclear plant? Of course, you're not building it in my backyard.....but I'd be quite happy to see it built in another state. Typical AUstralian argument.
2006-11-01 13:44:58 · answer #2 · answered by TonyB 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not until we have looked at all other avenues. Australia would be the perfect place to really start looking at solar or wind energy.
2006-11-01 17:36:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes its got a good track record im writing a paper on it for physical science and one pound of uranium is equaul to the power of 1 million gallons of gasoline
2006-11-01 13:26:15 · answer #4 · answered by roostingonattr38 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes as long as they build it in Canberra next too the lodge.
2006-11-01 15:13:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why the hell not, we eat our own emblem, and we should use our own uranium!
2006-11-01 13:20:47 · answer #6 · answered by kiroc k-Terry 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES!
2006-11-01 19:51:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO NO NO NO
2006-11-01 16:59:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋