Figure 51

Submission to the
South Australian
Nuclear Industry
Royal Commission by
Dr Bill Schutt
Figure 51

14/5/2015

Nuclear Industry
Please accept the following submission to the Royal Commission.
I believe that the commission provides a wonderful opportunity to bring a large 21st century industry to
South Australia.
In this submission I have included a lot of information which I have outlined and included in appendices.
Many of these will mirror submissions given by others.

1.

2.

3.
4.
5.

6.

7.

The particular issues I ask you to note.

Appendices A & B
These are not intended to be political. They are merely my explanation of the definitions of various
concepts. I have tried to explain the difference between a radioisotope and a radionuclide, between a
neutron and a nucleon and other such distinctions.
Definitions are hyperlinked to Wikipedia or other references.
Appendix C
I have attempted to explain the concept of area under the curve.
Radionuclides which have very long half-lives cannot be highly
radioactive. Anti-nukes sometimes say highly radioactive for
millions of years. This is impossible.
Appendix F
I do my best to explain exactly what nuclear waste is.
Appendix G
Personal journey.
Appendices H, I & J
I consider very important to compare radioactivity from nuclear
events with background. The full sized diagram on page 10
demonstrates how small the releases of Chernobyl & Fukushima
were in comparison to background radioactivity.
Appendix K
A lot has been said about Strontium-90 (90Sr). Anatomically, I
dont think 90Sr is a big problem.
This is my own opinion & I have not read something similar.
Appendix Q
In my opinion the anti-nuclear movement is a denialist movement. Its lack of scientific rigour, its
tactics and misrepresentation of facts uses the same gimmicks and stratagems as climate-changedenialists and flat-earthers.

I hope that you are able to make findings which include: 1. The history of nuclear energy show it to be safer than any other energy source.
2. Climate-change is an urgent problem and nuclear energy is likely to play the largest role in decarbonisation.
3. The specific level of radioactivity from human nuclear activities is extremely small compared with
background.
Specifically, I would like to see precise numbers put on it including:(i) The entire release from Fukushima was the equivalent of 1/30000th of the natural radioactivity
in the oceans and similarly equal to 1/25,000,000th of the natural radioactivity in the Earths
crust.
(ii) The entire worlds stocks of fission products, 79Se, 93Zr, 99Te, 107Pd, 126Sn, 129I and 135Cs would,
if buried in South Australia, would add 16 parts per million to the background radioactivity.

~2~

Climate Change
It is my opinion that: 1.
Climate Change should be considered an
environmental emergency.
2.
All options need to be considered to
combat Global Warming, and
3.
The case that so-called Renewable Energy,
can by itself lead to a complete
decarbonisation is extremely weak, and
thus Nuclear Energy will be required, and
the sooner the better.
Reality Check: Germany's Defective
Green Energy Game Plan

My Concerns
1.

The risks of climate change are bigger than

realised.
2.
The required scale of an effective response to
the problem is bigger than realised.
3.
The potential of non-nuclear low-carbon
sources isnt as big as realised.
4.
Nuclear isnt as bad as some people think.
To adequately address climate change we need large amounts
of energy. Whether or not it proves possible to reduce
energy usage with a higher efficiency, the world will require
vastly more energy than it does now. Extra energy will be
required to: 1.
Provide the vast amount of energy required to lift the
3rd world out of poverty.
2.
Charge electric cars
3.
Generate the large amounts of H2 necessary for
transport.
4.
Manufacture synthetic
hydrocarbons as necessary
for heavy transport.

Nuclear energy
is essential to
the future
development of
human society.
~3~

Specific figures you may not be aware of: 1.

The radioactivity released into the environment by Fukushima, Chernobyl and other nuclear incidents is
extremely small compared with natural environmental radioactivity.

2. It is far-fetched to suggest that this tiny amount of

radioactivity can result in serious environmental consequences.
I will give you some specific figures; I believe that an
independent assessment can confirm these: The total radioactivity released from Fukushima is 1/30000th
of the natural radioactivity in the oceans.
Cook Islands is 1/30000th of the size of Australia.
2. The total radioactivity released from Fukushima is
1/25,000,000th of natural radioactivity in the Earths crust.
Cook Islands is 1/25,000,000th of the Earths surface.
3. The entire worlds stock of the long-lived fission products,
1.

79

Se, 93Zr, 99Te, 107Pd, 126Sn, 129I and 135Cs if dumped in

South Australia would add 16 parts per million to the natural
radioactivity in SA, and 2 ppm to the
natural radioactivity in Australia.
A mouse is 16 ppm compared with an
elephant. The tiny red dot on the map is
16 ppm.

4. The Russian submarine Kursk contained

the amount of Uranium equal to the natural
Uranium in 1/3rd of a km of seawater (ie
one 4-billionth of the natural Uranium in the
oceans)
This is equivalent to adding about half of a 44 gallon drum of water
to Sydney Harbour. 1 part in 4 billion.
5. Depleted Uranium left behind in Iraq is equal to the natural Uranium in
0.1mm of Iraqi soil. The top metre of Iraqi soil contains 10000x the
Uranium in a chemical form much more easily absorbed than metallic
Uranium.
The comparison is a not very
crowded elevator with
Adelaide Oval crowd for the
Showdown.
1:10000

4~
~ iii

There is No Conspiracy
Helen Caldicott [249] believes in a mass cover-up The World Health Organization is now part of the
conspiracy & the cover-up. This is the biggest medical conspiracy & cover-up in the history of
medicine.

[250] [251] [252] [253]

Cindy Folkers says she has uncovered a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the government and
nuclear industry to intentionally poison the public with radioactive food with the goal of making
contaminated food acceptable.[254]
Arnie Gundersen states on his website
world governments continue to cover-up
the true magnitude of this disaster, and
the mainstream media ignores it.[255]
Christopher Busby claims the Japanese
government is deliberately spreading
radioactive material from Fukushima all
over Japan.[256] [257]
Caldicott Quotes
The World Health Organization is now part of the conspiracy
and the cover-up. This is the biggest medical conspiracy &
cover-up in the history of medicine.
The northern hemisphere (of Earth) will become
uninhabitable
Were talking about a disaster of unbound proportions from
Fukushima Daiichi 2.5 to 3 million deaths a possibility
50 years or more of highly contaminated water flowing into
Pacific from Fukushima
Radiation from Fukushima will kill Millions of People

Is this why Anastacia Paluszczuk

has blocked Uranium exploration
in Queensland?

More people died from Chernobyl than the black plague

If the present trends continue; the food we eat, the water
we drink will soon be contaminated enough with radioactive
pollutants to pose a health hazard far greater than any
plague humanity has ever experienced.
In the last 25 years, there have been a million deaths due to
the Chernobyl incident and the Fukushima melt down was 2-3
times stronger than Chernobyl.
It will be a global catastrophe of epic proportions,
contaminating the northern hemisphere, resulting in tens of
millions of deaths.

~ 15 ~

My recommendations
1. Nuclear energy is a very positive
option for the environment and is
certain to expand into the
future. Australia needs to be
actively involved in the industry.
2. A much more urgent action is
required to address ClimateChange we should be moving to
replace coal and gas fired
electricity plants now.
3. South Australia should be
One mile = 63,360 inches
willing to build and maintain a
About 16 ppm
world-wide permanent nuclear
waste repository. The total
amount of radioactivity from
the long-lived radionuclides
requiring permanent storage is
negligible compared to the
natural radioactivity in the
environment.
4. South Australia should actively consider a fuel-leasing scheme. Nuclear fuel for reactors can be
provided on the basis that the waste is returned to SA. This will ensure safe disposal & reduce
proliferation concerns.
The extreme claims of the anti-nukes are undoubtedly wildly exaggerations. In a country like
Nigeria for example, it is probably impossible for them to damage the environment as much with
nuclear waste as they have with petroleum products. Nonetheless, there is significant potential for
environmental harm. They will be building nuclear power plants and by far the best option is to
ensure that all waste is returned to a facility where the very best management can be undertaken.

5. Consideration needs to be given to the decarbonisation of electricity, and the subsequent

decarbonisation of transport. I would like to see a suite of nuclear reactors commenced immediately to
replace the lignite-burning monsters in the La Trobe Valley and elsewhere. A second suite of reactors
could then be built to make hydrogen to replace methane for industrial use. These reactors could also
be used for back-up electricity. That is, most of the time, the energy would be used to manufacture
H2 from H2O but could be diverted to generate electricity when needed. This would enable the
unpredictable and intermittent nature of wind and solar to be accommodated to some extent.

I can imagine the Greens or FOE or PSR sitting around the table trying
to model decarbonisation without a contribution from nuclear energy.
The first attempts at modelling dont work And rather than admit that
the ideological certainty that renewable energy is a 100% sure thing is
absurd, it must be the model that is wrong.
The model is changed, tweaked and assumptions modified until the
model is twisted into to fitting the pre-ordained outcome. Large energy
efficiency dividends are necessary to make the model work.
There is no further efficiency dividend to accommodate electricity for
electric cars or H2 & other fuel generation.

~ 26 ~

My Conclusions
1. Climate-Change is an emergency.
2. Nuclear energy is extremely safe, statistically safer
than wind or solar. Both nuclear and renewable energy
are far safer than fossil-fuels. Nuclear power is
extremely safe & should contribute to decarbonisation.
3. The worst accidents do not release large amounts of
radioactivity into the environment compared with
natural radioactivity.
4. The cost of nuclear power and renewable energy
remains higher than fossil-fuels. The long-term costs
are uncertain. There is virtually no support for the belief that nuclear
energy is necessarily too expensive outside of the Doctrinaire Anti-Nukes.
5. The IPCC has called nuclear and renewable energy low-carbon. Once
decarbonisation is achieved any mixture of nuclear, wind and solar is
carbon free.
6. The recent open letter to environmentalists from Profs Barry Brook &
Corey Bradshaw needs to be taken seriously. It is a serious letter from
serious scientists. There is a very substantial body of scientists
who believe the dangers of not going nuclear are far greater than
the dangers of nuclear.
7. There is a very substantial body of mainstream scientific opinion
which does not believe that Climate-Change can be avoided by
renewable energy alone.
8. Politely I might say there is a divergence of opinions on the best
option to address Climate-Change. In practice, there is a strong
case that only the doctrinaire anti-nukes really believe that
renewable energy by itself will be able to address Climate-Change.
9. The anti-nuclear movement does not
behave in a scientific manner. It
behaves as a denialist movement. Its
unscientific and a mirror of climatechange denial.
Wikipedia and Rationalwiki have pages
on denialism. The anti-nuclear
movement behaves as a denialist
movement just as Climate-ChangeDenial and Flat-Earthers are denialist
movements.[259] [260]
Denialist ideas demonstrate consistent
patterns of behaviour which includes
The Conspiracy and fake experts.

Nuclear energy is essential to prevent catastrophic

Climate-Change, lets get started straight away.
~ 37 ~

Appendices
Appendix A - I define the words used in nuclear physics.
Non-political.
What is the difference between a radioisotope &
a radionuclide, between a nucleus & a nucleon?
Appendix B - I discuss radioactivity, radiation, half-life
and measurement Non-political.

&

rays.

Appendix C - Area under the curve Why a radionuclide

cannot be both highly radioactive and long-lived.
Activists sometimes say that there is a problem
with nuclear waste which is both long-lived &
highly radioactive. Radionuclides cannot be both
long-lived & highly radioactive. The area under
the curve explains the reason.
Appendix D - Natural and Man-Made Radioactivity in
the Environment.
I explain how the radioactivity from nuclear
accidents compares with background radiation.
Appendix E - Radioactivity and Cancer.
I discuss the complex relationship between radiation and cancer. It is important
to note that people living in areas of high natural radioactivity do not have an
elevated incidence of cancer. It is also important to note what happened when
the inadvertent addition of the radionuclide
radioactive building.
Appendix F - What is nuclear waste?
Nuclear waste is scary stuff, or is it?
Appendix G - Personal Journey.
Why I have gone from supporter to
extreme sceptic of the anti-nuclear
movement.
Appendix H -The Arithmetic is Simple.
The numbers dont add up for the
anti-nukes. The entire release from
Fukushima is 1/30000th of the natural
radioactivity in the oceans, and
1/25,000,000th of the natural
radioactivity in the Earths crust. The
Kursk contained Uranium equal to
1/3rd of the natural Uranium in 1 km3
of seawater.

~ 864 ~

60

Co to structural steel led to a very

Appendix I Depleted Uranium in Iraq.

The amount of depleted Uranium left behind in Iraq
is very small compared with the natural Uranium in
Iraqi soil.
Appendix J The toxicity of Uranium & Plutonium.
Uranium & Plutonium are heavy metals that are a
little bit radioactive, nothing too dangerous.
Appendix K - Strontium-90 Its not a big problem.
90
Sr mimics Calcium, but theres a lot of 84Sr,
86Sr, 87Sr and 88Sr in the environment and neither
Calcium nor Strontium end up in the cell near the DNA.
Appendix L Scare Campaigns
Paul Keating didnt invent the scare campaign.
Appendix M - Radioactivity versus Surface Area.
Compare the area of the Cook Islands to that of
Australia, the same ratio as Fukushima radiation to
natural radiation in the oceans.
Appendix N - Nuclear Waste in SA.
The entire worlds supply of long-lived
radionuclide fission products would add
only 16 parts per million to the natural
radioactivity in the state.
Appendix O - Carbon is the Enemy!!!
There is an environmental catastrophe
coming!!!
Appendix P The True Cost of Nuclear
Energy.
Anti-nukes say nuclear is too expensive.
What do independent reports say?
Anti-nukes say nuclear has a high CO2
cost. What do independent reports say?
Appendix Q - Climate-Change-Denial, other
denialist convictions and Anti-Nukes.
Climate-Change-Denial & the antiNukes use the same denialist tactics.
Appendix R Climate Change & Nuclear Power
There is no credible path to climate
stabilization that does not include a
substantial role for nuclear power
Appendix S Climate Change & Nuclear Power.
Pro-Renewable & Pro-Nuclear for the
climate and the planet.

~ 9755 ~

Natural radioactivity and anthropogenic radioactivity:

Nuclear facilities when functioning properly release virtually no radioactivity. The worst nuclear
accidents that have occurred, have released levels of radioactivity many orders of magnitude
smaller than the natural radioactivity in the environment.

Natural radioactivity of the oceans

16,000,000 Petabecquerels

Total radioactivity release

Chernobyl 5300 PBq
Total radioactivity release
Fukushima 520 PBq

Total radioactivity from Chernobyl & Fukushima compared with

natural radioactivity in the oceans. The 5 metre yellow circle
(shown only in tiny part), surrounding the blue circle above,
represents the natural radioactivity in the Earths crust.
~3~

Appendix A - Definitions
An atom is the basic building block of ordinary matter. An atom is built of protons, neutrons and
electrons. The protons and neutrons are approximately the same weight and collectively they are called
nucleons. The protons and neutrons occupy the centre of the atom, and this is called the nucleus. It is
sometimes pictured like a solar system, with the nucleus in the centre, like the sun, and the electrons
orbiting around it like planets.[Figure 1] It is a very
inaccurate approximation, but is useful for simple
purposes.
The
nucleus
only
occupies
[1]
0.0000000000004% of the space of the atom[Figure 2]
but contains 99.94% of the mass. [2]
The nucleus
is sometimes
pictured like
a berry.[Figure 3]
Again, this an
inaccurate
model, but a
useful one.

Figure
Figure
1 1

The simplest
atomic nucleus consists of one proton without any neutrons.

Figure 2

This is written 1H, or more completely

A nuclide is any one unique combination of protons and neutrons. An element El
with an atomic mass A is usually written as AEl, although
is more correct: A = Atomic Mass = protons + neutrons
Z = Atomic Number = protons

N = Neutron Number = neutrons

A is always = Z+ N
1
H, 4He, 6Li and 22Na[Figure 4] are other nuclides.

Figure 3

C, 13C, 14C, 16O, 23Na, 39K, 40K, 90Sr, 127I, 129I, 131I, 208Pb, 235U
and 238U are 14 of the many nuclides in the environment.
A radionuclide is a nuclide which is radioactive, coloured red. It
is very common for radioisotope to be used when the correct
term ought to be radionuclide.
12

Figure 4

Isotopes are variant nuclides of the same chemical element.

They have the same number of protons and the same atomic

number, but a different number of neutrons.

39
Ca, 40Ca, 41Ca, 42Ca, 43Ca, 44Ca, 45Ca, 46Ca, 47Ca, 48Ca, are
isotopes of the chemical element Calcium with 20 protons in the
atomic nucleus and the Atomic Number 20. Again, a radioisotope is an isotope which is radioactive,
coloured red above. The distinction is not always absolute however. 40Ca and 46Ca coloured brown, are
theoretically radioactive, although radioactive decay has never been observed. Radioactive decay of
Ca coloured beige, has been detected, with the unimaginably long half-life of 2.3x1019 years.

48

~11
7~

Nuclides
Isotopes are important in the discussion of the nuclear fuel cycle. Isotopes of Uranium all contain 92
protons but the number of neutrons varies from 125 to 150. Only three isotopes of Uranium exist to
any significant extent naturally. Uranium-238 & Uranium-235 are primordial isotopes. They exist on
Earth because they have very long half-lives & a substantial quantity remains from the formation of
the Earth. Uranium-234 only exists as a decay product of 238U. One other Uranium isotope is also

Figure 5

Neutrons
important in the discussion of nuclear energy. Uranium-233 is the main fissile nuclide in the
Thorium fuel cycle. Usually this

U is bred for purpose directly from Thorium-232.

233

Isotopes of Plutonium include Pu, 240Pu, 241Pu, 242Pu and 244Pu.

Isotopes are also important in the discussion of fission products. Strontium isotopes formed include
radioactive 90Sr and 89Sr, as well as non-radioactive 88Sr, 87Sr and 86Sr.
239

Isobars are nuclides of the same atomic mass, or total number of nucleons.
40
S, 40Cl, 40Ar, 40K, 40Ca and 40Sc, are isobars with 40 nucleons and an atomic mass of 40.
Isotones are nuclides with the same number of neutrons.
12
Be, 13B, 14C, 15N, 16O, and 17F are isotones with 8 neutrons.
Nuclides may be primordial, cosmogenic, or anthropogenic. For a radionuclide to exist on the Earth,
which is about 4.5 billion years of age, it must either have a very long half-life, or must have been
created more recently by a mechanism which may be natural or artificial.
238
U is an example of a primordial nuclide. It has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. There was a quantity
of 238U on the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, and there is approximately half of that now. The four most
important primordial radionuclides are 238U, 235U, 232Th and 40K. The vast amount of heat built up inside
the Earths crust comes predominantly from the decay of these radionuclides and their daughters.

~12
8~

14

C Carbon 14

C is an example of a cosmogenic radionuclide. 14C has a halflife of 5730 years and no primordial 14C remains on Earth.
14

Nonetheless,

C is continually being created in the upper

14

Figure 6
atmosphere from cosmic rays.
The third group, anthropogenic radionuclides is only detectable because of human activities. 90Sr, 99Tc,

I, 131I, 134Cs and 137Cs are examples of nuclides only detectable because of the human use of nuclear

129

fission. (Theoretically, there are tiny levels of these nuclides

Figure 7

Figure 8

present at all times because of spontaneous fission.)

Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion

Large amounts of energy may be released by two
distinct and opposite processes, and nuclear fusion.
Both have been used for making atomic weapons, but
only nuclear fission is able to be used to produce
electricity with todays technology.
Nuclear fusion occurs when two very small nuclei fuse
into one slightly larger nucleus releasing energy.
Nuclear fission occurs when one large nucleus fissions
into two smaller nuclei releasing energy.
The release of energy in both nuclear fusion & fission
is possible because the nuclear binding energy is highest for the nuclides in the middle of the periodic
table. There is energy to be gained by fusing the lightest of elements & fissioning the heaviest of
elements. The binding energy is highest in the middle of the periodic table, & energy can be released
just as it may be by a ball rolling down a hill. The nucleus with the highest binding energy is 56Fe.
Nuclear fission of Uranium isotopes can
release large amounts of energy, & this is the
basis of all nuclear power plants today.
Nearly all of these require a fissile nuclide.
The nuclide is most commonly 235U. 239Pu and
U are other fissile nuclides. Natural
Uranium contains approximately 0.7% of 235U,
which is enriched. The proportion of 235U is
233

increased. 3-5% is typical for a nuclear power

plant, but higher enrichment level in the
region of 20% are used in nuclear submarines.
Enrichment to beyond 80% 235U is required to

Figure 9

used for the production of electricity.

When

manufacture a nuclear weapon.

Pu is created from

239

U during the process of

238

U captures a low-energy neutron it usually does not fission and becomes

238

U.

239

Pu is also

239

235
239

U fission.

U decays

with a half-life of 23.5 minutes to Np which itself then decays to Pu with a half-life of 2.4 days.
Nuclear reactors can utilise a mixture of 235U & 239Pu with some of the 239Pu begotten in situ.
A mixture of 239Pu with isotopes of Uranium are the principle behind the Megatons to Megawatts
program where weapons-grade 239Pu from dismantled Soviet weapons has been used for electricity
239

239

generation in the USA.

~13
9~

Appendix B - Radioactivity
Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity in 1896, and subsequently Rutherford and Villard identified
three components called alpha, beta and gamma rays.

rays were subsequently identified as 4He nuclei consisting of two protons and two neutrons. decay
occurs in heavy nuclei and it is the process by which these elements gradually diminish in the environment.
The atomic number is reduced by two and the atomic mass by four as the result of decay.
U 234Th + and 226Ra 222Rn + are examples of decay.

238

24

decay is one example of cluster decay. Very much more rarely, heavy significantly larger than 4He. 235U 211Pb +
Ne and 228Th 208Pb + 20O + are examples of cluster decay.

rays were subsequently identified as consisting of a single

electron. decay occurs in nuclei where there is an excess

Figure 10

of neutrons. The atomic number is increased by one and the

atomic mass remains unchanged as the result of decay.
234
Pa 234U + and 40K 40Ca are examples of decay.

- decay is sometimes used to differentiate the process of

electron release from + decay which occurs when an anti-electron or positron is released and the process of
electron capture (EC). 40K
addition, double

40

Ar + is an example of + decay and 40K + e- 40Ar is an example of EC. In

-

decay and double EC are also known to occur. 48Ca 48Ti + 2 is an example of double

decay. 130Ba + 2e- 130Xe is an example of double EC.

Figure 11

rays were subsequently identified as consisting of

high energy photons like an x-ray. Usually, when
or decay occurs there is residual energy which is

Figure 5

ejected as a ray. rays are much more

penetrating than or rays.

The decay chain of 238U is shown on the right. Each
nucleus undergoes 14 decays as it progresses from
U to 206Pb consisting of 8 than decays and 6

238

decays.
Figure 12

Figure 13

The decay chains of fission fragments of size 90

and 143 are also illustrated above. Only

- and

rays are produced.

~ 14
10 ~

 rays are more

Electromagnetic Radiation

massive and do not

penetrate paper.
rays do not
penetrate human
skin. rays are
high energy and
penetrating and
are able to damage
deep tissues.

Electromagnetic radiation is radiation in the

environment and its all around us. It includes
radiowaves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible
light, ultraviolet rays, x-rays, and rays. This is
described as the electromagnetic spectrum. Cosmic

Figure 14

rays are sometimes included, although this is inaccurate

as cosmic rays are predominantly high-energy
particles.
Electromagnetic radiation varies from the very low

energy radiowaves to the very high energy rays. Each

individual photon has an energy inversely proportional to its wavelength. High energy photons in the
ultraviolet, x-ray, and ray part of the spectrum have sufficient energy to damage human tissue. X and
rays are penetrating and can be used for medical imaging or cancer therapy.
The high energy rays are an important consideration in the management of radioactive material.

Figure 15

Measurement of Radioactivity
The simplest way to measure radioactivity is the becquerel named in honour of Henri Becquerel. Each
becquerel represents 1 decay per second. A megabecquerel is 1,000,000 decays per second and a
gigabecquerel is 1 billion decays per second. A billion becquerels sounds like a large amount of
radioactivity, but the amount of natural radioactivity is far greater than this.
Sometimes radioactivity is measured in Curies named after Marie and Pierre Curie. A curie is defined as the
quantity of radioactivity given off
by 1 gram of Radium in 1 second. 1
curie = 37 billion becquerels. Both
units measure the same thing
very differently. Its like
comparing micrometres to miles.

Figure 16

~ 11
15 ~

Radioactivity measurement and half-life.

Becquerels can be a less than entirely satisfactory way to measure the effect of radioactivity on the
environment. Decays of various nuclides vary widely in the amount of energy released. Energy is measured
in (kilo) electron volts abbreviated as KeV. Tritium or 3H decays with a very low 18.6 KeV.[200] whilst 24Na
decays with a high energy of 5516 KeV. [201]
Radioactivity is also measured in
sieverts and grays as pictured.
A typical background radiation dose
in Australia is 2 millisieverts/year.
The half-life of any radionuclide is
the time it takes for half of the
quantity to decay. Half-lives vary
from picoseconds to trillions of
years. 40Ca, a common nuclide in the
human body is believed to undergo
radioactive decay. The half-life is
at least 1029 years.
It is sometimes useful to

Figure 17

calculate how long it will take for

a nuclide to reach one 1000th or 1,000,000th of its present quantity. Fortunately, after 10 half-lives, the nuclide in
question has decayed to 1/1024th. This may be approximated to 1/1000. Thus it takes 10 half-lives for a nuclide to
reach 1/1000th, 20 half-lives to reach 1/1,000,000th and 30 half-lives to reach 1,000,000,000th.
But whatever the half-life, each nucleus will decay once.

Each radioactive nucleus decays once only. On a graph the area under the curve is exactly the same.
Therefore, a nuclide cannot be highly radioactive and remain so for a long time. It may either be highly
radioactive or remain for a long time.
Two isotopes of Iodine, 131I and 129I illustrate the matter. 131I has a half-life of 8 days and 129I has a
half-life of 15.7 million years. 131I is 700 million times more radioactive than 129I, and 129I persists for
700 million times longer than
129Xe and 131Xe remain.

131I.

Each and every atom decays once and once only and non-radioactive

The four nuclides graphed, 91Y, 125Sb, 129Iand 131I each decay once only and reaches stability with
129

131

126

126

91

Zr, 125Te,

126

Xe and
Xe. Some fission products decay twice, for example
Sn
Sb
Te. Fission fragments with >2
238
decays decay quickly and are not present in nuclear waste.
U decays 14 times before it becomes stable 206Pb.
Nonetheless, it remains a fact that a long-lived nuclide is long-lived because it decays very infrequently.

Figure 18

~ 16
12 ~

Appendix C - Area under the Curve

Figure 19

The magenta line, representing

129

I, is impossible to realistically chart on the same graph as

131

129

131

131

I. At x=0, 129I y=

0.000000091, whilst for I, when x=0, y=64. At x=6, I & I are similar at 0.000000091. For 129I, y has declined
to 0. 0000000909, or 0.1% only when x=2,700,000. Nevertheless, the area under the curve is exactly the same.

Nuclear waste consists of seven radionuclides with a half-life of

greater than 100,000 years. These are
126Sn, 129I

and

135Cs.

79Se, 93Zr, 99Te, 107Pd,

The radioactivity of these nuclides is very

low. Each nucleus decays ONE TIME ONLY.

When a radionuclide has a long half-life, it decays very
infrequently.

As noted in Figure 19 above,

131

I decays 700

million times faster than 129I, but 129I lasts 700

million times longer than
131

131

I is highly radioactive,

I.

129

I is not.

Figure 20

17 ~
~ 13

Appendix D - Natural and

Man-Made Radioactivity in
the Environment
There is radioactivity in the environment and most
of it is natural. Artificial sources contribute to the
radiation exposure of the average person, but
nearly all of this is medical. The contribution of
nuclear accidents and nuclear weapons to
background radioactivity is less than 1/1000. The levels of background radioactivity vary from place to
place and in some parts of the
world. The natural
radioactivity in the
environment comes from the
primordial, cosmogenic and
anthropogenic nuclides.
The human body contains
roughly 8100 Bq, or 8100
decays per second.[231] The
Figure 22
primordial nuclide 40K
contributes about 4400 Bq of
this and the cosmogenic nuclide 14C about 3700 Bq. Other nuclides are less than 100 Bq in total.[232]
Natural radioactivity in the oceans measures approximately 12.1 Bq/litre. 40K contributes around 90% of
this, and 87Rb around 10%. Again other nuclides make only a minor contribution.

Figure 23
Left

Photos 1&2
Ramsar Iran
Right
Photos 3
Guarapari
Beach Brazil

18 ~
~ 14

Variations in Natural Radioactivity

Soil varies widely in its
radioactivity from place to
place, but a typical figure is 600
Bq/kg, which is 900 Bq/litre or
900 trillion Bq/m3.
Background radioactivity in
Australia is typically 2 mSv/year
whilst an airline attendant or
pilot receives an additional 2.4
mSv/year from the increased
load of cosmic rays high in the
atmosphere.[233]
Natural radioactivity varies
widely from place to place. [234]
Ramsar in Iran is a site where
natural radioactivity is very
high.[235] [236] [237] [238] [239] The
figure usually given in 260
mSv/year. This is 130 times
that in Australia and 13 times
the maximum permitted for a
nuclear industry worker.
Guarapari beach in Brazil is

Figure 25

Figure 24

another place where natural

radioactivity is very high. Burying oneself in the sand can lead
to a dose of up to 131 Sv/hour or over 1160 mSv/year.[240]
Right
Photos 4, 5 & 6
Guarapari
Beach Brazil
Left Photo 7
Los Angeles

Figure 27

Figure 26

~ 19
15 ~

Appendix E - Radioactivity and Cancer

It is not disputed that high levels of radiation cause cancer. Much more controversial is the effect of
more moderate levels that might arise from variations in local radioactivity, radionuclide release or
medical investigation.
The Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT) has been used by radiation authorities to calculate cancer risk
from radiation exposure. The model calculates the risk associated with radiation exposure simply by
assuming that cancer frequency increases linearly with increased exposure. Therefore, if someone is
exposed to double the radiation exposure, then there risk of cancer doubles. If another person was
exposed to 3.7 times their usual radiation dose, the risk would increase by 3.7.
One consequence of this model is that sunlight is considered carcinogenic at any level.[241] It also leads to
the conclusion that cancer incidence will become zero if it were possible to achieve a radioactivity level of
zero, & fails to accommodate known carcinogens such as tobacco use and the chemical effect of DNA
base analogues.
No other toxic agent behaves in this manner, as far as is known. Radioactivity is always present in the
environment at some level, as are heavy metals, (Lead, Mercury & others), & poisonous chemicals such as
carbon-monoxide & cyanide. Methanol is toxic at moderate doses but permitted in food at up to
5mg/kg,[242] a dose which is not known to be harmful. Methanol at low levels is formed biochemically in the
human body from the breakdown of esters & cannot be removed entirely, just as it is impossible to remove
all radiation from 40K,
14C, & other internal &
Figure 28
external sources.
Radiation Hormesis is the
hypothesis that low to
intermediate levels of
radiation result in an
actual decline in cancer
incidence.[243] [244] [245] [246]
The suggestion is that
radiation exposure
comparable to & just above
the natural background
level of radiation is not
harmful but beneficial.
It is not disputed that much higher levels of radiation are hazardous.
There was an accidental experiment on the island of Taiwan where the residents of an apartment building
were inadvertently exposed to high radiation levels. In 1983 recycled steel was accidentally contaminated
with discarded cobalt-60 radionuclides & was used as construction steel for more than 180 buildings
containing about 1700 apartments, as well as public & private schools & small businesses, in Taipei City &
nearby counties. About 10000 people occupied these buildings for 9 to 20 years. The results of this
inadvertent exposure were very surprising. The cancer mortality rate was only about 3 percent of the
population average & the congenital abnormality rate was just 6.5%.[247]
It is my opinion that the Linear No-Threshold Model is completely inconsistent with a large amount of
recent data & should be abandoned. Higher levels of radiation exposure should be accepted & the risk of
adverse health outcomes is likely to be very small. There is a significant amount of evidence that
Radiation Hormesis is a real phenomenon but the extent of the any protective effect is uncertain at the
present.

20 ~
~ 16

Appendix F - What is nuclear waste?

Nuclear waste is what is left behind when you change the fuel in a reactor. At the moment, it consists of
92% Uranium, 2% Plutonium, and 1% other Actinides (unfissioned nuclei of atomic number 89 and
above).[245] All of this can be recycled and all of it is fuel for the Integral Fast Reactor. The remaining
5% or so is fission fragments. When a heavy nucleus such as 235U, 233U or 239Pu fissions, it breaks into two
uneven halves. For example: -

The fission residue consists of a variety of nuclides with

peaks at approximately A=95 and A=137. The precise
details differ slightly for the nuclides 233U, 235U, 239Pu
and others and for fast and slow neutrons. .
Each fissioned nucleus begets two daughters, one smaller
and one larger. For 235U there is one peak at A=94 and
another at A=138.[Figure xyz] Each of these peaks when
flipped 900 also has a range of nuclides. For example,
when A=94, a number of nuclides are produced centred on
94Sr. However, virtually all of these nuclides are neutronrich, that is, they decay by decay until stable 94Zr is
reached. In regard to A=94 fission fragments, they will
decay entirely to 94Zr within hours, and 94Zr is the only

Figure 29

A=94 nuclide remaining in nuclear waste. Diagrams below

demonstrate the decay chain for nuclides A=131 and
A=137. 131Sn, 131Sb, 131Te, and 131I all have half-lives in

Each heavy nucleus fissions

into a larger A=120-155 and
a smaller A=80-115 fragment

the seconds to days range and have decayed away into

131Xe within months.
94Se94Br 94Kr94Rb94Sr 94Y94Zr

20 msecs 0.12 secs 0.21 secs 2.73 secs 2.73 mins 2.73 mins
Figure 30
Each fragment size varies
in proton to neutron ratio
5.00E+00
4.00E+00

previous example. For example, the family of fragments

size 90, the process is delayed 90Sr and nuclear waste
therefore contains significant quantities of 90Sr.
90Se90Br 90Kr90Rb90Sr 90Y90Zr

3.00E+00
2.00E+00
1.00E+00

0.427 secs 1.9 secs 32.3 secs 4.3 mins 29.1 years 2.67 days

0.00E+00
94Br

Each and every nuclide mass number decays in the

direction of increasing proton to neutron ratio. In most
cases, decay ceases at a stable nuclide, within a short
enough period of time, for the process to be complete
before the nuclear waste arrives at a facility. In a
smaller number of cases, the decay is delayed at a
nuclide with a significantly longer half-life than in the

Figure 31 - Fragments of size 94 vary from 34-40

94Kr

94Rb

94Sr

94Y

94Zr

protons but all decay promptly to

21 ~
~ 17

94

Zr which is stable

Nuclear waste decays

Fragment sizes of atomic mass, from 73 to 161 appear in fission waste at
about 1 part per million or greater. Of these 89 atomic masses or

Figure 32

isobars, 67 of them decay completely (with < 1 part trillion remaining)

within one month to a stable nuclide, or a near stable nuclide.
235

Figure 33

U contains 143 neutrons & 92 protons, a

ratio slightly greater than 1.5:1. Fission

fragments therefore have an N:Z ratio of ~
1.5:1. Most stable isotopes in this block have
N:Z ratios between 1.2 and 1.4. Virtually all
nuclear fragments therefore have too many
neutrons & too few protons & undergo

decay until they achieve a stable N:Z ratio.

There are approximately 19 isobars

where this process is incomplete at
one year, & therefore likely to persist
to some degree in nuclear waste: Seven long-lived nuclides with halflives greater than 200,000 years.
These are 79Se, 93Zr, 99Te, 107Pd,
126Sn, 129I and 135Cs. Their level of
radioactivity is extremely low compared with the shorter lived
nuclides, but remains virtually constant for millennia.
Three nuclides with half-lives measured in decades. These are 90Sr
(29.1 years), 137Cs (30.17 years), and 151Sm (90 years). In practice,
these three nuclides represent 95% of the radioactivity in buried
waste. The last of these, 151Sm, exists in much lower quantities than
the first two, mainly because it has a strong likelihood of absorbing a
neutron with the nuclear pile, and transmuting to stable 152Sm.
Four nuclides with half-lives from 35 days to 59 days. These are 89Sr
(50.5 days), 91Y (58.5 days), 95Nd (35.0 days), & 103Ru (39.3 days). Each
of these decays to 1 part in 10,000 or less, within two years, & all reach 1 part per trillion at about six
years.
Five other nuclides, 106Ru (373 days), 125Sb (2.76 years), 134Cs (2.06 years), 144Ce (285 days), 147Pm (2.76
years) and 155Eu (4.71 years). These need to be stored for several decades, beyond which, radioactivity
becomes trivial.
The radionuclides discussed above, if handled
with a little common sense, can be safely
moved & stored. If placed at a remote site in
an appropriate chemical form, they will
remain there for 100s of millions of years.
About 1.7 billion years ago at Oklo[248] in
Gabon in Africa, a nuclear fission reaction
arose naturally. The majority of the nuclides
created by this process have remained in
Figure 34
the local area.

22 ~
~ 18

Appendix G - Personal Journey

I am a 58 year old medical practitioner and I work in general practice. I was in the top 1% of South
Australia in Year 12 physics & second in the state in Chemistry. Nuclear physics and chemistry are sisters
because atomic number, protons neutrons and electrons that are important.
I very briefly flirted with the anti-nuclear group in 1977. They were handing out stickers The Peaceful
Atom Kills. I thought it sounded like a good idea and put one on my briefcase.
But I very quickly came to understand that the anti-nuclear movement was
completely unscientific. I thought I had the knowledge to understand the matter in
great detail and when I analysed the detail, it was impossible to make a plausible
argument that there was a serious danger in nuclear energy.
Even in 1977, it was clear that global warming was on the horizon. In 1983, we had
the Franklin River dam controversy. The proposed

Figure 35

hydroelectric power generating facility never went ahead, and a

coal-fired power station[1]
was built instead. Had

Figure 36

nuclear energy been chosen

as an alternative, more

Figure 37

than a billion of tons of

CO2 would never have
entered the atmosphere.
The entire anti-nuclear
philosophy was built around
a hysterical radiophobia. [2]

Any amount of radioactivity from nuclear

fission was deemed to be catastrophic, even if it was
1 millionth of background
radioactivity.[5] No attempt was made to quantify either
[3] [4]

the radioactivity or the risk. The doctrine of nuclear bad

Photo 8

was cast-iron & couldnt be challenged. Scientific

environmentalism had been Greenjacked[6] by the

doctrinaire political left. As Marxist ideology imploded with the collapse

of the Soviet Union and reform in China, the hard left moved into the
Green movement creating a Watermelon[7] party, green on the outside
but red on the inside. The Nuclear Bad is as fundamental to the
modern green movement as the Class Struggle was to the Marxists.
The anti-nuclear ideology has become to the modern Greens[8] [9] [10] a
fundamental tenet of belief and is quasi-religious. If I were to join the
Catholic Church and reject the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, I
would be excommunicated for heresy. And if I were to join the Green
Party and reject their doctrinaire certainty on nuclear energy, I would
equally be excommunicated for heresy.[11] [12] [13]
Figure 38
Figure 39

~ 19
23 ~

Appendix H

Figure 40

The Arithmetic is Simple

From the extraordinary claims from those in the anti-nuclear
movement, one might be concerned that vast plumes of
radioactivity had crossed the pacific and were poisoning the West
Coast of the USA. One might believe that large amounts of
radioactivity were raining down on Australia. The reality is that the
levels measured on the West Coast of the USA were very small
compared with background,[14] & that radioactivity monitoring
stations in Australia operated by ARPANSA only just detected
radionuclides from Fukushima at one site.[15]
Fukushima released radioactivity into the
environment and while estimates vary, a median
figure is 520 Petabecquerels. The Earths
oceans contain 1.3 billion km3 of seawater.[16]
Seawater is radioactive at approximately 12.1
Bq/dm3 = 12,100 Bq/m3 = 12.1 trillion Bq/km3.
The total radioactivity in the oceans is thus 1.6
x 1022 Becquerels = 16,000,000 Petabecquerels.
The entire release from the FukushimaDaiichi reactor is equal to 1/30000th of the
natural radioactivity in the oceans. A similar
calculation leads to the conclusion that the
entire Fukushima release is equal to 1/25,000,000th of the
natural radioactivity in the Earths crust.[17] Outside of the

Figure 41

Figure 42

immediate vicinity of the reactor itself, the level of

radioactivity has never reached more than a tiny fraction of
natural levels. Within the immediate vicinity of the reactor, it
was far, far safer than it would have been nearby a fossil-fuel
facility which was on fire.
Radionuclides from Fukushima were detected off the West
Coast of the USA. The detected level at <2 becquerels/m3, is
less than 1/1000th of the safe limit in drinking water. [18] [19] [20]
Radionuclides from Fukushima were detected in Australia.[15]
Activity from 133Xe was detected at the Darwin monitoring
facility at a maximum level of 12 mBq/m3. No activity from Fukushima was detected at Australias 6 other
centres. The measured level of 133Xe would lead to an annual radioactivity dose of 0.015 nanosieverts =
1/100,000,000th of the typical background radioactivity in Australia.
89
Sr was detected in milk in Hawaii as scaringly reported by enenews.com. The level detected at 1.4
picocuries per litre = 52 millibecquerels/litre is 1/5000th of the level that causes concern.[21] NPR
reported that the radioactivity would only be dangerous after 58,000 glasses.[22]
The reality is that the radioactivity from the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear incident is a microscopic
portion of the radioactivity present in our environment and there are no environmental risks or
consequences outside of the immediate vicinity of the reactor.

24 ~
~ 20

Back of an envelope calculations

K-141 Kursk was an Oscar-II class nuclear-powered
cruise missile submarine of the Russian Navy, lost with all
hands when it sank in the Barents Sea on 12 August
2000.[23] The reactor contained approximately 1.2 tonnes
of enriched Uranium with about 20%

U.

235

Seawater contains 3.3 parts per billion Uranium.[24] This

equates to 3.3 tonnes/km3. As stated above, the Earths
oceans contain 1.3 billion km3 of seawater The Kursk sank
with a quantity of Uranium 1/3rd of that which exists
Figure 43
naturally in one km3 of seawater and one 8,000,000,000th
of that which exists naturally in the oceans. The tiny quantity of Uranium compared with that naturally in
the environment cannot be considered more than a minor problem.
Nonetheless, one anti-nuclear group manages to say Huge quantities of the radioisotope* will continue to
menace the marine environment and humans for millions of generations to come.[25] [26] Scottish farmers
became concerned about radioactivity from the Kursk.[27] An article in the independent states Worse
than Chernobyl: 'dirty timebomb' ticking in a rusting Russian nuclear dump threatens Europe.
* Radioisotope is not correct here, radionuclide is to be preferred.
The Kursk went to the bottom of the Barents Sea. Assuming all of the Uranium leaked out, this
would add 1 part in 8 billion to the natural Uranium in the ocean.

Depleted Uranium, or a depleted cranium?

Depleted Uranium is whats leftover when natural
Uranium is enriched for nuclear energy. The term
Depleted Cranium comes from the website
depletedcranium.com.
The production of one tonne of Uranium enriched
to 4% 235U, will result in the production of several
tonnes of depleted Uranium with a reduced level of
235
U. I enriched the Uranium in part and increase
the quantity of 235U. Initially, depleted Uranium
was considered a waste product.
Depleted Uranium has found a niche and is used for
the metal shell of anti-tank weapons.
Military forces were looking for was a very dense metal, and Uranium
was the best available.it must be readily available, & not highly
valuable for other purposes. Uraniums density of 19.05 gm/cc is
significantly higher than that of Lead, 11.32 gm/cc. Gold, Platinum
and Osmium are similarly dense to Uranium but they are not
available in quantity.[31]

No conspiracy - Uranium metal was chosen

on the basis that it was the most
appropriate material available.

Photos 8-12

25 ~
~ 21

Figure 44

Appendix I - Depleted Uranium in Iraq

The US and its allies left depleted Uranium behind in both Bosnia-Hercegovina & Iraq. The quantity in
Iraq is said to be 300-400 tonnes.[28] [29] This is an emotive issue with scare campaigns displaying
handicapped & disabled children.
Uranium is common in the environment at about 6 parts per million, or 6mg/kg. Iraq is near 430,000 km2 in
area. Using a soil density of 1.5 gm/cm, each millimetre of Iraqi soil contains 5,800 tonnes of Uranium.
This amount of Uranium left behind in Iraq is no more than the natural Uranium in the top 0.1 mm of soil,
or one 10,000th of the natural Uranium in the top metre of Iraqi soil.
Uranium is a heavy metal, and likes other heavy metals is potentially toxic. The ingestion of Uranium leads
to biochemically toxicity at much lower doses than it leads to radiological toxicity. [32] [33] [34] [35]
There are places in the world where these weapons were used including Iraq and Bosnia-Hercegovina. Fear
mongering by anti-nukes with photographs of grotesquely
malformed humans, animals, vegetables & minerals.
Unfortunately for the scare mongers, Uranium is not the
cause, & elevated levels of Uranium in the effected
individuals cannot be measured.[36] [37] It is highly
implausible that Uranium can cause these birth defects
& then disappear completely from the environment such
that elevated levels cannot be detected.
The toxicity of Uranium[38] [39] [40] is similar to that of lead.
It is chemically toxic at levels were radio-activity is barely
Photo 14-16
elevated above background and can always be measured at elevated

Photo 13

levels. The use of battlefield Uranium is unlikely to be more toxic than

battlefield Lead, and there is NO evidence that it is.

The amount of Uranium abandoned by military forces in

Iraq is very small compared with that which exists
naturally in the environment. There is no conceivable
physical or chemical mechanism by
which serious harm could occur.
The amount of radioactivity
released by events such as
Chernobyl & Fukushima, the loss of
the Kursk or the use of depleted Uranium
in Iraq is very, very small compared with
natural background activity.
The profound fundamentalism of the
Anti-Nukes leads, like all varieties of
fundamentalism leads to belief without
evidence. Pictures of human and animal
deformities are posted, somehow
implying that relates to the use of
depleted Uranium in Iraq or elsewhere
and that causality is thereby proven.

26 ~
~ 22

The human and animal

malformations presented
here are from the 18th
century collection by
Peter the Great and are
now in the Kunstkamera
in St. Petersburg.

Photo 17 & 18

Uranium & Toxicity Appendix J - Plutonium & Toxicity

Uranium - 92U - is a heavy metal with
significant toxicity. Its atomic number is
92 similar to other heavy metals Lead 82Pb

- and Mercury - 80Hg. The term

heavy metal seems to be used
inaccurately in this context with lighter
metals Chromium - 24Cr - & non-metals like
Arsenic 33As - included in the list.
The toxicity of Uranium has been
compared to that of Lead.[121] The

Note that the

subscript 92U
refers to the
atomic number
92 whilst the
superscript 235U
refers to atomic
mass 235.

estimated toxic dose of Uranium is

14mg/kg[121] although 1mg/kg is
sufficient to cause renal
abnormalities detectable on blood
test.[121]
This is a chemical toxicity and not
radiological toxicity. On the other
hand, depleted Uranium,
predominantly 238U has a very low
level of radioactivity, approximately
12,000 Bq/gm.

Plutonium, like Uranium is a both a

heavy metal and radioactive, and thus
has the potential for both chemical
toxicity and radiological toxicity.
Plutonium needs to be handled with
appropriate caution, but it is not
extraordinarily dangerous and
there are many chemical and
biological poisons that are both
more dangerous, and more difficult
to manage.
The chemical toxicity of Plutonium
is less than that of Arsenic and
cyanide similar to that of
caffeine.[130]
The radiological toxicity is
dependent upon the half-life and
the isotope.
Helen Caldicott is one of a number
of anti-nukes who has made
extreme claims about the toxicity
of Plutonium.[125] [126] [127] including
to be the most dangerous
substance on earth, it is so toxic
and carcinogenic that less than onemillionth of a gram if inhaled will
cause lung cancer.[128]

The chemically fatal dose of Uranium

at about 1gm for a 70kg individual,[121]
adds only 12,000 Bq of radioactivity
not a dangerous amount. The
conclusion therefore is that chemical
toxicity is much more likely than
radiological toxicity but neither occur
at levels too low to measure.
Another barrier to Uranium toxicity is
the very poor absorption of metallic
Uranium. [123] [124]
There is virtually no evidence of
elevated Uranium levels in the human
population.[138] [139] [140] [141] [142]
We are therefore left with the
imaginative idea that depleted
Uranium in the environment at a tiny
level compared with natural Uranium ,
in a chemical form, unlikely to be
absorbed, and with no measurable evidence of any intake,
has caused widespread health problems in an environment
where there are scores of other potential causes & very little
statistical evidence of a real increase of abnormalities.

~ 27
23 ~

Prof Bernard Cohen has written The

Myth of Plutonium Toxicity and
once challenged Ralph Nader to eat
as much plutonium as he would eat
of caffeine, which my paper shows
is comparably dangerous, or given
reasonable TV coverage, to
personally inhale 1,000 times as
much plutonium as he says would be
fatal.[129]
Plutonium is not the most toxic
substance known on Earth, its
chemical toxicity is no more than
that of Lead or Uranium and its
radiological toxicity varies depending
on the isotope. None of the isotopes
have a higher toxicity than 60Co.[134]
[135] [136]

Appendix K
Strontium-90
Strontium-90 (90Sr) is a radionuclide
produced by nuclear fission. Strontium
is a Group II element immediately
below Calcium in the periodic table and
its chemical properties are similar. Some Strontium
deposits in bone and there exists the possibility that 90Sr
could incorporate into the mineral matrix of bone and lead
to leukaemia or bone cancer.
The concern about this possibility is considered to have
contributed to the 1963 agreement on an atmospheric
nuclear test ban.
Bone contains an inorganic mineral matrix, specifically
Hydroxyapatite, also called Hydroxylapatite. The
chemical formula is Ca++10(PO43-)6(OH-)2. Mixed in with the
inorganic mineral is the structural protein collagen.
Nevertheless, one of the fundamental aspects to all biological
cells, is the capacity to maintain and electrochemical gradient
across the cell membrane. Some ions are pumped out, and some
are pumped in. Specifically, Potassium & Magnesium are pumped
in, and Sodium & Calcium are pumped out.
The genetic material, or DNA, is inside the cell, within its own
membrane. The electrolytes immediately adjacent to the DNA
are the cations, K+ and Mg++, together with the anions Cl- and
HCO3-.
Outside of the cell, the cations Na+ and Ca++ are dominant.
Accepting that Sr++ cations can intermix with Ca++, then the
Strontium, like the Calcium will
Intracellular Extracellular
Cation
Ratio
Sodium
18mM
145mM
90% Outside
be 99.9% extracellular, or
Potassium
135mM
3mM
95% Inside
outside the cell.
Calcium+Stronti
100nM
1.2mM
99.9%
The image on the next page is
um
Outside
bone under the microscope 400x. The osteocytes, or bone cells, are the little black dots. The mineral
matrix has been stained pink. This is the hydroxyapatite. Ca++ & Sr++ deposit within the hydroxyapatite.
K+ and Mg++ are inside the cell, are in far more intimate contact with the DNA than any Ca++ or Sr++.
Radiopotassium or

40K

is anatomically far closer to the DNA than Calcium and Strontium, including any

90Sr.

The conclusion is that 40K is delivers far more and activity to the DNA than 90Sr.
How might become embedded in the hydroxyapatite matrix?
1.

Strontium may replace Calcium, ie the level of Strontium may increase from say 10 ppm to 100ppm.
Some of this increase will be 90Sr, or-

2. The Strontium may remain the same, say 10 ppm, but 90Sr replace the natural non-radioactive
Strontium isotopes, 84Sr, 86Sr, 87Sr and 88Sr.

28 ~
~ 24

Strontium-90 in bone

The release of

90Sr

into the environment by nuclear incidents can be measured & is potentially significant.

The release of Strontium at the same time is completely insignificant. The entire Strontium release from
Fukushima o the former, if the amount of Strontium in the environment increases, then the level of
Strontium is estimated at 200gm. Whilst this is a very significant quantity of radioactivity, it adds only
30 parts per billion billion, 30 parts in 10-18 to the total Strontium.
Any release of 90Sr is completely insignificant to the
Calcium:Strontium in the environment and it is impossible
for this to alter the Calcium:Strontium ratio in bone.
It is possible, however, for some 90Sr to replace 84Sr,
86Sr, 87Sr

and 88Sr. But the deposit of Strontium is a

chemical process and the chemical properties of the
various isotopes of Strontium are exactly the same. 84Sr,
86Sr, 87Sr

and

88Sr

same extent as

will deposit in bone to exactly the

Sr.

90

Notwithstanding the claim from some in the antinuclear movement that 90Sr has a long biological
half-life in the human body, the shorter the half-life,
the more quickly 90Sr will potentially displace any
84Sr, 86Sr, 87Sr and 88Sr and reach equilibrium with
the environment.

29 ~
~ 25

Summary of above argument in pictorial terms. (not to scale)

We live in an environment where there is a given amount of Calcium and Strontium.

In this environment our bones take up both Calcium and Strontium into their matrix.

Now, some

Sr enters the environment, as a very small proportion of total Strontium.

90

.
In time, some

Green dot for

Sr will replace some of the non-radioactive Strontium within our bones.

90

radio-strontium
difficult to see

------
Conclusion: The tiny amount of 90Sr from nuclear events to will not measurably change
-
the Calcium/Strontium ratio in either the environment or the human body. The extent
to which 90Sr can replace 84Sr, 86Sr, 87Sr and 88Sr is very small and highly unlikely to
lead to significant radioactivity in human bones. Furthermore, Strontium is an extracellular cation and far more distant from the DNA is the cell nucleus than

40

K.

Natural radioactivity in the oceans is approximately 12,ooo Bq/m

30 ~
~ 26

Appendix L Scare Campaigns

5 billion
becquerels of radioactivity
is flowing into the Pacific
every day.
[41] [42] [43]

5 billion becquerels is equal to the natural

radioactivity in an Olympic sized swimming pool of
seawater one metre deep. Sydney harbour contains
approximately 6.5 trillion becquerels of natural
radioactivity.

Over 2 Trillion Becquerels of

Radioactive Waste Flowed[44] [45]
from Fukushima Plant into
Pacific in Just 10 Months.

2 trillion becquerels is 1/3rd of the natural

radioactivity in Sydney Harbour and 1/10 billionth of
the natural radioactivity in the oceans.

28 Signs That The West Coast Is

Being Absolutely Fried With
Nuclear Radiation From
Fukushima [46] [47] [48]
The author believes that everything that happens in
North America is because of Fukushima radioactivity.
Deaths of polar bears, seals, walruses, birds, salmon
All from radioactivity < 1/1000th of background.

40+ areas where extremely

contaminated water flows
directly into ocean at
Fukushima 4 years out,
Fukushima reactors still
spewing[49]
The quantity is never mentioned. The
authors definition of high is presumably
anything that can be measured.

31 ~
~ 27

Thyroid Cancer in Young People

Surge in Fukushima Since
Nuclear Meltdown [50] [51] [52]
The cancer rate has started to increase only
recently. Thyroid cancer has been around for a
long time and was not invented by Chernobyl or
Fukushima.

Caldicott in Japan: Incredibly rare thyroid

abnormalities found in 40% of Fukushima
children Indicates a really high dose of
radiation, higher than at Chernobyl[54] [55] [56]
Children were screened in the immediate aftermath of
Fukushima. 40% were found to have nodules or cysts. This
is normal.[57] [58]

Tepco Finds Most Polluted Fish

since Fukushima Nuclear Accident
New record of 740,000 Bq/kg
There was indeed a highly radioactive fish caught
in the immediate Fukushima precinct. 740,000
Bcq/Kg.[59] It was caught around an open conduit
of the disabled reactor. Nuclear-news.net
supported the scare campaign, as did
enenews.com.[60] A 200gm serving of this
Revenge of the mutant vegetables?
particular fish would certainly give you a
Pictures of crops deformed by fallsignificant dose of radioactivity, about 2.1
millisieverts, about one years dose of
out of Fukushima nuclear
background radioactivity, but not a
disaster'[62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]
[61]
dangerous dose.

Eating a 200gm portion of these tuna will result in a

dose of radioactivity = to 5% of the natural
radioactivity in a banana. [68] [69] This is cherrypicking to a level of absurdity.

The concept of the mutant vegetables comes from an episode of

Gilligans Island named "Pass the vegetables please.

~ 32
28 ~

Appendix M - Radioactivity versus Surface Area

Fukushima
520 PBq[70]
Cook Islands
240 km3[72]
Chernobyl[70]
= 5,300
PBq
Luxembourg

2500 km3
[73]

Australia is 30000x larger than the

Cook Islands
The Natural Radioactivity in the
Oceans (16,000,000 PBq[71]) is
30000x larger than the total Release
from Fukushima
The entire surface of the Earth is
25,000,000x larger than the Cook
Islands. The Natural Radioactivity in the
Earths Crust (12 billion PBq[71])is
25,000,000x larger than the total
Release from Fukushima
Area of Australia
= 7,700,000 km3

Earths Surface = 250,000,000 km3

~ 29
33 ~

Appendix N - Nuclear Waste in SA

A calculation of the
radioactivity of the long-lived
radionuclides in nuclear waste
and a comparison to natural
radioactivity in South Australia.
There is about 400,000 tonnes of

Nuclide
79Se
93Zr
99Tc
107Pd
126Sn
129I
135Cs
Total

Percent*
0.0447%
6.35%
6.11%
0.146%
0.0585%
0.511%
6.54%

Quantity
3.58 MT
508 MT
489 MT
11.7 MT
4.68 MT
4.09 MT
523 MT

Half-Life
295,000 y
1.53 million y
211,000 y
6.5 million y
100,000 y
15.7 million y
2.3 million y

Total R/activity
0.29 PBq
49 PBq
310 PBq
0.04 PBq
1.26 PBq**
0.04 PBq
23 PBq
384 PBq

spent fuel from nuclear energy generation in the world. [75]

* Figures quoted are per 100 fissions or per

4% of this is fission products, the remainder can be

recycled.

200 fission daughters.

** 126Sn undergoes two decays
126

Sn126Sb126Te, each = 0.63 PBq

16,000 tonnes of fission products.

Based on the 235U figures from http://ie.lbl.gov/fission/235ut.txt I calculate

Total radioactivity in the South

Australian part of the Earths
crust.
600 trillion becquerels/km3 [71] [76],
area km2, depth 40 km2
= 24,000 x 1018 becquerels =
24,000,000 Petabecquerels.

Total radioactivity from the entire worlds

stocks of 79Se, 93Zr, 99Te, 107Pd, 126Sn, 129I
and

135

Cs =380 PBq. Weight of Mouse 48gm[77]

Total natural radioactivity in

South Australia =24,000,000 PBq.
Weight of Elephant[78] 3000Kg

The entire worlds stock of long-lived fission products, if buried in South

Australia would add 16 parts per million to the background radioactivity.
As the mouse weighs 16 parts per million compared with the element.
34 ~
35
~ 30

Appendix O - Carbon is the Enemy!!!

Activists sometimes describe themselves as pro-renewable, pro-nuclear and other labels. But these labels
are incomplete. I consider myself both pro-renewable and pro-nuclear. I have no doubt that anthropogenic
climate change is a real phenomenon and may well have serious consequences for life on Earth and the
human race in particular. I believe that the challenge of climate-change is far too serious to dismiss any
possible solutions.
I advocate strongly for nuclear energy, in part because I believe it is the best solution available and in
part, because it may well be the only solution. But there is no reason for a sensible pro-nuclear person to
be anti-renewable. And equally, there is no reason for a sensible pro-renewable person to be anti-nuclear.
Nonetheless, there is a substantial
faction that demands that renewable
energy be the only option considered to
address climate change.
This is NOT pro-renewable ideology,
this is ANTI-nuclear ideology. So
when a highly respected international
scientist, such as James Hansen,[79]
challenges the idea that a robust
modern economy is achievable with
renewable energy alone, they will not
even CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY.
The possibility cannot be contemplated
because it completely violates fundamental
doctrine.

I am more than willing to consider the possibility that renewable energy may be able to resolve the problem
of anthropogenic climate change; I have no problem with enthusiastic proponents who believe this strongly,
but I find it utterly absurd that they consider this is a 100% certainty, and the demand that no other
possibility be contemplated.
So, the Green Party,[80] Greenpeace,[81] [82]
FOE[83], ACF[84] and others have the core
ideology which is anti-nuclear. Every other
component of their belief system must be
formulated in such a manner the core ideology
is not challenged. The idea that renewable
energy might prove inadequate to address
climate-change cannot even be contemplated,
because it would conflict with core ideology.
Thus, any assessment of renewable energy by
such groups is undertaken with the absolute necessity that renewable energy must work, irrespective of
the facts.
When the doctrinaire anti-nukes undertake research into the cost of nuclear energy, they find it to be
very, very expensive. UCS, Greenpeace, PSR and NIRS* all say nuclear is too expensive. Not too
surprisingly, when the doctrinaire anti-wind-farm groups undertake research into the cost of wind
energy, they find it to be very, very expensive. Wind-watch, Global Wind Energy Impact, Wind Turbines
Syndrome and Wind Action all say wind is too expensive.

35 ~
~ 31

The Anti-Nukes assess Nuclear energy on cost, CO2 and other measures
It is not difficult to find independent assessments of the cost of nuclear energy, & it is my impression
that these reports run very much in the direction of nuclear costs being competitive.[85] [86] [87] [88]

[89] [90]

There is a similar pattern with other costs with

anti-nukes declaring than nuclear has a high CO2
cost.[91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] while anti-wind-farm
groups find that wind has a high CO2 cost.[97] [98]
Independent assessment show that nuclear energy
has a very low CO2 cost.
If I want an independent & realistic assessment of
Wind Energy, I dont get my information from
anti-wind farm activists like wind-watch.org and
equally if I seek an independent & realistic
assessment of I dont get my information from
anti-nukes.
Dr Mark Diesendorf wrote a piece on Newmatilda claiming that Nuclear Energy is Dirty, Unsafe and
Uneconomic. Dr Diesendorf is one of a (small I believe) minority of Australian academics who oppose
nuclear power. In my opinion he is wrong about it being dirty and unsafe, but I dont necessarily feel that I
have the expertise to necessarily judge the economics. Nonetheless, the only report Dr Diesendorf could
quote came from the fanatically[99] anti-nuclear UCS.[100]
There is a strong case that all nuclear is too expensive reports come from partisan anti-nukes.
This is an excellent example of cherry-picking.[101] Politicians argue by
selectively quoting a minority report which supports their entrenched
position. Scientists should be above this. If one has a robust scientific
argument, it should not be necessary to deceive by the selective
omission of facts.

When the anti-nukes undertake an assessment of the cost of nuclear

energy, the CO2 footprint of nuclear energy they manage to get some
quite remarkable results. They find that nuclear energy is too expensive
and has a larger CO2 footprint than the alternatives. The outcome of
their research was never in doubt, with the inevitable anti-nuke
conclusion arising. The anti-wind-farm activists achieve the same outcome with wind. The anti-nukes
judgement about nuclear energy is about as objective and as realistic as the tea-party is objective and as
realistic about Barack Obama.[201] [202] [203]

Photo 25 Dead Birds - Maybe the photo came

from an anti-nuclear site, maybe an anti-wind
farm site or maybe an anti-solar PV site

36 ~
~ 32

Appendix P The True Cost of Nuclear Energy

Independent reviews rarely show that nuclear power plants are necessarily very expensive,[216] [217] but
anti-nuclear groups frequently produce reports that say the costs of nuclear energy are prohibitively
high.[218] [219] This is despite that the cost of electricity in nuclear France is approximately half of that in
Germany & Denmark.[220] [221] (
0.147 /kWh
0.292 /kWh
0.300 /kWh) In Ontario,
hydroelectricity & nuclear have by far the cheapest generation costs, at 4.3c/kWh and 5.9c/kWh[222]
respectively, whilst solar costs a massive 50.4c/kWh.[223]
Consumers pay from
8c/kWh off-peak to
16.1c/kWh peak.[224] The cost of nuclear energy also needss
to be compared with that of the alternatives. If there
were no economic cost to replacing fossil-fuels, regulation
would not be required. If it proves possible to move to a
post-carbon economy, the community will be required to
meet the costs of the replacement source, whatever the
cost.
Koningstein & Fork have recently concluded that
renewable energy cannot replace fossil-fuels at any
cost.[225] This led to an immediate & widespread kneejerk[226] [227] denunciation from the doctrinaire antinukes. As I have previously noted, Koningstein & Forks
analysis was immediately rejected, without being
read, as being heretical and contrary to doctrine.

Just as the Anti-Wind-Farm ideologues

say wind energy is too expensive, the
anti-nuke ideologues consistently
produce reports that suggest nuclear
energy is too expensive. No one else
does. [228]

~ 37
33 ~

Is there a consensus on nuclear energy costs?

I have undertaken my own assessment on the degree of consensus on the cost of nuclear energy.
Without cherry-picking, I was able to confirm the hypothesis that the ONLY reports proclaiming a high
cost for nuclear energy come from Doctrinaire Anti-Nukes.
Examples of Doctrinaire Anti-Nuke reports are: Union of Concerned Scientists
Greenpeace Physicians for Social (Ir)responsibility
Nuclear (Dis) information & Resource Service
Proponents of nuclear energy argue to the contrary: Canadian Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency
What do independent estimates say?
Google search: nuclear + costs site:edu Hits
University of Pittsburgh One-Nuclear power not too expensive.
University of Pittsburgh Two-Nuclear power not too expensive.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology One-Nuclear power not too expensive.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Two-Nuclear power not too expensive.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Three-Nuclear power not too expensive.
Stanford University One-Nuclear power not too expensive.
Stanford University Two-Nuclear power not too expensive.
University of North Texas-Nuclear power not too expensive.

None of the first 20 hits supported the argument

that nuclear energy is necessarily too expensive.

~34~
38
38

What does peer reviewed evidence conclude?

A search of sciencedirect.com Pdfs available without payment in order of hit: 1.

Nuclear fuel cycle cost estimation and sensitivity analysis of unit costs on the basis of an equilibrium model

2.

Sensitivity analysis and probabilistic assessment of seawater desalination costs fueled by nuclear and fossil fuel

3.

A multi-period mixed-integer linear optimisation of future electricity supply considering life cycle costs and environmental
impacts

4.

South Korean energy scenarios show how nuclear power can reduce future energy and environmental costs

5.

On the global economic potentials and marginal costs of non-renewable resources and the price of energy commodities

6.

Assessment of projected temperature impacts from climate change on the U.S. electric power sector using the Intergated
Planning Model

7.

A Bi-objective Evacuation Routing Engineering Model with Secondary Evacuation Expected Costs

8.

How much can nuclear power reduce climate mitigation cost? Critical parameters and sensitivity

9.

The case for a near-term commercial demonstration of the Integral Fast Reactor

10.

Small modular reactors and the future of nuclear power in the United States

11.

Fuelling the future

12.

Life cycle sustainability assessment of UK electricity scenarios to 2070

13.

EROI of different fuels and the implications for society

14.

Technology scale and supply chains in a secure, affordable and

low carbon energy transition

15.

Why nuclear energy is sustainable and has to be part of the

energy mix

16.

Feasibility study of a dedicated nuclear desalination system:

Low-pressure Inherent heat sink Nuclear Desalination plant
(LIND)

17.

Research and Technology Breakthroughs in Nuclear Power for

Shaping a Sustainable Low-Carbon Energy Future

18.

Will the introduction of renewable energy in Europe lead to

CO2 reduction without nuclear energy?

17 out of 18 of these articles support the view

that nuclear is cost competitive or better.

The only article that does not support

this conclusion was written by a lawyer!!!
A Doctrinaire Anti-Nuke by the name of
Mark Cooper.
Denialist groups use the same symbols

~ 39
35 ~

The CO2 Cost of

Nuclear Energy
The situation with CO2 is the
same as that with cost. The
Doctrinaire Anti-Nukes such as
Mark Diesendorf can somehow
generate reports that magic up
a CO2 output from nuclear
energy.[258] [259] [260] [261]
These dubious conclusions are
then cherry-picked for articles
on websites such as
Newmatilda.
Independent studies disagree.
[262] [263] [264] [265] [266]

Again, just as the

Anti-Wind-Farm
ideologues say wind
energy has a high,
hidden CO2 cost, the
anti-nuke ideologues
repeatedly produce
reports that suggest
nuclear energy has a
high, hidden CO2 cost.
Again, no one else does [267][268] [269] [270] [271] [272] [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] [278]
The point I am making here is that both the Anti-Wind fanatics & the
Anti-Nuke fanatics are identical in this regard. Both invent highly dubious
estimates of the CO2 price of the technology to which they are
ideologically opposed.

I hope that the political will to address climate-change comes sooner rather than later. On
Decarbonisation Day, any combination of wind, solar & nuclear is entirely carbon free. All three have some
carbon cost at the moment because of inputs,
which realistically is slightly higher for solar
than for wind or nuclear.
The important thing is to get to
Decarbonisation Day soon. If we make a
positive decision to go nuclear, I believe we can
achieve it by 2040. Without nuclear, I am
sceptical as to whether it can be achieved by
the year 2100.

~ 36
40 ~

Appendix Q
Climate-Change-Denial, other denialist
convictions and the Anti-Nuclear movement
Patriotism might be the last refuge of a scoundrel, but The
Conspiracy is the last refuge of the closed-minded ideologue.*
Wikipedia states that denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing
to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth.
There are scores of denialist beliefs, with the denialist group

*Quote from Bill Schutt

choosing not to believe the mainstream scientific view. One

such group is creationists who choose to deny the scientific
consensus on evolution. Holocaust-deniers choose to deny the
historical consensus about death camps in World War II.
Some denialist groups are trivial or used as in humour, such as
Elvis Lives,[102] or Flat-Earthers.[103]
Other examples of denialist beliefs include 9/11 truther,[104]
Meryl Dorey vaccination denial,[105] Alien Abduction
belief,[106] & Obama birthers.[107] [108] These beliefs are
sometimes also called Conspiracy Theories.[109] In each case, there is a
mainstream opinion, & a contrary opinion. The mainstream opinion is that Elvis
either died on August 16 1977, the contrary Elvis either died on August 16
1977 is that he did not. Similarly, the mainstream opinion is that UFOs are
not a manifestation of extra-terrestrial intelligence, & the contrary opinion
is that UFOs are a manifestation of extra-terrestrial intelligence.
Generally there is no middle ground & the theory must be either completely right or completely wrong.

Whatever the particular hobby horse, denialists share a mindset, where the
favoured belief is somehow suppressed by the scientific and political elite.
Denialism

always requires a Conspiracy Theory. Powerful interests, which almost always include the US

government,
United Nations,[114] [115] [116] [117] other governments,[118] [119] [120] [122] and unnamed
industrialists are involved in a high-level conspiracy to suppress your chosen denialist certainty.
[110] [111] [112] [113]

The particular individual involved needs to reconcile their own certitude

with the fact that the overwhelming weight of publicly available evidence is
against their belief. The psychological process which occurs is, I believe,
obvious to the neutral external observer.

Given the choice of: 1. I admit that I must be wrong because of the weight of opinions of the experts, or
2. The experts are wrong, and therefore MUST be part of a
conspiracy,
the human mind nearly always chooses 2 above.

The creationist will never CONSIDER option 1 above

because of their absolute faith, and inevitably
embraces option 2.
~ 35 ~
~ 37 ~
~ 37
41 ~

Evidence
Evidence to the true
believer is assessed not on
the basis of scientific
understanding,
reproducibility or expert
opinion, but on the basis of
consistency with underlying
dogma. If it supports the
dogma, it must be right & if
it doesnt do so, it must be wrong. Therefore, the
vast body of evidence that Barack Obama was born in
Hawaii can be dismissed, as part of The Conspiracy,
whilst any minor anomaly in any document becomes proof that he was
not. Evidence is cherry-picked.
Any expert who accepts that vaccination has saved millions of lives is
part of The Conspiracy, whilst any high-profile true-believer is
deemed to be an expert irrespective of their qualifications. Former
Playboy Playmate Jenny McCarthy has been promoting the antivaccination scare campaign.[131] Jenny McCarthy is now officially a
fake expert. [132] [133] [137]
It is almost an acknowledgement that the public evidence does not support their
favourite belief. Nonetheless, there exists the impenetrable certainty of the
true-believer. The true-believer cannot possibly be wrong. The only other
explanation is The Conspiracy. The United Nations therefore must be part of
The Conspiracy, the US government is part of The Conspiracy, & the Australian
government is part of The Conspiracy. The Conspiracy is fundamental to any
denialist belief system because it is the only way to rationalise the large number
of experts who not only disagree, but draw a precisely opposite conclusion.[143]
Evidence must always be evaluated in with the understanding that the core
belief is unfalsifiable. So to the believer in Alien-Abductions will describe
this as cherry-picking, but the true-believer is merely assessing the
evidence within his or her own belief system. The True Believers considers
each anecdote to be significant evidence, whilst contrary data is
considered evidence that proves the existence of The Conspiracy.
I know Elvis lives & I therefore conclude that the Memphis Coroner is not
an expert while Bruce on flight 555 to Baltimore is an expert, confirmed
by the fact that the Memphis Coroner challenges my belief system (and I
cannot possibly be wrong) while Bruce who thinks he saw Elvis on flight 555 is an expert. An external
observer will describe Bruce as a Fake-Expert, without appropriate qualifications, & part of the ElvisLives-Yet movement.

42 ~
~ 36
38

All Denialist Doctrines Think the Same Way

It follows then, that if one had no information, & was entirely to the prospect that Alien-Abductions or
the Elvis-Lives-Yet scenarios were reality, one ought to be able to answer the question to a high degree
of certainty, simply on the behaviour of the protagonists. One side of the debate, & one side only, will
have The Conspiracy, the Cherry-Picked evidence, and the Fake-Experts.

Conspiracy
It is Alien-Abduction believers, not
the sceptics who have The
Conspiracy,[101] [102] the CherryPicked evidence,[143] [144] & the
Fake-Experts.[145] [146] [147] Similarly,
the Elvis-Lives-Yet believers also
have The Conspiracy.[148] [149] [153]
the Cherry-Picked evidence,[150] [151]
& the Fake-Experts.[152]

It does not matter to which

denialist doctrine you
subscribe, behaviour patterns
are strikingly similar.

Climate-Change-Denial &
Nuclear Energy
On both these questions, there is
no middle ground. Just as Elvis is
either alive or dead,
Anthropogenic-Climate-Change
is/is not a problem, & nuclear
energy is/is not an option necessary
to address this problem.
The claims of the nuclear
proponents & nuclear opponents are

Table of denialist doctrines referred to in this document

Denialist belief

Core belief

Creationism

Humankind was created by god and did not

evolve from less complex organisms

Holocaust Denial

The mass extermination camps of the Nazis

never existed

Elvis Lives

Elviss death was faked and he remains alive or

died later than 1977

Flat-Earthers

The Earth is flat, the North Pole is in the middle

and

9/11 Truthers

9/11 was an inside job which included the Bush

administration

Anti-vaccination

Vaccination is harmful, causes autism and

harms the immune system

Alien Abduction
believers

Human beings are regularly abducted by aliens

for sexual & other experiments

Obama birthers

Barack Obama was not born in the USA and is

not eligible to be president

Climate-ChangeDenial

Climate-change is either a myth or harmless or

beneficial

Anti-Nukes

Nuclear is bad and there is a massive conspiracy

to cover this up

not a question of degree. Opponents claim[154] that it is dirty and dangerous,[155] [156] [157] whilst proponents
claim that nuclear energy is the safest option available.[158] [159] There is conflict on the issue of cost, CO2
emissions, both efficiency & necessity as an answer to climate-change, & the speed at which the
technology can be introduced.
There is also disagreement on renewable energy with regard to cost, CO2 emissions, as an answer to
climate-change & the speed of a roll-out.

43
~ 39
37 ~

Living in Fantasy Land

One side of the debate is living in a fantasy-land.
One side of the debate is forming opinions on the
basis of doctrine & not science; one side is a
denialist group. One side of this argument, & one
side only, advocates will be making claims of a
Conspiracy, the Cherry-Picked the facts, &
offering Fake-Experts with peripheral relevant scientific
knowledge & experience.
It is the climate-change denialists & the anti-nukes[160]
[161] [162] [163] [164]
who behave in this fashion. Like their
denialist brethren the creationists, holocaust-deniers, &
Obama birthers they cannot conceive of renouncing
doctrine. Climate-change denialists & anti-nukes are just
like Flat-Earthers, 9/11 truthers & anti-vaxers. There is
The Conspiracy,[165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] the Cherry-Picked evidence,[173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] & the
Fake-Experts.[179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] The true-believer disagrees however, s/he is
merely assessing the evidence according to doctrine.
So how does an organisation like Greenpeace, which has been dogmatically anti-nuclear for decades
respond to the Chernobyl Forum?[191] [192] [193] It responds in exactly the same way as do Climate-change
denialists respond to the IPCC report on Climate Change, or Meryl Dorey responds to the NHMRC
advice on vaccination. The response is complete & total rejection. There is an unconditional &
emphatically closed-minded adherence to doctrine. They dare not seek independent opinions, they refuse
to test the facts, & remain possessed by the absolute dogmatism of ignorance.

The DOCTRINE cannot possibly be WRONG!!!

Governments, Scientists, & the UN are part of the CONSPIRACY
Science is about having an open mind. As the evidence accumulates against your hypothesis, you sometimes
need to abandon it under the sheer weight of facts. That is how science works! But this is not how
denialism works. When the evidence piles up against our belief, we are guided by DOCTRINE.
To the climate-change-denialist, the IPCC report on climate-change proves the existence of The
Conspiracy! [165] [166] [167] And to the anti-nuke, the Chernobyl Forum proves the existence of The
Conspiracy![168] [169] [170] [171] [172]
The Chernobyl Forum is a UN report backed by eight UN agencies and the governments of Ukraine,
Belarus and Russia. There are over 70 highly-credentialed experts involved in the preparation of this
report. They must be wrong. They cannot possibly believe this heresy!
THEY ARE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!

So whether you are a climate-change denialist or an

anti-nuke, you have evidence that
the UN is part of the conspiracy!
The WHO must be subservient to
the IAEA. There is NO other
possibility.

(Reconsideration of doctrine
cannot be considered.)
44
40~
~ 38

Appendix R - Climate
Change & Nuclear Power

The Conspiracy Theory is the hallmark of Denialist

beliefs such as Climate-Change Denial & Anti-Nukes

The case in favour of climate-change has

been the subject of extensive research by
scores of expects under the auspices of the
United Nations.[193] The Chernobyl accident
has, similarly, been the subject of extensive
research by scores of expects under the
auspices of the United Nations.[194]] [195] [196]
Nonetheless, in an attempt to pretend that
there is substantial disagreement within the
scientific community, climate-changedenialists & anti-nukes both produce reports
superficially similar to the UN mandated
reports. In contrast to the scientific rigour of the IPCC reports & the Chernobyl Forum, the denialists
create their own report. The UNHEALTHY EXAGGERATION-The WHO report on climate change &
The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH) were commissioned by political activists & written by a
handful of authors with a well-known pre-existing ideological position. Essentially they are political, &
not scientific. The IPCC reports & the Chernobyl Forum reports are collaborations between scores of
well-credentialed scientists from around the world. Conversely, the politically motivated alternatives were
written by one or two scientists, & the outcome and conclusion were completely pre-determined before
a paragraph was written. One side of the debate is able to commission a report from a large group of
eminent and independent international specialists, secure
in the knowledge that they have a robust scientific case,
the other side must very carefully choose a handful of
experts where pre-existing ideology is the only thing
that matters.
Greenpeace believes in The Conspiracy,[204] [205] FOE
believes in The Conspiracy,[206] [207], and ACF believes in
The Conspiracy.[208] [209] [210]
Helen Caldicott[249] believes in a mass cover-up The
World Health Organization is now part of the conspiracy
and the cover-up. This is the biggest medical conspiracy &
Christopher Busby above & Cindy Folkers
cover-up in the history of medicine."[250] [251] [252] [253]
below are two Anti-Nuclear Crackpots
Cindy Folkers says she has uncovered a deliberate
conspiracy on the part of the government and nuclear
industry to intentionally poison the public with
radioactive food with the goal of making contaminated
food acceptable.[254]
Arnie Gundersen states on his website world
governments continue to cover-up the true magnitude
of this disaster, and the mainstream media ignores
it.[255]
Christopher Busby claims the Japanese government is deliberately spreading radioactive material
from Fukushima all over Japan.[256] [257]

It is my opinion that the entire anti-nuclear movement is just one big

wacky Conspiracy Theory. It is also my opinion that the
Caldicott/Gundersen/Busby Conspiracy Theory is of the same merit as
Climate-Change Conspiracies and Flat-Earth Conspiracies, precisely ZERO.
~ 41
45 ~

Appendix S - Pro-Renewable Energy & Pro- Nuclear Power

Climate-Change may lead to
a Mass Extinction
If this were a question of pro-nukes versus prorenewables it would not be a difficult question to
resolve. Climate-change is a very serious problem
& both are likely to contribute to a resolution.
Pro-nuclear & pro-renewables are easily
reconciled. The quarrel is between the
Doctrinaire-Anti-Nukes and those with an open
mind.
Many have adopted the anti-nuclear ideology as
their sole raison d'tre. One could no more
convince a fundamentalist anti-nuke that nuclear
energy is a good idea than one could convince a
fundamentalist believer that God doesnt exist. It
is a conviction based on ideology, faith and
doctrine. The belief has no basis in scientific fact,
and is completely immutable to change on the
basis of scientific enquiry. Anyone who challenges
doctrine is an infidel and destined to go to hell.
If this sounds exaggerated, there are those in the antinuclear movement who have suggested that Fukushima or
another nuclear event might cause a mass extinction.[212]
[213] [214] [215]
The actual radioactivity release from

1/25,000,000th of the
natural radioactivity in the Earths
crust. The belief is bizarre.
Fukushima is =

I believe that Union of Concerned

Scientists, Physicians for Social
Responsibility & Nuclear
Information and Resource Service
all to be quite inappropriately
named. It is my opinion that Union
of Confused Scientists, Physicians
for Social Irresponsibility and
Nuclear Disinformation and
Resource Service would be far
more accurate.

~ 42
46 ~

We have a serious problem from humancaused environmental changes

~ 47 ~

Anti-Nuclear Bullshit may cause an Environmental Catastrophe

Furthermore, this is a very, very dangerous belief. The nuclear fuel cycle cannot cause a mass extinction
but could very likely prevent one. About 250 million years ago, a mass extinction event occurred, the
Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) great extinction. Also called the Great Dying or the Great Permian Extinction,
90 percent of marine life & 70 percent of terrestrial
life was wiped out in a relative ink of an eye.[230] [279]
It was the only mass extinction which effected the
insects. The cause was a massive disturbance in the
planets carbon cycle which transfers carbon between
air, sea & land & keeps large amounts in long-term
storage. Something scientists don't know what-caused
a burst of carbon to come out of storage. When it did,
the temperature soared, the ocean acidified, & there
was widespread anoxia in the oceans & on land. There
was a massive upwelling of H2S from the deep oceans.
Life on Earth nearly disappeared. [229] [230]
Most likely small increases in temperatures and
atmospheric CO2 reached a threshold when suddenly
large amounts of methane hydrates suddenly
decomposed releasing large amounts of the greenhouse
gas methane-CH4-into the atmosphere with by the
sudden development of large positive feedback
mechanisms which led to CO2 and temperatures
climbing rapidly. CO2 in the atmosphere rose to 1000
ppm, H2S was released in large quantities.
This process could happen again; the risk is unknown.

A mass extinction is possible

if Climate-Change is not
addressed.

Final Summary
1. Climate Change should be considered
an environmental emergency. There
is the possibility of a catastrophic environmental outcome.
2. All options need to be considered to combat Global Warming, and
3. The case that so-called Renewable Energy, can by itself lead to a
complete decarbonisation is extremely weak, and thus Nuclear energy

will be required & the sooner the better.

Bill Schutt

~ 48 ~

1. National Archives Damming the Franklin

www.naa.gov.au/collection/explore/cabinet/by-year/damming-the-franklin.aspx
2. 2. Wikipedia Radiophobia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia
3. Observations on Chernobyl After 25 Years of Radiophobia
www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Observations_Chernobyl.pdf
4. Radiophobia Greenpeace is uncompromising and ideologically rigid
nuclearradiophobia.blogspot.com.au/p/greenpeace.html
5. Greenpeace is an uncompromising & an ideologic, not realistic, organisation and are extremist.
nuclearradiophobia.blogspot.com.au/p/greenpeace.html
6. Greenjacked Unsolicited Sincere Promotion
actinideage.com/2014/08/18/greenjacked-unsolicited-sincere-promotion/
7. SMH - Green by name, flaky by nature
www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/green-by-name-flaky-bynature-20101128-18cab.html
8. Australia's anti-nuclear movement: a short history
www.greenleft.org.au/node/16973
9. Greenies are holding up a clean energy future by opposing nuclear
www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2015/03/18/4199992.htm
10. Greens Launch SA Anti-nuclear Campaign
www.markparnell.org.au/mr.php?mr=1017
11. Another Green Converts to Nuclear Mark Lynas Now Accused of Heresy
atomicinsights.com/another-green-converts-to-nuclear-mark-lynas-now-accusedof-heresy/
12. The Nuclear-Green Revolution
nucleargreen.blogspot.com.au/2007/12/
Detectable in California =
utne-readers-romantic-anti-nuclear.html
1/1000th of natural radioactivity
13. Nuclear Energy the Key to a Low Carbon
Future
www.scientific-alliance.org/energy-climate-change/nuclear-energy-key-low-carbon-future
14. How is Fukushimas Fallout Affecting Marine Life
www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/how-is-fukushimas-fallout-affecting-marine-life
15. Assessment of the impact on Australia from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant
accident www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/technicalreports/tr162.pdf
16. Wikipedia Ocean
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean
17. Radioactivity in Nature.
www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
18. Fukushima Radioactivity Detected off of West Coast
www.whoi.edu/news-release/Fukushima-detection
19. Continuing 137Cs release to the sea from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant
through 2012
www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/3577/2013/bgd-10-3577-2013.pdf
20. Ocean Radioactivity
www.wgbh.org/includes/playerPop.cfm?section=0&featureid=27253&rssid=4
21. Low Levels of Radiation Found in American Milk
www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/us/31milk.html?_r=1
22. Radioactive Milk Only A Danger After 58,000 Glasses
www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/03/22/134746912/radioactive-milk-only-adanger-after-58-000-glasses
23. Russian submarine Kursk (K-141)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Kursk_(K-141)
24. Wikipedia Actinides in the Environment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actinides_in_the_environment#Uranium_in_the_environment
25. A Journal Devoted to Non-Nuclear India
www.dianuke.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Anumukti_VOL-12_NO-4.pdf
26. Lessons from the 'Kursk' Catastrophe
insaf.net/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/2000/000757.html
27. Fisherman fear Kursk radiation.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/892599.stm
28. Depleted Uranium
www.serendipity.li/nato/du.htm
29. Depleted uranium contamination still blights Iraq
www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2013/1607/12-depleted-uranium.html
31. Density of the Elements
www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/Density.al.html
32. Depleted Uranium: (Pseudo)Scientific Basis for Assessing Risk
www.helencaldicott.com/depleted.pdf
33. DU: Health & Public Health Issues Arising from the use of Depleted Uranium Munitions
action.psr.org/documents/du_report.pdf
34. How the World Health Organisation covered up Iraq's nuclear nightmare
www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium
35. Depleted Uranium and the Iraq Wars Legacy of Cancer
www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/193338/
36. World Health Organisation - Depleted uranium: sources, exposure and health effects Executive summary
www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/DU_Eng.pdf

~ 49
45 ~

37. Health Physics Society - Depleted Uranium

hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf
38. Uranium Health Effects - A discussion of chemical and radiological health effects
associated with exposure to uranium and its compounds.
web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/ucompound/health/index.cfm
39. World Health Organisation - The chemical toxicity of uranium
www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluranium4.pdf
40. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry - Uranium
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=77
41. Fukushima News 8/26/14: 5 Billion Bq of 90-Sr-Flows to the Sea Every Single Day
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpo-jj4-7EM
42. Beyond Nuclear
www.beyondnuclear.org/japan/2014/8/27/fukushima-still-releasing-8-billionbecquerels-per-day-into.html
43. Fukushima: The Ticking Nuclear Bomb. Over 800 Tons of Radioactive Material Pouring into Pacific Ocean
www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-the-ticking-nuclear-bomb-over-800-tons-of-radioactive-material-pouring-into-pacificocean/5356276
44. Over 2 trillion becquerels of radioactive waste flowed from Fukushima plant into Pacific in just 10 months
www.naturalnews.com/046881_Fukushima_plant_radioactive_waste_Pacific_Ocean.html
45. Fukushima Radioactive Waste: Over 2 Trillion Becquerels Flowed Into Pacific Ocean in JUST 10 Months
strangesounds.org/2014/09/fukushima-radioactive-waste-2-trillion-becquerels-flowed-pacific-ocean-just-10-months.html
46. 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima
www.globalresearch.ca/28-signs-that-the-west-coast-is-being-absolutely-fried-with-nuclear-radiation-from-fukushima/5355280
47. All The Best, Scientifically Verified, Information on Fukushima Impacts
deepseanews.com/2014/01/all-the-best-scientifically-verified-information-on-fukushima-impacts/
48. 28 fallacies about the Fukushima nuclear disasters effect on the US West Coast
www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=15903
49. 40+ areas where extremely contaminated water flows directly into ocean at Fukushima 4 years out, Fukushima reactors still
spewing Fishermen alleging for a while that radioactive water spilling into Pacific
enenews.com/former-japan-official-40-areas-extremely-contaminated-water-flowing-directlyocean-fukushima-plant-bloomberg-4-years-fukushima-reactors-spewing-fishermen-allegingradioactive-water-again-spilling-p
50. Thyroid Cancer in Young People Surge in Fukushima Since Nuclear Meltdown
ecowatch.com/2014/08/25/thyroid-cancer-fukushima/
51. The Thyroid Cancer Hotspot Devastating Fukushima's Child Survivors
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu-JQetHRBY
52. Fukushima: The Ticking Nuclear Bomb. Over 800 Tons of Radioactive Material Pouring into
Pacific Ocean
www.globalresearch.ca/ fukushima-the-ticking-nuclear-bomb-over-800-tons-of-radioactivematerial-pouring-into-pacific-ocean/5356276
53. Ministry: Rate of Fukushima thyroid abnormalities roughly normal
ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201303090076
54. Caldicott in Japan: Incredibly rare thyroid abnormalities found in 40% of Fukushima
children Indicates a really high dose of radiation, higher than at Chernobyl
enenews.com/thyroid-abnormalities-incredibly-rare-pediatrics-indicating-really-high-dose-radiation-higher-chernobyl
55. Fukushimas Children are Dying www.globalresearch.ca/fukushimas-children-are-dying/5387242
56. Thyroid tests for Fukushima children find no effects from accident
ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201209120067
57. Highly Sophisticated Thyroid Ultrasound Examination used in the Fukushima Health Management Survey
www.fmu.ac.jp/radiationhealth/conference/presentation/day1/1109.pdf
58. The Fukushima Follies www.fccj.or.jp/number-1-shimbun/item/301-the-fukushima-follies/301-the-fukushima-follies.html
59. Nuclide Analysis Results of Fish and Shellfish (The Ocean Area Within 20km Radius of Fukushima Daiichi NPS)
www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/2013/images/fish_130315-e.pdf
60. Record concentration of radioactive Cesium in fish near Fukushima nuclear station port
nuclear-news.net/2015/02/25/record-concentration-of-radioactive-cesium-in-fish-near-fukushima-nuclear-station-port/
61. Evaluation of radiation doses& associated risk from the Fukushima nuclear accident to marine
biota & human consumers of seafood
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3696798/pdf/pnas.201221834.pdf
62. Deformed fruits and vegetables discovered near Fukushima - is this for real?
www.naturalnews.com/041331_Fukushima_radioactive_contamination_fruit_mutations.html
63. Fukushima radiation, In Oregon Mutated Corn Near Portland, Oregon
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0OB6MwA73Q
64. The worst vegetable mutation
fukushima-diary.com/2012/01/worst-vegetable-mutation/
65. Revenge of the mutant vegetables? Pictures of crops 'deformed by fall-out of Fukushima nuclear
disaster' sweep Asia. . . but is it all just a hoax?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2367436/Fukushima-mutant-vegetable-images-sweep-regionyears-nuclear-disaster.html
66. Fukushima Mutant Vegetables' Debunked
urbanlegends.about.com/b/2013/07/23/fukushima-mutant-vegetables-debunked.htm
67. 'Mutant' vegetables wrongly attributed to Fukushima
www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/mutant-vegetables-wrongly-attributed-to-fukushima
68. Absolutely Every One 15 Out of 15 Bluefin Tuna Tested In California Waters Contaminated with Fukushima Radiation
www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/absolutely-every-one-of-the-15-bluefin-tuna-tested-in-california-waters-contaminated-withfukushima-radiation.html

~ 50 ~

69. Is Pacific Seafood Safe from Radiation

www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2014/04/is-pacific-seafood-safe-from-radiation.html
70. Comparing the Environmental Impacts of the Chernobyl and Fukushima Disasters
fukushimainform.ca/2014/11/21/comparing-the-environmental-impacts-of-the-chernobyl-and-fukushima-disasters/
71. Radioactivity in Nature
www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
72. Wikipedia List of Sovereign States and Dependent Territories in
Oceania en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_
dependent_territories_in_Oceania
73. Wikipedia Luxembourg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg
74. Wikipedia Earth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
75. Minor Actinides Major Challenges
ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/minor-actinides-major-challenges
76. Soil Samples www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/
_Public/42/ 070/42070496.pdf
77. Wikipedia Mouse
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse
78. Wikipedia Elephant
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant
79. Top climate change scientists' letter to policy influencers
www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/ Thomas the Tank Engine releases far
more radioactivity into the environment
80. Nuclear industry on trial
greens.org.au/magazine/national/
than a nuclear power station
nuclear-industry-trial
81. Rationalwiki.org Greenpeace
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Greenpeace
82. The narrow mind of Greenpeace
scienceblogs.com/classm/2011/07/15/the-narrow-mind-of-greenpeace/
83. Nuclear power and climate change debate FOE
www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power
84. Australian Conservation Foundation
www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/66%20-%20Anti%20Nuclear.pdf
85. Cost of Nuclear Power Plants
www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
86. Cost of Nuclear Energy is Misrepresented
web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/232/hutchinson.html
87. The Future of Nuclear Power An
Interdisciplinary MIT Study
web.mit.edu/
nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf
88. Frequently Asked Questions about Nuclear
Energy
www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/
progress/nuclear-faq.html
89. Nuclear Energy Policy
digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc463413/m1/1/high_res_d/RL33558_2014Oct15.pdf
90. Frequently Asked Questions about Nuclear Energy
www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
91. Nuclear Delusions - Why nuclear power is not a solution to our energy challenge
www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/nucleardelusions/blog/35617/
92. Nuclear & CO2
www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/nuclear-and-co2/blog/9899/
93. Nuclear Energy: Rebirth or Resuscitation?
www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/resources/nuclear-energy-rebirth-or.pdf
94. The Bush Administrations dangerous Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
action.psr.org/site/DocServer/GNEPTalkingPoints.pdf?docID=4381
95. Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical
survey www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf
96. www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf
action.psr.org/site/DocServer/GNEPTalkingPoints.pdf?docID=4381
97. Cost and Quantity of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Avoided by Wind
Generation docs.wind-watch.org/lang-wind-power-co2-emissions.pdf
98. How Much CO2 Gets Emitted to Build a Wind Turbine?
stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-awind-turbine/
99. The NRC and Nuclear Power Safety in 2014
www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/whos-responsible-nuclear-powersafety/nrc-nuclear-power-safety-2014
100. Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies (2011)
www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-and-our-energy-choices/nuclear-power-costs/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html
101. Wikipedia Cherry Picking Fallacy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)
102. Elvis Presley is ALIVE... Material proof is being presented!!! www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqZqhee6KV4
103. The Atlantean Conspiracy Exposing the Global Conspiracy from Atlantis to Zion www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/
104. 911Truth.org Investigation Education Accountability Reform
www.911truth.org/
105. The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network avn.org.au
106. Alien Abduction Case Files www.ufocasebook.com/alienabductions.html
107. 10 Facts That Suggest Obamas Birth Certificate Is Fake
mrconservative.com/2013/07/21971-10-facts-that-suggest-obamas-birth-certificate-is-fake/
108. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

~ 51
46 ~
47

109. Conspiracy Theory

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theories
110. The 30 greatest conspiracy theories
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3483477/The30-greatest-conspiracy-theories-part-1.html
111. 10 Widely Believed U.S. Government Conspiracy Theories
people.howstuffworks.com/10-u-s-government-conspiracytheories.htm
112. Top 10 Conspiracy Theories
listverse.com/2007/08/21/top-10-conspiracy-theories/
113. UFO Cover-up Alien Nation or Conspiracy Theory
www.beyondweird.com/ufocoverup.html
114. Rationalwiki United Nations
rationalwiki.org/wiki/United_Nations
115. The United Nations Agenda: Fact, Fiction & Conspiracy Theories
www.unausa.org/news-publications/article/the-united-nationsagenda-fact-fiction-conspiracy-theories
116. 10 Unbelievably Insane UFO Conspiracy Theories
listverse.com/2014/08/03/10-unbelievably-insane-ufo-conspiracy-theories/
117. Rationalwiki List of Conspiracy Theories
rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
118. Prime Minister Harold Holt Was Murdered www.harold-holt.net/
119. Clive reveals sinister hand of foreign governments
www.crikey.com.au/2012/03/21/clive-palmer-conspiracy-theory-greens-and-ci/
120. SA MP cant rule out the existence of aliens in the Simpson Desert
www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/14/sa-mp-cant-rule-out-the-existence-of-aliens-in-the-simpson-desert/
121. The Toxicity of Depleted Uranium www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819790/
122. Dead Aliens In The UK?
mysteriousuniverse.org/2013/09/dead-aliens-in-the-uk/
123. Radiological and Chemical Fact Sheets to Support Health Risk Analyses for Contaminated Areas
www.remm.nlm.gov/ANL_ContaminantFactSheets_All_070418.pdf
124. Report of the World Health Organization Depleted Uranium Mission to Kosovo
www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf
125. How Dangerous Is 400-6000 Pounds Of Plutonium Nano Particle Dust Liberated By Fukushima?
tonsofradioactive2.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/how-dangerous-is-400-6000-pounds-of.html
126. Nuclear Power is the Problem, Not a Solution - by Helen Caldicott www.helencaldicott.com/pdf/050415.pdf
127. Nuclear Power and Childrens Health
www.helencaldicott.com/childrenshealth_proc.pdf
128. Nuclear Power, Radiation, and Disease
www.helencaldicott.com/chapter3.pdf
129. Obituary: Bernard L. Cohen
www.utimes.pitt.edu/?p=20431
130. Plutonium
www.scientificlib.com/en/Chemistry/Elements/Plutonium.html
131. Jenny McCarthy, Vaccine Expert? A Quarter of Parents Trust
Celebrities healthland.time.com/2011/04/26/jenny-mccarthyvaccine-expert-a-quarter-of-parents-trust-celebrities/
132. Are You Dealing With A Real Expert Or A Fake? 7 Ways To
Tell www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2014/05/19/are-youdealing-with-a-real-expert-or-a-fake-7-ways-to-tell/2/
133. Dont Mistake Denialism for Debate Fake Experts
scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/02/fake-experts/
134. The Myth of Plutonium Toxicity www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm
135. Toxicological Profile for Plutonium www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp143.pdf
136. Plutonium - An overview
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Plutonium_Wikipedia_book.pdf
137. www.law.berkeley.edu/10110.htm
138. Measurements of daily urinary uranium excretion in German peacekeeping personnel and residents of the Kosovo region to assess
potential intakes of depleted uranium (DU)
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969707003701
139. Environmental and health consequences of depleted uranium use in
the 1991 Gulf War
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041200300151X
140. Properties, use and health effects of depleted uranium (DU): a
general overview
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X02000413
141. Study of radioactivity levels in detergent powders samples by gamma
spectroscopy
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850714000892
142. Properties, use and health effects of depleted uranium (DU): a
general overview
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X02000413
I estimate that both B1 & B2 contain
143. Today, Ufology Finds Itself in a State of Utter Chaos
about 12,000 Bq of radioactivity each
www.alienaxioms.com/today-ufology-finds-itself-in-a-state-of-utter-chaos/
143. Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/eurpub/19/1/2.full.pdf

~ 48
52 ~

144. The Shocking Truth About Alien Abductions (Powerful Video Evidence)
www.collective-evolution.com/2013/11/04/the-shocking-truth-about-alien-abductions/
145. UFO and Abduction Researcher www.kathleen-marden.com/
146. UFO and Abduction Researcher www.kathleen-marden.com/
147. Abduction
johnemackinstitute.org/
148. Did Elvis really die in August 1977? www.elvisinfonet.com/spotlight_dna_beeny.html
149. The Case For Elvis Being Alive
www.linkydinky.com/graceland/elvisalive.shtml
150. Elvis Lives! Investigating the Legends and Phenomena
www.csicop.org/sb/ show/elvis_ lives_investigating_the_legends_and_phenomena/
151. Elvis Presley Expert
Blogg elvispresleyexpert.wordpress.com/
151. The Elvis Conspiracy - You Want More Proof
www.blogtalkradio.com/livefromthebay/2013/11/12/join-in--the-elvisconspiracy-part-2--you-want-more-proof-1
153. Still All Shook up over Elvis Presley Rockin' & Sellin' - 25 years after
death www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/shook-elvis-presley-rockinsellin-25-years-death-article-1.502394
154. The forgotten children of Fukushima and the UN conspiracy!
nuclear-news.net/2013/05/16/the-forgotten-children-of-fukushima-andthe-un-conspiracy/
155. Nuclear Energy Is Dirty, Unsafe And Uneconomic: Environmental
Scientist wnewmatilda.com/2015/02/21/nuclear-energy-dirty-unsafeand-uneconomic-environmental-scientist
156. Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power
www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html
157. Nuclear Power: dirty, dangerous and expensive
www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/reports/Nuclear-Power-dirty-dangerous-and-expensive/
158. Deaths per TWH by energy source
nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
159. Environmental & Health Impacts of Electricity Generation
www.ieahydro.org/reports/ST3-020613b.pdf
160. Origins, Goals & Tactics of the US Anti-Nuclear Movement
www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2005/N2192.pdf
161. Fukushima & Anti-Nuclear Propaganda wwww.triumf.info/
wiki/pwalden/index.php/Fukushima_and_anti-nuclear_propaganda
162. Anti-nuclear campaigners and the qwerty keyboard
marbury.typepad.com/marbury/2011/03/anti-nuclear-campaigners-andthe-qwerty-keyboard.html
163. War on Science rationalwiki.org/wiki/War_on_Science
164. Pandora's Promise: Director Robert Stone Takes On The Anti-Nuclear
Movement www.science20.com/science_20/pandoras_promise_director_robert_stone_takes_antinuclear_movement-114798
165. Predicting the Unpredictable? ... Some Things Just Can't Be Done www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N28/EDIT.php
166. Climate Change Reconsidered 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
climatechangereconsidered.org/reviews-of-climate-change-reconsidered-2011/
167. The Times has manufactured an unfounded climate change conspiracy theory
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-percent/2014/may/19/another-manufactured-climate-controversy
168. Radiation & Health
www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/radiation-health
169. Green Left Weekly
www.greenleft.org.au/node/56325
170. GMOs, pesticides, climate, nuclear energy: How capitalism controls science
links.org.au/node/4198
171. Rationalwiki - WHO-IAEA conspiracy
rationalwiki.org/wiki/WHO-IAEA_conspiracy
172. Rationalwiki - WHO-IAEA conspiracy
rationalwiki.org/wiki/WHO-IAEA_conspiracy
173. Money Quotes & Ripe Cherries: Can Scientists Avoid Having Their Research
CHERRY PICKED by Climate Sceptics?
watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/money-quotes-and-ripe-cherries- I estimate that both Z1 & Z2 contain
can-scientists-avoid-having-their-research-cherry-picked-by-climate-sceptics/
about 10,000 Bq of radioactivity each
174. Money Quotes & Ripe Cherries: Can Scientists Avoid Having Their Research
CHERRY PICKED by Climate Sceptics?
watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/money-quotes-and-ripe-cherries-can-scientists-avoid-having-their-research-cherrypicked-by-climate-sceptics/
175. The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial
176. Green Nuclear Junk
decarbonisesa.com/2013/05/16/green-nuclear-junk/
177. Green Nuclear Junk
decarbonisesa.com/2013/05/16/green-nuclear-junk/
178. The Myth of the Myth of Baseload decarbonisesa.com/2014/09/14/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-baseload/
179. Plimer and the merry band of fake experts
www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/2/17/policy-politics/plimer-and-merry-band-fake-experts
180. Understanding Climate Change Denial
www.ttorch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Verheggen-Cook-Textbook_Ch_23-Understanding-Climate-Change-Denial.pdf

~ 53
49 ~

181. Climate Change Denial

www.ourbreathingplanet.com/climate-change-denial/
182. Rationalwiki Christopher Monckton
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton
183. Rationalwiki - Donald_Trump rationalwiki.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
184. Rationalwiki Ian Plimer
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
185. Nuclear Energy Is Dirty, Unsafe & Uneconomic: Environmental Scientist
newmatilda.com/2015/02/21/nuclear-energy-dirty-unsafe-and-uneconomicenvironmental-scientist?page=1
186. Nuclear Energy Is Dirty, Unsafe & Uneconomic: Environmental Scientist
newmatilda.com/2015/02/21/nuclear-energy-dirty-unsafe-and-uneconomic
187. Nuclear Energy Is Dirty, Unsafe & Uneconomic: Environmental Scientist
newmatilda.com/2015/02/21/nuclear-energy-dirty-unsafe-and-uneconomic
188. Nuclear Energy Is Dirty, Unsafe & Uneconomic: Environmental Scientist
newmatilda.com/2015/02/21/nuclear-energy-dirty-unsafe-and-uneconomicenvironmental-scientist?page=1
189. George Monbiot debates Helen Caldicott, who says he is lying
atomicinsights.com/george-monbiot-debates-helen-caldicott-who-says-he-is-lying/
190. Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen is an anti-nuclear crank sponsored by
Greenpeace and the European Green Party.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jan_Willem_Storm_van_Leeuwen
191. Chernobyls Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts and
Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine
www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf
192. Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and Their Remediation:
Twenty Years of Experience
www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/meetings/environ-consequences-report-wm08.05.pdf
193. Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident www.who.int/
ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/who_chernobyl_report_2006.pdf
194. Climate Change 2014 - Mitigation of Climate Change
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf
195. Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and
their Remediation: Twenty Years of Experience
www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1239_web.pdf
196. Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care
Programmes www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/WHO%20
Report%20on%20Chernobyl%20Health%20Effects%20July%2006.pdf
197. Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care
Programmes www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/WHO%20
Report%20on%20Chernobyl%20Health%20Effects%20July%2006.pdf
198. UNSCEAR 2001 REPORT - ANNEX - Hereditary effects of
radiation
www.unscear.org/docs/chernobylherd.pdf

200. Table of Radioactive Isotopes

ie.lbl.gov/toi/nuclide.asp?iZA=10003
201. Table of Radioactive Isotopes
ie.lbl.gov/toi/nuclide.asp?iZA=110024
201. Rationalwiki Tea Party rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tea_Party
202. Wikipedia Tea Party Movement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
203. Teaparty.org
www.teaparty.org/
204. Contaminated seafood and government cover-up at Fukushima
www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclearreaction/contaminated-seafood-and-government-cover-up-/blog/36285/
205. Fukushima Fallout - Nuclear business makes people pay and suffer
www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/
nuclear/2013/FukushimaFallout.pdf
206. Radiation & Health
www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/radiation-health
207. Articles about Lucas Heights - accidents, emergency planning, insurance etc I estimate that both G1 & G2 contain
Secret advice: avoid reactor health study
about 7,000 Bq of radioactivity each
www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/lh/articles2
208. YELLOWCAKE FEVER - Exposing the Uranium Industrys Economic Myths
Beach sand contains up to 83,425
www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/ACF_Yellowcake_Fever.pdf
Bq of radioactivity each kilogram
209. Australian Uranium Fuelled Fukushima
www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/habitat_April_2012.pdf
210. Nuclear Power - No Solution to Climate Change
www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/Nuclear_Power_No_Solution_to_Climate_Change.pdf
212. Fukushima Exponentially More Dire than Chernobyl Deteriorating Plant Threatens Global Radiation?
www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-exponentially-more-dire-than-chernobyl-deteriorating-plant-threatens-mass-extinction-aroundworld/5420579

~ 50
54 ~

213. Fukushima is Falling Apart are you ready for a Mass Extinction Event
www.infowars.com/fukushima-is-falling-apart-are-you-ready-for-a-massextinction-event/
214. Nuclear Energy Is An Extinction Level Event dublinsmick.wordpress.
com /2012/12/29/nuclear-energy-is-an-extinction-level-event/
215. The Road to Mass Extinction
dissidentvoice.org/2014/05/the-road-to-mass-extinction/
216. IEA Energy Costs
www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/eleccostsum.pdf
217. OECD Energy Costs
www.oecd.org/environment/country-reviews/2452793.pdf
218. Toxic Assets - Nuclear Reactors in the 21st Century - Financing reactors &
the Fukushima nuclear disaster
www.greenpeace.org/international/toxicassets/
219. At What Cost: Why Maryland Cant Afford A New Reactor
www.nirs.org/factsheets/mdatwhatcostfactsheet.pdf
220. Domestic Electricity Prices in the EU www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/388228/qep_561.xls
221. Half-yearly electricity and gas prices, first half of year, 201113 (EUR per kWh)
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Half-yearly_electricity_and_
gas_prices,_first_half_of_year,_2011%E2%80%9313_(EUR_per_kWh)_YB14.png
222. Strong Together Ontarios Nuclear advantage - Affordable, Stable Prices
www.ontarionuclear.com/affordable-stable-prices/
223. Ontario Hydro Rate Increase
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/30/ontario-hydro-rate-increase_n_1465826.html
224. Ontario Energy Board
www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/OEB/Consumers/Electricity/Electricity+Prices
225. What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change? spectrum.ieee.org/
energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
226. Why Google gave up on renewables (hint: because they dont know much about
energy) www.energypost.eu/google-gave-renewables-hint-dont-know-much-energy/
227. Why Google gave up on renewables (hint, they dont understand energy)
reneweconomy.com.au/2014/why-google-gave-up-on-renewables-hint-they-dont-understand-energy-12048
228. Why Solar Is Much More Costly Than Wind or Hydro
www.technologyreview.com/news/531841/why-solar-is-much-more-costly-than-wind-or-hydro/
229. Great Dying" Lasted 200,000 Years. Wildfires, disappearing oxygen helped kill off 90 percent of all life on Earth.
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111121-great-dying-permian-mass-extinction-science/
230. Recovery from the most profound mass extinction of all time rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1636/759.full
231. Wikipedia - Background radiation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
232. Radiation Information Network's Radioactivity in Nature
www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
233. Fact Sheet - Flying and Health - Cosmic Radiation - Exposure for Casual Flyers &
Aircrew
www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/factsheets/FlyingandHealth.pdf
234. Hot Spots: Earths 5 Most Naturally Radioactive Places webecoist.
momtastic.com/2013/01/22/hot-spots-earths-5-most-naturally-radioactive-places/
235. Very High Background radiation Areas of Ramsar, Iran: Preliminary Biological Studies
ww.nuceng.ca/refer/radiation/Ramsar.pdf
236. Nonlinear phenomena in biological findings of the residents of high background
radiation areas of Ramsar
www.academia.edu/506974/Nonlinear_phenomena_
in_biological_ findings_of_the_residents_of_high_background_radiation_areas_of_Ramsar
237. Inhabitants of Ramsar have lived many generations in these high background areas
www.probeinternational.org/Ramsar.pdf
238. The High Background Areas Radiation Area in Ramsar Iran
www.wmsym.org/archives/2002/proceedings/10/434.pdf
239. Natural Radioactivity in Ramsar
cricket.biol.sc.edu/papers/natural/Ghiass-nejad%20et%20al%202002.pdf
240. High natural background radiation areas - Guarapari, Brazil
www.taishitsu.or.jp/radiation/guarapari-e.html
241. Wikipedia - Health Effects of Sunlight Exposure
en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Health_effects_of_sunlight_exposure
242. Australia New Zealand Food Standards
Code
www.foodstandards.gov.au
/code/proposals/Documents/P1025_CFS_Attach_A2_Schedules.pdf
243. Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects & radiation hormesis
www.iaea.org/inis/collection/ NCLCollectionStore/Public/ 36/113/36113744.pdf
244. Toxicology rethinks its central belief - Hormesis demands a reappraisal of the way
risks are assessed
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6924/pdf/421691a.pdf
245. Radiation Hormesis, or, Could All That Radiation Be Good for Us?
www.snm.org/docs/Radiation_Hormesis_JNMT_March_O3.pdf
246. Radiation Safety:LNT model vs radiation hormesis model
www.pccrp.org/docs/pccrp%20section%20vii.pdf

~ 51
55 ~

247. Effects of Cobalt-60 Exposure on Health of Taiwan Residents

Suggest New Approach Needed in Radiation Protection ecolo.org/
documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-Cobalt-taiw-06.pdf
248. Natural nuclear fission reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
249. Is Helen Caldicott's Nuclear Madness still relevant?
www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/is-helen-caldicotts-nuclearmadness-still-relevant/article2982278.ece
250. Interrogation of Helen Caldicotts Responses www.monbiot.com/
2011/04/04/interrogation-of-helen-caldicotts-responses/
251. Nuclear opponents have a moral duty to get their facts straight
www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/apr/13/ antinuclear-lobby-interrogate-beliefs
252. WHO and why they should not be in bed with the IAEA Helen Caldicott Foundation
www.nuclearfreeplanet.org/blogs/who-and-why-they-should-not-be-in-bed-with-the-iaea.html
253. Nuclear and Radiation Safety Issues. Comments on Caldicott Letter - By Robert Holloway www.ntanet.net/holloway.html
254. Conference Highlights - Fukushima Consequences www.rense.com/general95/confhigh.html
255. Nuclear Power: Their Profits; Our Risks Arnie Gundersen www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-power-profits-risks/
256. Christopher Busby's wild claims hurt green movement and Green party
www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/nov/22/christopher-busby-nuclear-green-party
257. Post-Fukushima 'anti-radiation' pills condemned by scientists
www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/21/christopher-busby-radiation-pills-fukushima
258. Nuclear and CO2
www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/nuclear-and-co2/blog/9899/
259. Renewable energy vs nuclear power
www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications
/nuclear/2012/Fukushima/Fact%20Sheets/Renewable_Energy.pdf
260. Nuclear CO2 warming costs www.helencaldicott.com/pdf/070521.pdf
261. Climate Change Briefing "Nuclear power is no solution to climate change: exposing
the myths"
www.nirs.org/factsheets/kyotonuc.htm
262. Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power
www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2014/05/20-low-carbon-wind-solarpower-frank
263. Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
264. Energy Balances and CO2 Implications
www.world-nuclear.org/info/Energyand-Environment/Energy-Balances-and-CO2-Implications/
265. How much of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are associated with electricity
generation?
www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=77&t=3
266. The CO2 cost of delaying nuclear power by a year
www.marklynas.org/
2011/03/the-co2-cost-of-delaying-nuclear-power-by-a-year-guest-post/
267. Cost and Quantity of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Avoided by Wind Generation
docs.wind-watch.org/lang-wind-power-co2-emissions.pdf
268. Emission cuts due to wind power not so big as claimed
www.wind-watch.
org/news/2015/05/15/emission-cuts-due-to-wind-power-not-so-big-as-claimed/
269. Wind turbines as a source of electricity
www.nieuwerustnoisewatch.org/wpcontent/documents/comments_M/2011-0927/Included/sustainability/Wind_turbines_as_a_source_of_electricity.pdf
270. Wind turbines CO2 savings and abatement cost judithcurry.com/2015/04/27/wind-turbines-co2-savings-and-abatement-cost/
271. EU did not do their homework on wind energy
www.nieuwerustnoisewatch.org/?p=618
272. Wind farms are 96% useless, & cost 150 times more than necessary for what they do
joannenova.com.au/2012/09/wind-farms-are-96-useless-andcost-150-times-more-than-necessary-for-what-they-do/
273. The impact of wind generated electricity on fossil fuel
consumption
www.nieuwerustnoisewatch.org/wp-content
/documents/comments_M/2011-09-27/Included/sustainability/
274. How much of our daily CO2 emissions can wind avoid?
www.globalwindday.org/faqs/how-much-of-our-daily-co2emissions-can-wind-avoid/
275. Study: Wind Turbines are Expensive, Unreliable &
Inefficient'
www.breitbart.com/london/2014/10/27/govern
ment-is-whistling-in-the-wind-on-practical-case-for-wind-power/
276. Wind farms 'will never keep the lights on': Study claims
turbines are 'expensive and deeply inefficient'
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2808868/Wind-farms-neverlights-Study-claims-turbines-expensive-deeply-inefficient.html
277. Why is renewable energy so expensive?
www.economist.
com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/01/economist-explains-0
278. Brits Belted by Insanely Expensive and Utterly Unreliable
Wind Power
stopthesethings.com/2014/10/20/brits-beltedby-insanely-expensive-and-utterly-unreliable-wind-power/
279. How a Single Act of Evolution Nearly Wiped Out All Life on
Earth
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news /how -singleact-evolution-nearly-wiped-out-all-life-earth-180950341

~ 56
52 ~