uranium not easy to discuss rationally

Because it has two uses (one malign and the other benign) I'm in two minds about uranium.

One mind tells me:

The reason President Bush can't win the Iraq war is he already has.

He destroyed Iraq's army, occupied its cities, smashed its hovels and sent refugees fleeing in all directions. Of course Bush won the war.

The reason he can't SAY he won is he feels 650,000 rotting Iraqi corpses is insufficient punishment for New York's twin towers being flattened.

Sufficient punishment is what Pol Pot called 'Year Zero'. Bush wants to turn Iraq's (then Iran's) clock back to when mosques and mullahs did not exist.

Bush yearns for what the Bible calls 'Judgement Day'. With uranium selling like hot cakes, his dream may come true!

The other mind tells me:

If reducing CO2 emissions is our biggest challenge, why choose between nuclear and non-nuclear solutions when a united effort is needed?

It's up to NT and WA voters to decide if and where they want nuclear power plants, waste dumps and processing plants located there.

In south-eastern states, the best site is where atomic tests took place in the 1950s and uranium is mined today - near Woomera.

The best place to generate 2000 solar megawatts (to prevent air-conditioners triggering new gas and coal plants) is on a million Aussie rooftops.

The best site for geothermal plants are where 'hot rocks' and artesian water are co-located. The best site for wind farms is where wind is common and farms few.

A costly cure? Not as costly as Carbon Disease!

When all else fails...


... try group therapy.