Tuesday, 29 March 2011

Next on ABC's Q&A: Krudd

5 comments:

Bryan Law said...

I hear that Kevin's calling for a no-fly zone around Q&A, and will be having potential dissidents executed. For a warmonger, he's also a creep. Let's hope he finds his programmatic specificity before he's forced to release the chemical weapons and bio-agents on us.

p.s. nuclear power is incredibly safe.

Gurugirl said...

incredibly safe.... I agree provided it is in another country...


Vote [1] Sexisam - cause none of the others are worth voting for!

Syd Walker said...

My tweet to Q & A and Kevin Rudd:
_____________

@QandA Can @KRudd please clarify whether missiles used in attacks on #Libya "to protect civilians" contain depleted uranium? #qanda #auspol
_________

Retweeting this - or sending similar messages to Q & A might start to prize open the latest bloody war con

I recommend these links - among many others - for folk who'd like to see beyond the war sell currently in progress, which is essentially the demon child of the same criminal mob who orchestrated ongoing debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Libya and the Passive Repeaters: Deploying Depleted Information Warheads

The Humanitarian-Militarist Project and the Production of Empire in Libya

General Wesley Clark on 9/11 n Libya, Libya was already planned, Iran next..

Libya: The Zionist Dragon and The Drums of War

It's nothing short of criminal that the 'leaders of the free world' focus on this latest croc of war lies, while Fukushima remains an unsolved crisis that potentially threatens human wellbeing worldwide.

One wonders, incidentally, what would happen if (heaven forbid) there was ever a meltdown at the aging Israeli reactor at Dimona. Would the Israeli Government refuse to mention it - because to do so would breach Israel's "nuclear ambiguity'?

The mind boggles.

Syd Walker said...

Andrew Bolt, Great Hero of the (hoodwinked) People, has fallen strangely silent on the issue of Fukushima - since his absurd rantings in the days following Japan's tsunami when he went out of his way to recommend nuclear power as the safest energy source on earth and laugh at safety concerns.

This is what the Union of Concerned Scientists had to say a few days ago: Japan: Squandering the Chance for Orderly Evacuation.

The six Fukushima reactors, according to this article, contain ~10x the total amount of nuclear fuel compared with Chernobyl. However, what is not widely understood is that Chernobyl never really 'blew' as per the worst scenario. That was prevented by a military-style operation, coordinated ultimately by Gorbachev, that involved some 100,000 troops and 400,000 civilian workers!

Had that heroic containment in a vast concrete sarcophagus not happened, there was talk of Europe becoming uninhabitable. Think that's an exaggeration? Watch this documentary about Chernobyl - a doco that 'Your' ABC or SBS might bother to show if they weren't too busy pumping out Zionist war hype.

So... we can't afford to price carbon and bring on solar/wind/tidal/geothermal energy?

Sorry, we can't afford NOT to develop a safe and sustainable energy system by any sane assessment of costs and risks. Nuclear energy is obviously not on the list of options from now on. It's simply mad to build glorified kettles (these things, after all, only generate steam to turn turbines) with technology that carries the most lethal risks yet devised by human ingenuity.

What we truly can't afford is to waste our collective ingenuity in yet more wars based on (yet more) grotesque lies.

stinhambo said...

Funny that the majority of well maintained and funded nuclear stations are nothing close to dangerous.

In the mean time we continue to burn unprecedented volumes of coal, oil and wood to fuel our industrial age energy producing stations.