If you didn’t laugh you’d cry….

No vendetta, it's just what I'm watching. As a matter of fact, I watch ABC because it's less likely to have crap priorities or 'who won Autralian Idol' or 'Big Brother'.

Vendetta, what vendetta?

I'm a strong supporter of the ABC (the main reason I was listening to their news) but I don't believe they are above criticism - had I been listening to a commercial station I would have had the same response.

In reality it may be the ABC were correct and a majority of the Australian population are, actually, more concerned about some sports star than major topical issues which will have considerable ramifications - sadly, I would not be surprised if that is the case.

Mike Harding

I quote
"I wonder which dodo in ABC news sets the priorities? Not the first time I have heard such an inappropriate set of priorities… sigh…."
Shouldn't we then be discussing the kind of pressure the ABC is now being put under? And why? Robin's response about nails it.

>Shouldn't we then be discussing the kind of pressure the ABC is
>now being put under? And why? Robin's response about nails it.

I don't buy into the conspiracy theories about public broadcasters, in general. Every government thinks the PB is out to get it and they all try and put covert pressure onto them (happens with the BBC too) but PBs are full of people who relish exposing such matters and this tends to keep governments in check, usually. Although many Liberal voters in Oz might criticise the ABC as being a bit "Leftie" I do not believe, for one moment, those same people would tolerate government interference in the ABC - they are not stupid and well realise that if the ABC is nothing but a puppet (as are most commercial media) then we'll have nowhere to turn for, generally, unbiased reporting.

Anyway: how you can turn a comment on sports fixation into an ABC conspiracy is beyond me!

Mike Harding

"then we'll have nowhere to turn for, generally unbiased reporting." Thankfully there is the possibility that an alternative may become available.

Now my response to this needs to be covered by the following disclaimer.

I have not ever watched the news media I am about to suggest nor do I generally support some of what they have reportedly put to air in the past. I am also not convinced that they are generally "unbiased" in fact I believe that all media, like all people, including me, carry bias. However I do believe that they will carry a different bias and therefore present an alternative view. I do not suggest that anyone watch any media outlet exclusively for their curent affairs and news.

Having said that I suggest taking a look at Al-Jazeera (spelling) if you can. They certainly won't be pro-Bush or Howard. Not that I believe supporting either of these leaders is necessarily a bad thing.

I am going, right now, to put on my bee keepers suit and sit in a cloud of smoke while the hornets are unleashed.

Duncs

Good idea. One of the things I frequently use my amateur radio and very capable antenna for is listening to English language broadcasts on the "short waves". One hears a totally different set of news and from a different perspective. These days it's possible to gather a broad spectrum of news across the internet too.

Robin ,
The reason that we are suddenly " virtually guarranteed " to go nuclear is not because we need nuclear power but because we want to sell uranium and we cannot be seen to be opposing nuclear power .
Willie .

"We want to sell uranium"? By saying we i assume you mean the PM, not me.

I wonder how they would react if some of Oz's uranium inadvertently got into the hands of North Korea or Iran? How would they fight their 'war on terror' then?

It's like giving a child a gun but telling them not to shoot anyone.

Also.....if the world goes the way of nuclear over time there will be two choices for Australia, we sell Uranium or they'll come and take it from us..........

Quote: "It's like giving a child a gun but telling them not to shoot anyone."

OR: ......... giving a child a driving licence & the legal right to drink alcohol on the same day, then telling him not to drink & drive!

I think so truckster

He is a bit suspect

I was hoping he'd reveal the real truth finally, but no just crapped on about swimming

Aaah another one with doubts :)))

C,mon fellas, he just has very good diction

Ian

I didn't understand too much about that article Landy, and i think i know more about nuclear energy than many. That's what the pro nuclear people do, baffle you with crap about some isomer than can do this amazing new thing. They say all of this rubbish to confuse people so they don't know what to think.

The fact is storing nuclear waste is incredibly expensive, they never mention this money in their cost predictions. I'm talking $10s of billions for short term only, let alone long-term storage. Add that to the cost and nuclear is stupidly expensive.

It would be cheaper (and easier) to have the whole country running on solar and other renewables, and we can do that NOW!

Barnesy

Hi Barnsey

I don't have a view on the author or article other than to say that both sides of the debate have plenty of experts that can be wheeled out to argue the case for and against.

I think it fair to say that, at times, both sides are willing to 'baffle' the crowds with plenty of impressive talk.....

I'd like to see some argument on why this person's claims are incorrect. On the face of it, and if correct, the ideas appear to have merit. It goes someway to satisfying the waste issue, whilst pacifying those that are concerned about plutonium being developed.

The pro nuclear side do far more 'baffling with detail' than anti nuclear. Whether ideas like these have merit or not is irrelevant because that's all they are, ideas. Not current practice in a power plant.

Scientists haven't been able to solve nuclear waste for 50 years, why all of a sudden can they do it now? Except to say that one day it will be safe and we will have a dump. One day? I'm not convinced I'm sorry.

France have a large nuclear power industry but are still yet to have a long-term storage facility for high level waste. Their waste bill is billions already.

The US have already spent tens of billions just trying to set up one dump in Nevada. They need numerous sites though.

These facts are easily understood by everyone and are agreed by both sides. It baffles me how they then come out and say that nuclear can be economically viable. When we have a developing renewables industry that is beginning to go off shore because there isn't enough business in Australia.

Well hang on Barnsey, don't all solutions have their origins in an 'idea'.

I'm happy to see the 'idea' debunked, but what are the scientific arguments against the proposals?

Solar powered energy on the scale you propose is little more than an 'idea' at present, perhaps with some merit, but it isn't in current practice other than at a domestic level (generally) and usually supplemented with more traditional forms of power generation.

I doubt solar will ever be a global solution to power generation; it may become a supplement in certain parts of the world.

Hi Barnsey

I though you might find the following of interest if you haven'r seen it already.

Regards
Landy

" target="EOF" class="lbg">www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

Seems like a level headed magazine Landy.

The article on the nuclear taskforce report says that nuclear is slow, dirty, expensive and not really an option considering it will only reduce co2 by about 18%. The report also doesn't explain what to do with waste, again not factoring it into any equations at all. Something the pro-nuclear argument conveniently forget to do too often.

It also states that other government reports predict that we could have renewables powering 100% of Oz for the same cost.

My point exactly.

Barnesy

Atleast with nuclear waste we will know where it is ...... with fossil fuel powered generators, it just gets dumped all over the surrounding district.

ie: What goes up, must come down!

Hi Barnsey

I thought the link took you to a specific article on Thorium.....

Have a look under "Features" and the article by Tim Dean on "New Age Nuclear".

The article deals with the waste issue, amongst other things. It also deals with concerns many have about uranium being developed into weapons grade plutonium, it also has a solution for the current stockpile of waste material and nuclear weapons.

I'm not endorsing it this as a solution, but keeping an open mind on the issue will lead to solutions, unfortunately those against nuclear energy or often one-eyed........

Regards
Landy

I got the link Landy.

Whereas it seems better than a conventional nuclear power plant I still don't think it would stack up against renewables. 500 years of waste still. Combine that waste with a conventional missile and you still have a radioactive bomb. Maybe not an atom bomb but a weapon with a couple of tonnes of radioactive waste is still dangerous.

How much waste do you get from renewables?

If i appear one eyed it's because I've been keeping track of the nuclear issue for about 9 years. A few years ago they were touting nuclear fission as a possibility, but they still can't do it. The pro-nuclear side have huge money involved in the industry and are biased themselves.

Spain have recently made it law that all new houses are required to have solar panels. Excess power can then feed the grid. They currently have plans to retrofit all existing houses with solar panels.

Why can't Australia do this? We have just as much sun. All of this talk about nuclear is a sidetrack for things we can be doing NOW!

Saudi Arabia has desalination plants run entirely on solar. Why can't we be doing this?

Barnesy

I told you to keep away from those bushes near the beach! :)

I'll listen across the net.

I was all ready to listen to an exploroz regular live over the net, but couldn't find the streaming section of the web site. I can find the web cam but not the streaming link. What am I missing?

I'll freely admit that as an ex-professional computer nerd this is very sad ;)

Cheers,
Demented

I couldn't find it either - I suspect Radio Adelaide doesn't stream at this time :(

You could try listening to it on 891 or 1476 but I doubt you'll get anything unless you're well west of Melbourne.

Living in the nation's least significant capital (Canberra) I doubt the signal reaches this far ;)

Oh well, next time I guess.

Good luck Andrew (though from the site it looks like you're a regular, so you're well past the nerves I guess ;)

Demented

Yeah - sorry everyone - Carole (the presenter) doesn't do pod-casting and streaming yet, but it will come ...

Ah that was you.

I was listening to the segment whilst driving between jobs today. Interesting as always Andrew.

thanks

Pete

Andrew W.
Damn, I have been away from the computer for a few hours and missed your message and the broadcast. I presume you were talking about the copyright claims by Parks and Wildlife etc for photos taken in public places ? If so, some USA photography sites were giving coverage of this a couple of years ago and were advising professional photographers not to bother going to Oz for this reason.
Just great for the tourist industry. This is an issue that needs public exposure. Good one.

Hey Mike,

No problems - you'll just have to buy me a beer and I can explain all ;-)

The Parks question - well Uluru anyways, was asked about. I had only 30 seconds to answer before the mandatory ABC Fire Information Broadcasts so I didn't get to say much about that.

It was more about the photos of kids at the beach and that sort of stuff, and kids at their school drama production etc.

Back to the Parks - well the Indigenous Land Title says that the parks (UKJ and Kakadu) is "privately owned land" even though it is National Park. So technically they are within their rights, and as they put up signs all over the place and in the T&Cs you "accept" by paying the exorbitant petrol sniffing support charge to get in the park, there is not much you can do about it.

There was some talk that it might be relaxed a little - in line with the "We encourage your to respect our culture and not climb the rock", otherwise known as, "we'd stop you if we didn't realise that it would mean that you mightn't come and pay your money so we will let you climb it if you want", but I am yet to see it.

There is a big question about the enforceability of the ban if the photography is used for non-commerciap purposes - ie. editorial. You probably can put it on the front of a book, but they would tell you that they would want you to pay a license to do that. Unfortunately they have a lot of money and lots of lawyers, so it may not be advisable to do it, unless your assets are well-sequestered.

Victorian Parks is a real funny one - they demand that you have a commercial photographers license to take photos in the park. Now, as they are public places, I have it under good advice that this is entirely unenforceable, and so I have not applied for that license (although I do have a VicParks Tour Operators license and they know I run tours in their parks - as much as I think that is obnoxious too).

If a professional photographer is coming to Australia to take images of Uluru, Kata Tjuta and rock art in Kakadu alone, then sure - they shouldn't bother coming given the restrictions. However, there are other excellent subjects from one end of our land to the other, so they should come to photograph them, and if they really think they could make a quid from yet another photo of Uluru given the number that Steve Strike and others have taken, then good for them - apply in advance, pay for your permit, and pay your royalties, which are pretty small anyway (less than what you would pay a good model).

For information on photography rights in Australia there is a short note on my new blog on the subject, that you can find here: Street Photography in Australia.

Interesting articles at the link.

Thanks Andrew

Thanks Andrew, that site clarified the issues somewhat. Where does that leave Uluru? I reckon that once I have paid my admission that should be it, although I will accept that some of the ceremonial areas where all photography is banned are off limits.
By the way, I am looking at combining Lightroom and Lightzone as my workflow. Lightzone now comes in two versions, one a complete workflow and one that enables it to plug into Lightroom. Maybe we need a new thread for this conversation, I think we have pretty much exhausted the original topic.

Hi Mike,

I haven't read if any prosecutions under the EPBC Act and Regulations - I think I will ask them.

It would be very interesting.

Cheers
Andrew.