I know, to ensure we remain nuclear free, ban all imports of possibly hazerdous radioactive material. Let’s start with material used for X ray machines and radiotherapy, we can move on to radioactive dyes later. I suppose alternate therapies will be ideal to take there places.

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

NAT/ACT ANTI-GREEN

I can assure you Toad; Nick Smith is not acting as his own man we could narrow the field here, I could put forward my hypothesis.

How about (1) The Business Round Table (2)Central Plains Water and (3)Fonterre Dairy Corporation or (4) one of Mr. Hubbards Enterprises.

As for New Zealand hosting a forum for the supplyers of nuclear material is, in my view absolutely unacceptable and flies in the face of our non nuclear proliferation stand.

Furthermore I suspect that this is deliberate and this among many other anti environmental policies of this government that are contary to Mr. Keys pre election greenwash; the NAT/ACT goveernment have proven themselves to be ANTI-GREEN!

Like or Dislike: 1  3 (-2)

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

Tony owns Oliver.

Like or Dislike: 3  2 (+1)

Oliver1,

Kinda got owned there Gareth

What? Nick Smith used insulting answers. Is that owning someone? Nick Smith avoided many of the questions. Is that owning someone? Nick Smith apparently didn’t get the point that having NZ as part of the supply chain for technologies that it doesn’t support is hypocritical. Is that owning someone? I think not.

Like or Dislike: 3  3 (0)

Uranium as a fuel and Nuclear Weapons are intimately connected, as is the nuclear waste legacy.

It is because the by-products of using uranium in energy production can be used for weapons production that the development of uranium was subsidised over thorium.

It is because energy and weapons go together that there are security issues with Nth Korea and Iran developing Nuclear energy.

It is because of the weapons co-product that uranium was developed as a fuel in the first place.

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Thorium_based_nuclear_energy

Like or Dislike: 2  3 (-1)

Kevin Hague says “(assuming the Minister is correct that none of this Uranium is ever used in weapons it is nonetheless true that using this Uranium for nuclear power generation means that other Uranium can be used for other purposes)”.

This arguement is extraodrinarily tenuous. You could more logically say that because this uranium is used for power generation, there is even less available for military purposes.

This arguement is only a side show anyway. Your other points are valid, but surely the more important question is WHY does it even NEED to transit via NZ ports in the first place, as it has done for 40 years?

Like or Dislike: 1  4 (-3)

@photonz – the reason I commented about the curious juxtaposition of when John key and Nick Smith say they first knew about the shipments is not because I thought this was the main issue. Sorry if that was confusing.

The main issue for me is that New Zealand is playing a role in facilitating at least the nuclear power industry, and, arguably, the nuclear arms industry (assuming the Minister is correct that none of this Uranium is ever used in weapons it is nonetheless true that using this Uranium for nuclear power generation means that other Uranium can be used for other purposes). Our nuclear-free legislation only makes it illegal to assist the nuclear weapons industry, but there is no question in my mind that most New Zealanders also expect that same principle to apply to the nuclear power industry, and would not approve of these shipments transiting through New Zealand ports. The Plutonium shipment through our waters also raises major issues, and certainly would not be supported.

Which is why I’m also interested in who knew what, when: given the widespread public concern, shouldn’t there have been some opportunity for New Zealanders to have a say in whether or not these ships could come here? So how was it decided that this wouldn’t occur? And how might it transpire that the Prime Minister is told about this programme (presumably because of its political and public sensitivity) but neither he nor officials told the Environment Minister? Too sensitive for him, or (astonishingly) not considered important enough? And is this even credible?

So you see I am interested in trying to expose the machinery by which the public was excluded from being involved in these issues. I’m pretty sure that the public response would have been profound discomfort.

And Oliver, Gareth was not in any way “owned” by Nick Smith. Those who were owned were those who bought his patronising red herrings

Like or Dislike: 3  3 (0)

Like or Dislike: 6  2 (+4)

Mark – fyi

http://robertguyton.blogspot.com/2010/06/mystery-biker.html

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

expecting honesty from the Gnats Kev?
i don’t think they address questions adequately
God bless all hearts of the hopefull

Like or Dislike: 3  2 (+1)

Like or Dislike: 6  2 (+4)

Like or Dislike: 7  3 (+4)

So the big question is….”Why does it have to come to NZ ports?”

What’s the big questions for Greens? “Can we find a discrepency between when Nick Smith and John Key found out about it?”(forget that it’s been going on forty years).

Clearly the top priority is scoring points – who cares about the uranium.

Like or Dislike: 5  5 (0)

Can’t see the problem really, mountain, molehill anyone.

Like or Dislike: 6  10 (-4)

Like or Dislike: 7  4 (+3)

Nick has found a way to drink it from the looks (nothing personal)

Like or Dislike: 2  3 (-1)

They were really good questions Gareth. he was saying if the physical risk isn’t high then it’s ok, and if the uranium isn’t being used in weapons it’s ok, but both of those miss the point that our position has always been about leadership on both weapons and fission power, and that leadership requires that we play no part in or facilitate the industries in any way.

What I also thought was extraordinary was his contention that it was okay for us to play this role in the nuclear supply chain for 20 years, but for officials not to have mentioned it to ministers until March this year! His expectations of officials are clearly rather different to those I would have.

Like or Dislike: 7  5 (+2)