Talk:Nuclear power in Australia

After Fukushima?
This heading serves well as a signpost for the recent nuclear energy discussion, but equally it is loaded with anti-nuclear semiotics as a result of the unrestrained predictions of harm from the accident that have not in fact eventuated. If it is to be kept I intend to add some referenced details from recent news, radiation experts and peak bodies to justify using it as a heading in light of current knowledge. Alternatively, I can think up a new, more appropriate heading. Moatareactor (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda
If I share this article on facebook the article preview shows a small anti-nuclear image. How can this be fixed?


 * I think this can be remedied if another image is inserted into the article, somewhere in the body text. Given the absence of any existing nuclear power plants in Australia, perhaps an image of Lucas Heights or Olympic Dam would be good candidates. Danimations (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Images have been added and this matter has now been remedied. Danimations (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Naming
There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to the Switkowski nuclear inquiry
I was interested in the following claim:

"An independent panel of Australian scientists and nuclear experts have been critical of the findings of the Switkowski nuclear inquiry. They found that the Switkowski report relies on some flawed assumptions which reveal a bias towards nuclear power on economic, technological, health and environmental grounds."

I wanted to know more about this independent panel, so I clicked the footnote link. The site to which it links it defunct. Does someone have current information about this claimed independent panel?


 * The link seems to be working when I checked. I had a look, but it doesn't look like it has been issued by a professional body, and I don't think any of their reports have been peer reviewed. This doesn't look like a WP:RS, so I will remove the offending reference, and the sentence which accompanied it.192.87.183.43 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Biased article?
Personally I am a very pro-nuclear power, however I can still see that some areas of this article seem somewhat biased in favour of nuclear power. Particularly the statement under the politics section about proposed power generation "The Industry would have been able to produce its first plant in 10 years and could have delivered 25 plants by 2050 supplying Australia with a third of its base load power." It just appears to be biased and I am not sure if this is following the encyclopedic style of wikipedia, it could just be the way it's written or I could just be reading too much into it, any thoughts? I am the Useless (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There are omissions about the 1950s through to the 1970s, including the late 60s-early 70s Labor Party's support of nuclear power. Mention of the Gorton cabinet's decision to introduce nuclear power should also make mention of the intention to link it with nuclear weapons production (See Cabinet papers). It should also say a little more about Lucas Heights?Adrian Glamorgan (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Banjawarn Station
Shouldn't there be a mention of Aum Shinrikyō's activities (uranium mining, alleged nuclear explosion) at Banjawarn Station?--92.208.202.180 (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources that they had any intent to generate electricity, then it should be added. It's not mentioned in the two sources used for that article. --Scott Davis Talk 05:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)