Issues with Stefaniak’s column

I would like to raise a couple of issues about Bill Stefaniak’s latest column (CW 18 July). Mr Stefaniak contends that lots of Muslim voters in South-West Sydney vigorously support Hamas. While the more vocal among them would support Hamas, most Muslims would support the Palestinian people and would be looking for a more even-handed approach from the government, namely, calling out atrocities on both sides, the application of sanctions (no matter which side transgresses) and stronger support for Palestinian statehood (even if the government adds “in due course” each time it does so). Taking this approach will help ease tensions and reactions among Australian Muslims and Palestinians. It is the only fair approach, despite the initial atrocities committed by Hamas. It is important for governments to remain objective. Mr Stefaniak finishes his column with criticism of Chris Bowen, assuming the reader is aware of Mr Bowen’s recent statements on the issue. Inter alia, Mr Bowen has stated that the people of Rafah are not Hamas. This is the point I am making.

• Herman van de Brug, Holt

More nuclear risks

The letters by Eric Hunter and Doug Steley in the 11 July edition of the Canberra Weekly made excellent points about nuclear power. While Eric highlighted the need to consider the political affiliations of so-called nuclear experts, Doug focussed on how nuclear power plants become high-risk targets in conflicts. But there are other risks too. Nuclear power plants run very hot and need to be cooled with huge amounts of water. At Three Mile Island, a cooling malfunction caused part of the core to melt, destroying a reactor. At Fukushima, the failed power supply disabled cooling systems causing all three reactor cores to melt. The risk of accidents is real. After Fukushima, the US set up 61 centres just to respond to accidents. In 2022, half of France’s reactors were shut down because ultrasound checks found stress corrosion in their cooling systems. Australia does not want to import these costly and risky problems. The simplicity and cleanliness of renewables avoid them all.  

 – Ray Peck, Victoria

Arguments against nuclear in Australia

In his critique of Eric Hunter, Crispin Hull and Ebony Bennett (CW 18 July), Ian Pilsner accuses The Sydney Morning Herald of “climate alarmism”. Being a subscriber to the SMH, I have yet to read any such “alarmism”. Mr Pilsner also accuses the ABC of being bereft of “conservative journalists or presenters” and “to be anti-nuclear and pro-renewables”. As a ‘part-owner’, I have a very different impression. Mr Pilsner accuses Crispin Hull and Ebony Bennett of publishing “untrue and poorly researched articles on nuclear energy”. Mr Hull is a qualified solicitor and barrister to whom untruths would be anathema; and Ms Bennett is a very experienced journalist who would strive to find and submit the truth for publication.

 The “other smart countries around the world” that have adopted nuclear energy did so many decades ago and have much larger and denser populations. They also have the luxury of abundant clean water in fast-flowing rivers to cool the reactors and prevent catastrophic meltdown. Australia has a smaller, much more scattered population, lacks access to adequate water, and cannot wait the 30 years that would be required to draft legislation, plan and build the nuclear power plants. It also lacks the finances to build the number of power plants that would be needed to service this broad continent.

• Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

Questioning Alan Moran’s credentials

It is an affront to me as a regular reader of your magazine to have the opinion piece from Dr Alan Moran listed under the banner of ‘news’. A lightly veiled attack on renewables with a clear pro-nuclear piece is not ‘news’. Just two minutes online shows Dr Alan Moran’s connections to the ultra-conservative, libertarian Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). I would much prefer to see a balanced piece regarding pros and cons from experts in the field for the reader to consider. 

News of the UK’s flagship nuclear project blowing out to a projected cost of more than AU$92 billion from a start-out cost of AU $15 billion is news. According to world expert on project management Professor Brent Flyvbjerg, average cost overruns for nuclear plants are 120 per cent over budget with 58 per cent of them going to 204 per cent over budget. He also notes that the first 35 years of energy costs will be at a much higher cost than what we pay now. If any government wants to introduce nuclear power to the voters as a considered debate, then please let us know what examples of success around the world you wish to emulate. Blundering forward based on political opinion rather than on the advice of experts could leave future generations with a cost too great to bear. Those costs will, as often is the case, come out of the health & education & other social sector supports. How will that make for a happier community/society when the cost of living seems to be one of the main points of unrest and news currently.

Want to share your opinion?

Email [email protected] with ‘To the editor’ in the subject field; include your full name, phone number, street address (NFP) and suburb. Keep letters to 250 words maximum. Note, letters may be shortened if space restrictions dictate. Read more letters at canberradaily.com.au