Comments: HOWARD VICTORY PREDICTED, APPLAUDED

Classic, 'Doh..!'

Posted by: jafa at July 15, 2004 at 07:24 AM

Lucas heights was built in 1955. Why were the Liberals conspiring to create a dumping ground for radioactive waste in 1924?

Posted by: Motley at July 15, 2004 at 07:34 AM

they'll be trying as they have been for 80 years to get that dump into South Australia

80 years? Uh, 2004, minus 80, equals 1924.

First reactor was built in what, early 40s here in the States?

Now, I don't know much about Australia, but a quick Google shows me uranium _mining_ didn't pick up until the late 50s and early 60s.

Unless that's 80 metric years, or something.

Posted by: Syd Barret at July 15, 2004 at 07:44 AM

"On his first day at Princeton, police arrested more than a dozen demonstrators, some in wheelchairs, who tried to block the controversial professor's entry in protest at his arguments for abortion, euthanasia and THE DESTRUCTION OF DISABLED CHILDREN." (emphasis mine)

Yikes!

Posted by: Sean at July 15, 2004 at 08:18 AM

The first "atomic pile" was started on 2 December 1942, almost 82 years ago. At the University of Chicago, in Illinois, US of A. The waste by products were stored at a near by National Guard armory.

So Latham's claim is not only context challenged, it's historically challenged.

Latham must be mentally challenged.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 15, 2004 at 08:18 AM

Whoops! I'm mathematically challenged -- make that 62 years ago. SMACK! goes the hand on the forehead.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 15, 2004 at 08:20 AM

yes latham needs to add "Modern history" to the already bursting-at-the-seams-list of subjects he needs to brush up on.
If Australia had been looking for a 'Nuclear dump" site 80 years ago, why we could have advanced hiroshima by five years and stopped th war before it begun!
Hm... womder what the leftoids woild have written about that.

Government claims preemtive bombing of hiroshima has saved many thousands of Australian lives.

Posted by: davo at July 15, 2004 at 08:26 AM

Better yet, the Liberal Party of Australia was only founded in 1949.

Posted by: Darp Hau at July 15, 2004 at 08:28 AM

"and the destruction of disabled children". Strangely, though I cannot fathom his thinking, I'm not surprised at Singer's statement. I remember reading something in the past about Scientists (in this case a Professor) having the lowest standard of ethical behaviour of any group in society. Another Doctor Mengele in the making. It leaves a very foul taste in my mouth to think he comes from Oz.....what a low-life.

As for blubber boy Latham, you'd think a journo would ask him what he'd "do with the nuclear waste?" I'd also suggest that he not let Singer see Peter "half chewed rubber-tipped pencil" Garrett doing his dance or he'll clasify him as one of the disabled children that should have been gotten rid of!

Posted by: Lofty at July 15, 2004 at 09:07 AM

When the life of an infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living, from the internal perspective of the being who will lead that life, both the 'prior existence' and the 'total' version of utilitarianism entail that, if there are no 'extrinsic' reasons for keeping the infant alive -- like the feelings of the parents -- it is better that the childe should be helped to die without further suffering.
Peter Singer.

Still a little creepy (and as with euthanasia, what doctors do every single day, just not normally talked about) but not quite the "DESTRUCTION OF DISABLED CHILDREN" Sean talks about.

Posted by: eek at July 15, 2004 at 09:30 AM

Syd Barret,

Maybe he means 80 dog years?

Posted by: Jonny at July 15, 2004 at 09:42 AM

eek, that was language used by The Age, not me. I'm a special ed teacher so perhaps I'm a little bit sensitive. Nevertheless, I understand Singer's argument.

Posted by: Sean at July 15, 2004 at 09:44 AM

...Still a little creepy.... but not quite the "DESTRUCTION OF DISABLED CHILDREN" Sean talks about...

You want Maximum Creepy, Eek? Google up Singer's 2004 op piece on the benefits of bestiality. Or, find a picture of him, and study it closely. He's got the kind of eyes that supervise, when you're being loaded into a railway car....

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at July 15, 2004 at 09:47 AM

eek, that was language used by The Age, not me.

The Age? my bad, I thought it must have been from some radical site...oh wait...
And Byron, I found a pic of him. I see what you mean...(shudder)

Posted by: eek at July 15, 2004 at 10:00 AM

Singer must be the wierdest Green Party member ever. Wading thru his verbiage, it's difficult to see how he reconciles the contradictions in his stance. For example, he is an ethical Utilitarian. Which means he sees all ethical choices as relative, even Genocide can presumably be justified in some circumstances.

Does he make this clear to his readers? Do his fellow Greens agree, for example that culling of overpopulated humans to preserve endangered species can be 'ethically' justified? That's where his views lead.

Non-utilitarian ethics, the old-fashioned absolutist kind based on belief in God, involve allegiance to a particular culture and tradition, as critics say. But so what? The Western tradition gave us all the values cherished by both Greens and Neocons.

I'll take the Howard Government's stance based on Western tradition as more ethical than that of a relativist utilitarian any day!

Posted by: psing at July 15, 2004 at 10:34 AM

Strangely, though I cannot fathom his thinking, I'm not surprised at Singer's statement. I remember reading something in the past about Scientists (in this case a Professor) having the lowest standard of ethical behaviour of any group in society.

Singer isn't a scientist. He's a Professor of Ethics. Hence his profound lack of same.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at July 15, 2004 at 10:37 AM

Oh and that includes the President Bush stance of defending Western values too. Perfectly ethical as the word 'ethical' is traditionally understood. That's why the best Western leaders are Christian believers.

Someone should ask Singer that question:

Would you support culling of humans to defend endangered animal species? Or at least authoritarian restrictions on human freedoms to protect animals (which amounts to culling)? In short, do you support ethical Fascism?

In his books he suggests as much.

Posted by: psing at July 15, 2004 at 10:40 AM

People say how Greeny beliefs are close to those of Nazis. Most Greenies are just naive and don't realise this.

But Singer is the real deal, a Greeny philosopher who actually argues for a Nazi world. He knows what he is saying, and is probably amazed that he is getting away with it.

He should be roasted, dragged over the coals for his arguments. Instead he escapes notice because he is politically correct. That's what a sick world we have now.

Posted by: psing at July 15, 2004 at 10:47 AM

Someone should ask Singer that question:

Would you support culling of humans to defend endangered animal species? Or at least authoritarian restrictions on human freedoms to protect animals (which amounts to culling)?

I hope some journo who is reading this takes that up. It would be interesting to hear Singer's answer.

Alternatively, if there's a public meeting in Sydney where the audience can ask questions, I could do it myself.

Posted by: EvilPundit at July 15, 2004 at 11:00 AM

Addendum: "Professor Singer is on a panel tonight discussing the implications of genetic technology. RMIT Capitol Building, 113 Swanston Street, 6pm to 7.30pm. Entry free."

Anyone in Melbourne tonight with a cassette recorder and a willingness to do mischief?

Posted by: EvilPundit at July 15, 2004 at 11:02 AM

If we are going to follow France's example and sign the Kyoto treaty under Latham we will need that toxic waste dump. I mean when we convert to 77% nuclear power like the frogs then we cant then go sending it overseas now can we?

Posted by: Rob at July 15, 2004 at 11:03 AM

So Latham's claim is not only context challenged, it's historically challenged.

Someone ought to check the twin carburettors of Latham's mind.

Posted by: Andjam at July 15, 2004 at 11:27 AM

Latham's 80 year estimate is somewhat off the mark, but not in the direction you would expect.

It is a little known fact but nevertheless true that Australian aborigines discovered nuclear power thousands of years ago. They used it to hunt kangaroos, and dumped their nuclear waste all over the country. I think Peter Garrett wrote a song about it.

Posted by: George at July 15, 2004 at 11:30 AM

George, wrong, wrong, wrong!
The Muslims discovered nuclear power hundreds of years ago in Australia, not the Aborigines. Everyone knows they were here hundreds of years before the white invaders. Hmmm! Would that make them the original invaders? I haven't heard them say sorry yet. Insensitive lot, aren't they?

Posted by: Gibbo at July 15, 2004 at 11:38 AM

Professor Singer said Australia's support of the war on Iraq had been that of a cheer squad member for "the most unilateralist American administration we've had for many years".

If person A is a "cheer squad" for person B who is a "unilateralist", then person B ceases to be a "unilateralist".

I guess the good Professor was away from logic school on the day they taught logic.

Posted by: Alex Robson at July 15, 2004 at 11:44 AM

Isn't in funny how "unilateralist" has now become a perjorative term?

If you act on your own convictions no matter what their merit you are in some way evil because you have failed to conform to the majority view.

I wonder if these critics would object to the term "conformist" if it was applied to them no matter the merits of their stance.

The amazing thing about this debate is that there were a huge number of nations that took this "unilateral" action.

The term "unilateral" has obviously got a new definition. It now means not acting in accordance with the wishes of the United nations.

Posted by: amortiser at July 15, 2004 at 12:43 PM

The term "unilateral" has obviously got a new definition. It now means not acting in accordance with the wishes of the United nations.

While acting in accordance is UNilateral.

Posted by: Andjam at July 15, 2004 at 01:22 PM

It's the droppings from the mutant radioactive kangaroos from out Roxby Downs way- that's why they wanted the site in South Australia, so they wouldn't have to weekly cart interstate a couple of tons of incredibly whiffy poo that makes a geiger counter read off the scale.

Posted by: Habib at July 15, 2004 at 02:52 PM

Maybe it's to Singer's credit that when his own mother entered a state of terminal dementia, Singer - who has so long preached the rightness of doing away with useless, expensive human burdens (he is another 'zero-sum' clown when it comes to economics) - funded 24 hour nursing care for her for the rest of her life. She had, moreover, earlier expressed her explicit wish to be allowed to die should she enter such a state.

When queried about this glaring inconsistency by a 'New Yorker' journalist, Singer could only make the risible reply that he was, after all, redistributing some of his wealth to the nurses he employed. It's one thing to preach turning your useless human burdens into decorative, functional lampshades, it's another to actually do it.

Posted by: cuckoo at July 15, 2004 at 03:33 PM

Man Lathams maths is really up to speed 'eh.
I wish he worked in a bank and was handing over cash from withdrawals.

Mr Latham says "Labor would work with the states to find the best location for a radioactive waste dump". Im sure he would, but unfortunately at the moment the all labor state governments are coluding against the federal government at the orders of Latham. The Tugan bypass was a perfect example of this, not being able to appease either state governments over a proposed location.

I noticed the Latham side-kick Butt Boy Brown had to poke his pointy nose in when Marky Mark commented on the subject. Where's Garrett??

Interviewer: "What is your opinion Mr Garrett"??

Garrett: "Whatever Mark says"...

Posted by: scott at July 15, 2004 at 03:49 PM

Otto Hahn split the uranium atom in 1938. So obviously the Liberals were able to see at least 14 years into the future back in 1924.

Which means, by 1931 at the latest, the Liberals knew the Holocaust was coming -- and they didn't say anything about it! Which means they approved of it! The Liberals are Nazis!

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at July 15, 2004 at 03:53 PM

Er, he said they'll be TRYING. That doesn't require them to have won government. The Libs can try from Opposition all they like.

Posted by: Jeremy at July 15, 2004 at 04:08 PM

And by 1935, they could see themselves coming. So, knowing they were Nazis, they nevertheless allowed themselves to come into existence. Nazi lovers! They should have put themselves out of their own misery. Unfortunately, none of them were disabled.

Posted by: Nathan at July 15, 2004 at 04:14 PM

I may have solved the 80 year problem.

Latham is female.

We all know that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. The planet Venus has a year lasting 224.7 Earth days. 80 Years at 224.7 days divided by 365.25 Earth days gives us a time frame of 49.2 Earth Years. This would mean that the Liberals started working on the South Australians in about May/June 1955.

As the Martian year takes 687 Earth days, this cannot be the answer as that would mean the Libs were scratching around with radioactive isotopes in 1853. Back in those days (these days too) they couldn't even spell or pronounce isotopes let alone radioactive.

Well we all know that Latham is not of this planet and that he is reputed to be a Knacker Lacker to the tune of one of them. I heard him on the radio with his high pitched squeaky voice and wondered whether the other one was in for a service.

It all fits together. He's got man-boobs just to top it off. He must at least be atrans-sexual.

Posted by: Fool to Himself & Burden to Others at July 15, 2004 at 04:42 PM

I wonder what the ABC headline would have been if John Howard had said something similar. Perhaps "Howard rewrites history with '80 Years' gaffe". Marky please put brain into gear before engaging mouth.

Posted by: John Gray at July 15, 2004 at 05:03 PM

Much as I like to see the glib biffo-boy Latham pilloried, I must protest: It seems everyone in this forum assumes that you can't have radioactive waste without a nuclear reactor. Well the Curies experimented with radioactive radium in the early 1900s and one of them probably died from its effects. Their experiments were 40 years before the first nuclear reactor was built. Radioactive products may well have been used in Australia in the 20s and 30s.

oh, and the Liberal Party was founded in 1945 not 1949.

Tom

Posted by: Tom at July 15, 2004 at 05:15 PM

So where exactly should a Nuclear Dump go! These Nimby lefty idiots would be the first to stick their hands up for radiotherapy and other nuclear isotope medical work if they had Cancer eating their guts away. But where to put the low level waste, gloves, needles etc? They obviously did not think that far. Typical whinging leftoid freaks, so easy to kick the shit out of things but come up with no alternatives. Howard was forced by shear politics to tear up a great idea. Again a bunch of greens, gins in Coober Pedy and comfortable and misinformed Chardonay swilling 'elites' in Adelaide screw the majority over.

Posted by: Dog at July 15, 2004 at 05:24 PM

Spare us from politicians with ethical agendas

Posted by: rexie at July 15, 2004 at 05:56 PM

Psing queries professor Singer:

"Would you support culling of humans to defend endangered animal species? Or at least authoritarian restrictions on human freedoms to protect animals (which amounts to culling)? In short, do you support ethical Fascism?"

I bet 1000:1 that the answers are: Yes; Yes; How dare you calling my beliefs fascism, you fascist.

Posted by: Katherine at July 15, 2004 at 07:05 PM

Why not put the waste at ALP headquarters. It's already full of putrescent waste ie used union leaders and "can't teach" effwit teachers. My mistake, we couldn't do that, the waste was once useful.

Posted by: johng at July 15, 2004 at 08:41 PM

The ANSWER to the Nuclear Rubbish Problem is simple.
give it to the ABC and they will recycle it into 'CURRENT AFFAIRS' programs.
that'l keep us squeeky clean!

Posted by: davo at July 15, 2004 at 10:11 PM

Yahoo Serious playing "Young Einstein" split the beer atom in the early 1900s in Tasnmania. That must be where Latham gets his 80 years from.

Posted by: Observer at July 15, 2004 at 10:22 PM

For some reason the line in the article that most caught my eye was "A professor by 30"

Do people really believe that a lifetime spent behind the walls of a university make one qualified to speak about *any* part of the world? If it is possible to be a callow old man, there are certainly some among these superannuated Doogie Howser humanities professors who step out of their volvos once in a while to spout off on how bad we all are. I say give him tenure at the University of Tehran, where he can be taught all about ethics.

Posted by: Sergio at July 16, 2004 at 02:16 AM

There were natural nuclear reactors near Gabon, West Africa 1.8 billion years ago. They're inert now, but could these be what Latham is referring to?

I mean, if he is challenged historically and contextually, what's wrong with thinking that Australia existed a couple of billion years ago?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 16, 2004 at 06:03 AM

Actually Tom, waste dumps like the one in question are the result of nuclear reactors. The Curies worked on, at most, a few kilos of unenriched ores. Not very good for their health, to be sure, but they're not going to get large amounts of long-lived waste.

Like I said, tim and the other Aussies on the board know a lot more about the country than I do, but a few minutes Googling didn't show any large scale atomic experiments in Australia in the mid Twenties.

Posted by: Syd Barret at July 16, 2004 at 07:22 AM

Bastards like Singer keep their hands clean when murder is being done.
You are correct Psing, there is a resemblance between nazi and green ideology.

Posted by: Paulm at July 16, 2004 at 10:19 AM

I mean, if he is challenged historically and contextually, what's wrong with thinking that Australia existed a couple of billion years ago?

Say No to Radioactive Waste Dumps in Gondwanaland!

Posted by: PW at July 16, 2004 at 10:57 AM

Actually Syd, the proposed dump is to receive low level "radioactive waste", most of it from a research nuclear reactor in southern Sydney, NSW, where it has been safely stored for decades. This low level waste is completely innoccuous (see here and the stuff the Curies dealt with was definitely far more dangerous. By the way, the research reactor is the subject of much leftie and NIMBY moaning.

My point is that you don't need a reactor to create radioactive waste, you can simply process ores containing radiactive material. We have PLENTY of such ore in Australia.
Whether there were 'large scale atomic experiments' in Australia in the twenties is irrelevant. The real question is were radioactive products used in Australia in that period and did the waste products require disposal. I don't know, but it is possible, and if so, then Latham was not wrong *on this point*. Certainly there *were* radioactive products around in the 20s that were more dangerous than what has been proposed for storage in the national dump.

Regards
Tom

Posted by: Tom at July 16, 2004 at 12:10 PM

In future the states will be responsible for dumping of their own toxic/radioactive waste. Considering all states at the present time are labor it should be interesting to see where they think will be fit. It won't be a political stunt will it???

Am I being a little cynical or does this smack of Labor state collusion against the Liberal federal government leading up to an election??

Posted by: scott at July 16, 2004 at 12:11 PM

"Say No to Radioactive Waste Dumps in Gondwanaland!"

Good one, PW! LOL!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at July 16, 2004 at 03:25 PM