Fullscreen HTML5Med Res (??MB)HTML4

PUBLISHER’S LETTER www.siliconchip.com.au Publisher & Editor-in-Chief Leo Simpson, B.Bus., FAICD Production Manager Greg Swain, B.Sc.(Hons.) Technical Staff John Clarke, B.E.(Elec.) Ross Tester Jim Rowe, B.A., B.Sc, VK2ZLO Rick Walters Reader Services Ann Jenkinson Advertising Enquiries Leo Simpson Phone (02) 9979 5644 Fax (02) 9979 6503 Regular Contributors Brendan Akhurst Rodney Champness, VK3UG Julian Edgar, Dip.T.(Sec.), B.Ed Mike Sheriff, B.Sc, VK2YFK Philip Watson, MIREE, VK2ZPW Bob Young SILICON CHIP is published 12 times a year by Silicon Chip Publications Pty Ltd. ACN 003 205 490. ABN 49 003 205 490 All material copyright ©. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written consent of the publisher. Printing: Hannanprint, Noble Park, Victoria. Distribution: Network Distribution Company. Subscription rates: $69.50 per year in Australia. For overseas rates, see the subscription page in this issue. Editorial & advertising offices: Unit 8, 101 Darley St, Mona Vale, NSW 2103. Postal address: PO Box 139, Collaroy Beach, NSW 2097. Phone (02) 9979 5644. Fax (02) 9979 6503. E-mail: silchip<at>siliconchip.com.au ISSN 1030-2662 * Recommended and maximum price only. 2  Silicon Chip A new reactor at Lucas Heights – it’s about time Finally, construction of a new nuclear reactor is about to commence in Sydney. The $320 million project has been the subject of a great deal of community controversy, much of it illin­formed. It will replace a reactor which is now 44 years old, highlighting just how overdue the project is. In fact, when I toured the Lucas Heights reactor in around 1985, I was struck by how old the facility seemed even then. Not only did the whole installation need a good paint and general sprucing up, but everything about it was obsolete. All the con­trol gear, instrumentation, computers and so on, was just anci­ent. I don’t imagine that much would have changed in the inter­vening 17 years or so – it would just have continued to decay (pun intended). Now, at the very least, with the installation of a new reactor, all the concerned people should be “happier”. Sure they might still be up in arms about the reactor being just near their back fences but surely a newer, safer reactor must be better than one which is very old. And besides, when Lucas Heights was first built, it was way out in the scrub, far away from any houses. Those people who have moved and built there since really should not be complaining too much. In the meantime, a great number of research people from a whole range of scientific fields, have had to make do with a second-rate installation. While they would have done their best with what was available, they would have been held back in their efforts. Just think, in the whole of Australia, for all this time, we have only had the piddly little reactor at Lucas Heights. It’s been a bad joke for a long time. Australia really does need to spend a lot more money in a whole range of fields and this nuclear reactor project is only a drop in the bucket of what should be spent to make us as competitive as possible on the world stage. Spent fuel rods do remain a problem, particularly with Greenpeace doing everything in its power to stop them being sent to France, Argentina or where ever. At present, reprocessing of fuel rods is the best method of handling the problem, but Green­peace won’t have it. In fact, I find it extremely frustrating that the so-called “greens” or environmentalists seem to oppose just about every worthwhile project ever mooted in Australia. Whether it is BassLink in Tasmania, wind farms just about anywhere, the tidal power project in Derby or any number of other projects that could have a significant benefit for the economy and the environment, the greenies are in there and against it. That their opposition appears to be supported by so many people is a sad reflection on the generally low level of scientific knowledge in the community. Let’s face it, if we had the same level of “green” opposi­tion to major infrastructure projects 50 years ago that we have now, Australia would be a much poorer place with a woeful stan­dard of living – in fact, we would be a “third world” country. Would the environment be better off? You only have to go and check the environment in a typical third world country to answer that question. Leo Simpson www.siliconchip.com.au