You may mention Chernobyl. But what example is this in the Australian context. No one would build a soviet era nuclear plant such as Chernobyl, which was obsolete before it was even built. Any nuclear power stations would be gleaming examples of the most modern technology. Clean, safe, secure, foolproof. A perfect solution today for tomorrows energy and climate problems. And as for Chernobyl, it was poorly conceived, badly constructed and riddled with human error. Yet this nuclear dinosaur, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency and World Health Organisation, only claimed 56 lives directly from the disaster. The report also revealed that there may have been 9,000 extra cancer cases, cancer cases not deaths, among the 6 ½ million people living near by. As undesirable as this is, this should be seen as a minimal result of what is made out to be one of the world’s great catastrophes. Nature however deals out much more severe blows against human life, for

example the recent earthquakes in China which claimed 50,000 lives. Make no mistake, generating electricity using coal is a far greater killer than 20 Chernobyls. For example in just one year in America, 10,000 - 50,000 people die form to respiratory diseases due to the burning of coal, according to a study by Harvard University.

Religion and science must be compared because science is the basis for everything else, why wouldn't you apply science when determining if god is exists or not? This is an absurd argument!