How many of us happily grew up with our parents and several siblings in a modest three-bedroom house with one bathroom? A kitchen, dining area, lounge room and lots of space outside. Naive, you'll say, people want more these days. Why? I'd forgotten, until I found an old newspaper, that in the 1960s you could buy an architect designed plan and drawings for a house like that - they weren't fibro shacks either. Contemporary, flat-roofed, large glass windows, furnished in elegant Danish style. I know - progress draws us ever forward, but sometimes I wonder if a little less could be much more.

THERE have been far too many building company collapses over the past few years and it seems to me that right up until the company calls in receivers they continue to accept deposits for work they must know that they cannot do. These deposits are used in a desperate bid to save the company, and the depositors just kiss their hard-earned money goodbye.

The problem in some cases is that these companies rely on current deposits to satisfy past debts; so let's devise a plan to separate the old troubles from the new troubles and then we can at least find a path forward. All deposited funds should be in a reputable holding account external to the building business. As work progresses, the management of the holding account releases funds to cover staged completed work. In this way deposited funds are protected and the building business operates in a true financial position. That is, the business will have the funds and therefore the profits from completed work to trade on and therefore will be in a better financial position to determine the true viability of their business, and not be like the Peronists of 1950s Argentina: "The money keeps coming in, who wants to keep books, you can tell by their happy looks" (adopted from Evita).

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY support Ray Peck's letter ("Details of nuclear plans may prove explosive", Letters, 8/3), on the dangers of nuclear reactors; in particular, the problems of disposing of nuclear waste. Some waste has a half-life of 20,000 years. Even a country the size of Australia cannot find a community willing to accept low-level waste, let alone re-manufacture "spent" fuel rods. Until now spent fuel rods from the Lucas Heights reactor have had to be returned to France, with all the transport risk that entails. Does anyone think it will be different in the future? We are only creating a massive problem for our children.

Agreed, we have a problem with continuity of the electricity supply with renewables, but I believe that can be addressed better and cheaper with megabatteries, hydro storage, better distribution networks, and particularly gas. It's able to be switched on in minutes, and we have bucketloads of it. Are these options costly? Yes, but the cost of new nuclear reactors is completely unknown.

An even bigger issue is safety and security. The more nuclear reactors we have, the more chance uranium fuel or the reactor itself will fall into the hands of terrorists. When Russia captured the Chernobyl reactors it became too dangerous to defend, and once lost, too dangerous to retake. There are also the dangers from unforeseen accidents such as Fukushima. By the 2040s, I believe we may have a much better solution - not fission, but fusion, and gain our energy the way it is produced by the sun.

WITHOUT doubt the usual suspects will emerge from the woodwork to criticise Anwar Ibrahim for "belling the cat" about Australia failing to actively support the International Court of Justice (ICJ) finding that "Israel in Gaza, is plausibly committing genocide". For almost 70 years we have remained virtually silent while Israel imposed apartheid upon the Palestinian people within the Gaza Strip. On the evidence to date genocide has also become another tool of choice for Netanyahu and Israel in the Gaza Strip.

Australia has a chance to step up and be counted in bringing Israel to book for its brutality. Cutting diplomatic, commercial and all other ties with Israel until it becomes a decent entity would be a good beginning. Immediately restoring our funding quotient to UNRWA a "no brainer"

Will we do either? Sadly for many Australians, while ever Zionists are safely ensconced in suburbs far from the conflict and allowed to lobby Australia's foreign policy, I sincerely doubt it.

I ALMOST choked on my Wheaties this morning reading that the state government actually had restrictions on pokies to help problem gamblers. It's unfortunate that the biggest poker machine addict of all is the state government itself.

I feel sorry also for Sam Kerr, but what if the police officer had mentioned her race in a derogatory way? Whose side would we be on?

Both Newcastle University vice-chancellor and scientist Alan Finkel state ("Nuclear is not the answer, says Zelinsky", Newcastle Herald, 14/3) that Australia could not open a nuclear power plant before the early 2040s. This is a similar time frame to the arrival of our own AUKUS nuclear powered submarines. Maybe our politicians have finally accepted the concept of long-term future planning. If we can have one, why can't we have the other?

ALL this brouhaha about the probable future Queen of England is a bit of a zephyr in a teaspoon. That said, she asked that her privacy be respected. Fat chance, eh?

THE energy debate is so confusing regarding nuclear power generation. You have Alex Zelinsky saying that at least two decades are required to build a nuclear power station. Yet the UAE built four large reactors in six years, so who do we believe?

HERE'S a joke for the readers: Q: How are small modular nuclear reactors and unicorns alike? A: Neither exists. Q: How are they different? A: Unicorn waste isn't hazardous for a million years.

To offer a contribution: email letters@newcastleherald.com.au or send a text message to 0427 154 176 (include name and suburb). Letters should be fewer than 200 words. Short Takes should be fewer than 50 words. Correspondence may be edited in any form.