NationStates Jolt Archive

It's official, the Northern Territory is destined to become Australia's nuke waste dump. The Australian government is trying to legislate away any legal venues to stop this.

And our Northern Territory MPs and Senators who promised this would not happen, have changed their minds. They will back this.

'Outraged' NT Govt promises nuclear waste dump fight
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1481671.htm

:mad:

My condolences. We've managed to prevent there being a permanent nuclear dump in Germany by chaining ourselves to the train tracks every time they tried to get a container past. Maybe that will help...

Gotta dump it someplace. Deserts seem popular.

Gotta dump it someplace.No you don't. You can "not use" nuclear material for power, you know. That's guaranteed to prevent it from becoming radioactive waste.

My condolences. We've managed to prevent there being a permanent nuclear dump in Germany by chaining ourselves to the train tracks every time they tried to get a container past. Maybe that will help...

Not really, the Australian government has control of the Parliament and Senate. Given how they are acting now, they'll listen to no one. John Howard will suffer for this next election. No CLP MPs and Senators in the NT will be left if they betray us like this.

Gotta dump it someplace. Deserts seem popular.

Actually the three proposed sites are within 200 km of populated areas.

Not really, the Australian government has control of the Parliament and Senate. Given how they are acting now, they'll listen to no one. John Howard will suffer for this next election. No CLP MPs and Senators in the NT will be left if they betray us like this.If there's enough dedicated protesters that need to be cleared out of the path of the transports every time they try to get one going, it sends a message. You're not going to stop any transports themselves, the goal is to let the government know that it WILL pay dearly. That way, some democratic governments eventually get the message.
We have nuclear material storage places too, but they're not allowed to be permanent.

No you don't. You can "not use" nuclear material for power, you know. That's guaranteed to prevent it from becoming radioactive waste.

Yeah, but gas and coal pollute.. and wind power kills birds, and hydroelectric kills salmon and causes erosion, and solar's expensive.. nuclear's the best for your dollar.. we can always shoot the waste into the Sun later, so.. problem solved. Hooray! :)

Actually the three proposed sites are within 200 km of populated areas.

I dunno.. our nuke waste is in the desert, and they want to put theirs in the desert, so maybe there's some benefit to the climate or something. I'd weaponize the stuff and blow up asteroids with it, if it were up to me.. but those loony politicans won't take my letters anymore. :(

If there's enough dedicated protesters that need to be cleared out of the path of the transports every time they try to get one going, it sends a message. You're not going to stop any transports themselves, the goal is to let the government know that it WILL pay dearly. That way, some democratic governments eventually get the message.
We have nuclear material storage places too, but they're not allowed to be permanent.

Now, the facility is above ground. It's not a state-of-the-art underground buried under tunnels facility (like in Sweden). Basically a over-glorified tin shed with lots of steel containers.

Yeah, but gas and coal pollute.. and wind power kills birds, and hydroelectric kills salmon and causes erosion, and solar's expensive.. nuclear's the best for your dollar.. we can always shoot the waste into the Sun later, so.. problem solved. Hooray! :):rolleyes:
I suppose you weren't close enough to Tchernobyl to appreciate radioactivite pollution then...

Ouch... I know what you're going through as my home's fighting (and winning) one in the US. What you need is massive protests, and litigation, lots and lots of litigation.

Actually the three proposed sites are within 200 km of populated areas.
What about Ayer's Rock? Isn't that one of the oldest geological formations on the earth? Bore a huge hole in the top of it and just pour the stuff in. Problem solved! :D

Now, the facility is above ground. It's not a state-of-the-art underground buried under tunnels facility (like in Sweden). Basically a over-glorified tin shed with lots of steel containers.Oh, jeez. :(

What about Ayer's Rock? Isn't that one of the oldest geological formations on the earth? Bore a huge hole in the top of it and just pour the stuff in. Problem solved! :DHow would you feel if Mount Rushmore got used in the US? :p

No you don't. You can "not use" nuclear material for power, you know. That's guaranteed to prevent it from becoming radioactive waste.
Too late. We could put it in the ocean bottom where it is going down under a continent. Then it would be gone forever and not near anyone. Unfortunately the politicians have an agreement that it must be stored where it can be picked up and used.

What about Ayer's Rock? Isn't that one of the oldest geological formations on the earth? Bore a huge hole in the top of it and just pour the stuff in. Problem solved! :D

The current Government has enough problems where everyone is starting to hate them. They don't want Aboriginal Elders pointing bones of death at them as well. :D

People get very upset about anything "nuclear" or "radioactive", don't they? It's almost like they think that the first gamma ray that hits them will give them cancer, make them glow in the dark, and cause them to grow two more heads and tentacles.
Heaven forbid they learn how much radiation is emitted by the bricks their houses are made out of, or the granite it's built on...

Surely it's better to store it properly 200km away than improperly somewhere else?

Too late. We could put it in the ocean bottom where it is going down under a continent. Then it would be gone forever and not near anyone. Unfortunately the politicians have an agreement that it must be stored where it can be picked up and used.The ocean bottom option isn't exactly a very environmentally friendly one...
Picked up and used for what exactly?:confused:

People get very upset about anything "nuclear" or "radioactive", don't they? It's almost like they think that the first gamma ray that hits them will give them cancer, make them glow in the dark, and cause them to grow two more heads and tentacles.
Heaven forbid they learn how much radiation is emitted by the bricks their houses are made out of, or the granite it's built on...

Surely it's better to store it properly 200km away than improperly somewhere else?It's better to store it underground in a place that will absorb the massive heat the waste will continue to generate more than 200km from the nearest settlement.

:rolleyes:
I suppose you weren't close enough to Tchernobyl to appreciate radioactivite pollution then...

Bah, even the Russians admit the damage from Chernobyl was overstated, according to a study they put out this year.. And besides, the odds of a total meltdown like that one are miniscule, and worth the risk. After all, coal pollution causes global warming, while radiation pollution merely spikes the incidence of cancer by a small percentage. Think of the penguins! :p

People get very upset about anything "nuclear" or "radioactive", don't they? It's almost like they think that the first gamma ray that hits them will give them cancer, make them glow in the dark, and cause them to grow two more heads and tentacles.
Heaven forbid they learn how much radiation is emitted by the bricks their houses are made out of, or the granite it's built on...

Surely it's better to store it properly 200km away than improperly somewhere else?

Put it this way. At the start, we get Australian Commonwealth waste. Later some bright spark decided all waste gets dumped here. Later China, France, USA and the rest of the world start moving their used nuke rods to the NT. I'm very sure someone is planning this already.

Surely it's better to store it properly 200km away than improperly somewhere else?
Sure, we'll put it in your town.

It's better to store it underground in a place that will absorb the massive heat the waste will continue to generate more than 200km from the nearest settlement.
Wouldn't any waste capable of generating enough heat to be felt 200km away still be being used as fuel? That's why you have reprocessing plants. No point throwing away good stuff, it's expensive...

The actual amount of un-reprocessable, highly-radioactive, long term waste produced by nuclear power is very, very small. Mostly it's very low radiation.

(Anyone fancy looking it up? I should go do some work. Or eat lunch.)

Bah, even the Russians admit the damage from Chernobyl was overstated, according to a study they put out this year..According to German studies, there's still mushrooms in Bavaria with comparatively high degrees of radiation.
And besides, the odds of a total meltdown like that one are miniscule, and worth the risk. The odds are miniscule, but a meltdown is never worth any risk. It being well worth the risk isn't going to give me my 2nd Birthday party back.
After all, coal pollution causes global warming, while radiation pollution merely spikes the incidence of cancer by a small percentage. Think of the penguins! :pCoal pollution, if it were subjected to modern filters, would not contribute so much. The main problem is the extensive amount pumped out by countries that fail to provide incentives for reducing the emissions pumped out by coal plants. The two biggest of that group are the USA and PRC.
And the relatively low risk of a meltdown has little to do with an accident occuring when it is stored, save for a similarity of effects.

Sure, we'll put it in your town.
Corby? Go for it, it'd be an improvement.
Actually, the only time the villiage I live in got on the national news was because of a toxic waste fire in a dump on the outskirts. I got the morning off school \o/.

200km is hardly "in town". I don't think the UK has anywhere that's 200km from the nearest settlement.

Wouldn't any waste capable of generating enough heat to be felt 200km away still be being used as fuel? That's why you have reprocessing plants. No point throwing away good stuff, it's expensive...

The actual amount of un-reprocessable, highly-radioactive, long term waste produced by nuclear power is very, very small. Mostly it's very low radiation.

(Anyone fancy looking it up? I should go do some work. Or eat lunch.)

Just to remind you, the current conservative government promised the opposite during the last election. Now, they'll just bulldoze the laws through. So much for a democratic process.

More info
http://www.nt.gov.au/nonukedump/about.shtml

Graphic from page
http://www.nt.gov.au/nonukedump/images/dump_sites.gif

Wouldn't any waste capable of generating enough heat to be felt 200km away still be being used as fuel? That's why you have reprocessing plants. No point throwing away good stuff, it's expensive...

The actual amount of un-reprocessable, highly-radioactive, long term waste produced by nuclear power is very, very small. Mostly it's very low radiation.

(Anyone fancy looking it up? I should go do some work. Or eat lunch.)The heat only becomes a problem in underground storage or other situations where it isn't allowed to escape. While the heat itself isn't dangerous, the heat building up inside a sealed cave for a few years will be, if the rock doesn't absorb it properly. That's why I mentioned that. You can't just dump radioactive waste in a hole, cover it, and think everything is over.

You can't just dump radioactive waste in a hole, cover it, and think everything is over.
Hey, I said "store it properly". I'm not advocating it gets dumped in the local reservoir when nobody's looking ;)
'Course, whether a government actually does it "properly" or not... But I'm defending nuclear power, not governments.

According to German studies, there's still mushrooms in Bavaria with comparatively high degrees of radiation.

Yeah, and DDT in antarctic fish.. but DDT saved tens of millions from malaria and other diseases, just like nuclear energy saves us all, financially and environmentally, versus the polluting methods, filters or no. President Bush likes to talk about "clean coal" too, and he's right to say that it's better than the old methods, but not compared to nuclear power. I don't mind living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, because the odds of failure are low, and because the technicians there are trained to use the many failsafes installed, unlike the situation at TMI, where they apparently failed to do a visual check of the rods.. All in all, I'd say we're best off with nuclear power, unless and until some cheaper method comes along, such as fusion or affordable solar.

Yeah, and DDT in antarctic fish.. but DDT saved tens of millions from malaria and other diseases, just like nuclear energy saves us all, financially and environmentally, versus the polluting methods, filters or no. President Bush likes to talk about "clean coal" too, and he's right to say that it's better than the old methods, but not compared to nuclear power. I don't mind living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, because the odds of failure are low, and because the technicians there are trained to use the many failsafes installed, unlike the situation at TMI, where they apparently failed to do a visual check of the rods.. All in all, I'd say we're best off with nuclear power, unless and until some cheaper methof comes along, such as fusion or affordable solar.

In the age of terrorism, it'd better have good security. A couple of maniacs in booby-trapped trucks would change the situation.

In the age of terrorism, it'd better have good security. A couple of maniacs in booby-trapped trucks would change the situation.

Yeah, but that's a matter of foreign policy and immigration policy, along with plant security.. nuclear energy is still the way to go, provided we aren't careless about it.

Edit: Also, I think the walls down in San Onofre, for one, are something like six feet thick, reinforced concrete, with barriers around the stacks.. that'd have to be one big carbomb, and the core is even further down.. that's the only plant I've seen up-close, though, so I dunno about the rest.. I think terrorists would import their radioactive material.

Yeah, but that's a matter of foreign policy and immigration policy, along with plant security.. nuclear energy is still the way to go, provided we aren't careless about it.

Edit: Also, I think the walls down in San Onofre, for one, are something like six feet thick, reinforced concrete, with barriers around the stacks.. that'd have to be one big carbomb, and the core is even further down.. that's the only plant I've seen up-close, though, so I dunno about the rest.. I think terrorists would import their radioactive material.

Hmm, Lucas Height reactor in Sydney does not have those walls around it. Small problem there.

better there then here in SA

Being nuclear free we've managed to avoid the whole 'nuke dump' problem..

better there then here in SA

I do sympathise, the Poms nuked bombed SA. At least you are a state which does have some ability to fight off the Nazi party, I mean Coalition.

Being nuclear free we've managed to avoid the whole 'nuke dump' problem..

It's hard when you also export Uranium. Currently 3 mines only in the NT but the Oz Government want more mines open - to sell it to China.

Being nuclear free we've managed to avoid the whole 'nuke dump' problem..

That's good.. but you wouldn't really need it in New Zealand, I don't think.. we've got five times NZ's population just in the L.A. valley.. Imagine the money we'd save if we were on nuclear power..

"That's money that could be spent on education!" as liberals like to say. ;)

Corby? Go for it, it'd be an improvement.
Actually, the only time the villiage I live in got on the national news was because of a toxic waste fire in a dump on the outskirts. I got the morning off school \o/.

200km is hardly "in town". I don't think the UK has anywhere that's 200km from the nearest settlement.

http://www.btinternet.com/~sa_sa/tristan_da_cunha/tristan_history.html ;)

That's good.. but you wouldn't really need it in New Zealand, I don't think.. we've got five times NZ's population just in the L.A. valley.. Imagine the money we'd save if we were on nuclear power..

"That's money that could be spent on education!" as liberals like to say. ;)


To be fair we have our share of problems. A short while back there was a particularly dry year, and several hydro lakes down south began to dry out...

To be fair we have our share of problems. A short while back there was a particularly dry year, and several hydro lakes down south began to dry out...

All the more reason for nuclear power! Plus, you've got plenty of beachfront property to build one on, unlike those poor pathetic landlocked countries.. poor Liechtenstein. :(

The ocean bottom option isn't exactly a very environmentally friendly one...
Picked up and used for what exactly?:confused:
If you put it in the right place there is no leakage, and they are gone (into the hotter part of the globe) in a fraction of the time the stuff needs to be stored in other places.

Oh, and in the ocean bottom, not in the sea. Drilled into the rock.

Used for future power plants that use what we call waste as fuel. They thought that such was more or less imminent when those decisions were made. Now you don't hear about it because what they thought was possible is not considered safe.

All the more reason for nuclear power! Plus, you've got plenty of beachfront property to build one on, unlike those poor pathetic landlocked countries.. poor Liechtenstein. :(

Except NZ is right on the edge of the Australasian continent plate and volcanically active. You'd need to find a nice stable part of NZ!

How about dropping the nuke waste into an active volcano? I'm sure there's some scientific reason that wouldn't work, but there's plenty of good, eligible volcanos sitting around, especially in the vicinity of Australia...

If there's enough dedicated protesters that need to be cleared out of the path of the transports every time they try to get one going, it sends a message. You're not going to stop any transports themselves, the goal is to let the government know that it WILL pay dearly. That way, some democratic governments eventually get the message.
We have nuclear material storage places too, but they're not allowed to be permanent.

As I recall, a few people doing this over the years have been cut in half by the train (albeit with the train moving at an excruciatingly slow speed).

How about dropping the nuke waste into an active volcano? I'm sure there's some scientific reason that wouldn't work, but there's plenty of good, eligible volcanos sitting around, especially in the vicinity of Australia...

Turn Indonesia into waste incinerator? It's not against the Koran ... :D
Krakotoa is nice and active.

Throw in some terrorists as well for fun.

No you don't. You can "not use" nuclear material for power, you know. That's guaranteed to prevent it from becoming radioactive waste.
Yeah, and when oil and coal run out we can all freeze in the dark.

How would you feel if Mount Rushmore got used in the US? :p
i would laugh my ass off!

http://www.btinternet.com/~sa_sa/tristan_da_cunha/tristan_history.html ;)

Hehe - it has a settlement on it. 80 families apparently ;)

Well, there's always Rockall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall). There's fuc*k all on Rockall...

Yeah, and when oil and coal run out we can all freeze in the dark.

Other than fission, and the promised fusion, there isn't any viable replacement for oil and coal that can fulfill our power demands on an industrial level.

Oh, there's orbiting solar power satellites - that would also double as city-frying microwave weapons. I'm sure that's a great alternative to nuclear power.

Solar power on the ground can never achieve the power density necessary to sustain an industrial economy.

Except NZ is right on the edge of the Australasian continent plate and volcanically active. You'd need to find a nice stable part of NZ!

There's no such place! I doubt that we could ever store nuclear waste anywhere in NZ, but I think we should consider nuclear power sometime in the future. Especially if Aussie is volunteering to be a nuclear dumping ground :P

Well, considering the concept of comparative advantage, Hawke (was it Hawke?) is right:
Australia is better at storing waste than most other countries.

Your personal opinion about it aside, Oz has huge areas where pretty much no one lives, where it is relatively stable, and where there is no ground water to speak of.

Add to that that Australia has no problem exporting tons and tons of Uranium, I'd think that in the spirit of free trade, the world as a whole would benefit if we'd store some of that crap.

That being said, I'm not at all happy with the way this government (and especially its alleged opposition) goes over the population's heads repeatedly.

It's official, the Northern Territory is destined to become Australia's nuke waste dump. The Australian government is trying to legislate away any legal venues to stop this.

And our Northern Territory MPs and Senators who promised this would not happen, have changed their minds. They will back this.

'Outraged' NT Govt promises nuclear waste dump fight
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1481671.htm

:mad:
That'll teach you for not being a state! Mu Haw Haw!

Here's a thought though. Queensland is a designated No Radiation Zone, could it be a violation of state security to have a radioactive waste near our precious borders?

Queensland: The SEXY State... what? It beats our really motto "The Smart State"

Well, considering the concept of comparative advantage, Hawke (was it Hawke?) is right:
Australia is better at storing waste than most other countries.

Your personal opinion about it aside, Oz has huge areas where pretty much no one lives, where it is relatively stable, and where there is no ground water to speak of.

Add to that that Australia has no problem exporting tons and tons of Uranium, I'd think that in the spirit of free trade, the world as a whole would benefit if we'd store some of that crap.

That being said, I'm not at all happy with the way this government (and especially its alleged opposition) goes over the population's heads repeatedly.

The ACT is a territory ... one of sites was in the ACT too. Maybe we should just put under parliament house. :D

No you don't. You can "not use" nuclear material for power, you know. That's guaranteed to prevent it from becoming radioactive waste.
This isn't waste from power plants. Its low level waste from nuclear medicine. But I suppose you don't have to have medicine...

This isn't waste from power plants. Its low level waste from nuclear medicine. But I suppose you don't have to have medicine...

The waste shipped to NT will be "low to intermediate level" waste but apparently reprocessed nuclear rods are "intermediate".

Actually do you know what the states are doing with their own waste?

Obviously the Federal govt is dumping it in NT; but all the state governments are also producing their own nuclear waste which the federal government refuses to deal with because all the state premiers broke into bickering over a site for it. Where are they keeping it all in the meantime, or is creative-with-the-truth-John decided to do the incompetent state govt's work for them again?

The waste shipped to NT will be "low to intermediate level" waste but apparently reprocessed nuclear rods are "intermediate".
Did you know that low levels of radiation are actually beneficial to human health?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller12.html

Did you know that low levels of radiation are actually beneficial to human health?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller12.html

Of course, what's "Low"? Natural environmental? You do not want (too much) Fission products to enter the human body as they do not get expelled.

Of course, what's "Low"? Natural environmental? You do not want (too much) Fission products to enter the human body as they do not get expelled.
Infact it's higher than that.

That link refers to doses in excess of 10 times the normal background radiation.

In Taiwan (in the early 1980s), 180 apartment buildings were built with recycled steel that was accidentally contaminated with Colbalt-60. The buildings’ occupants, 4,000 people, lived in them for more than 10 years before their radioactive state was discovered. The amount of radiation they received ranged up to more than 1,500 mrem per year. (Colbalt-60 has a half-life of 5.3 years.) The cancer mortality, over a 20-year period, in the radiated occupants was 97 percent less (3.5 deaths per 100,000 person years) than that of the general population of Taiwan (116 deaths per 100,000 person years). Even the incidence of congenital heart malformations in the children they bore was reduced. This carefully done study shows, as its authors put it, that "chronic radiation [far above EPA limits] is an effective prophylaxis against cancer."

G3N13, those results might be for background radiation where products don't enter the bloodstream. The main problem is when those same products enter the food and water supply systems.

G3N13, those results might be for background radiation where products don't enter the bloodstream. The main problem is when those same products enter the food and water supply systems.
You should check the link. While I do agree partly with what you said, I still think opposing a nuke dump is probably done more in an irrational (it feels wrong) than rational (it's a definite risk) basis.


For example take the following graph:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/cancer-ratio.gif

You should check the link. While I do agree partly with what you said, I still think opposing a nuke dump is probably done more in an irrational (it feels wrong) than rational (it's a definite risk) basis.

For example take the following graph:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/cancer-ratio.gif

That articles does not address contamination of food and water supplies.
While it might be true a little background radiation might help the body, ingesting them is different thing. Radiation is not deadly until it enters the body starts stuffing around with natural processes.

If it's not deadly or the risk is really low, why not dump the waste in Canberra? Those pollies say it's safe!

That articles does not address contamination of food and water supplies.So, nuclear detonation does not contribute food or water contamination? Nor does *living* in a house where cobalt-60 contaminated iron was used as a construction material radioactive material...Apparently none of it would be ingested through breathing or drinking tap water..

While a highest security nuke dump would automatically cause you to ingest radioactive ingredients.
While it might be true a little background radiation might help the body, ingesting them is different thing. Radiation is not deadly until it enters the body starts stuffing around with natural processes.
It is not the radiation per se (in low quantities), it's the natural toxicity of the fuel.

Few more links:
http://www.webpal.org/webpal/b_recovery/1_radiation_in_food/radiation_risk_and_ethics.htm
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html
http://www.techcentralstation.com/012402M.html

If it's not deadly or the risk is really low, why not dump the waste in Canberra? Those pollies say it's safe!Because of the public opposition and the fact that it wouldn't be as safe there due to close proximity to people....I of course meant protesters, thieves and other wacky people ;)

Here's the record of the Australian government on nuclear issues

They allowed the British government to explode 12 nuclear bombs using Australian Uranium in Australia. They denied any safety problems despite the fallout going all over Australia. The British tests shattered the water table around Maringa and island of WA is wasted because of those tests. In return, we got the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor based on British tech.

This was done under Menzies - Liberal government. Now we have another Liberal government peddling the same lines to us again.

Here's the record of the Australian government on nuclear issues

They allowed the British government to explode 12 nuclear bombs using Australian Uranium in Australia. They denied any safety problems despite the fallout going all over Australia. The British tests shattered the water table around Maringa and island of WA is wasted because of those tests. In return, we got the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor based on British tech.

This was done under Menzies - Liberal government. Now we have another Liberal government peddling the same lines to us again.
And the relevance is?

And the relevance is?

You can't trust Australian governments with respect to handling nuclear issues properly. Put some dumps in the NT and later we'll be having shiploads of higher level wastes turning up because they can make $$$ out of it. In 2010 or 2010, reprocessed nuclear rods from France will be returned to Australia - going to the NT.

You can't trust Australian governments with respect to handling nuclear issues properly. Put some dumps in the NT and later we'll be having shiploads of higher level wastes turning up because they can make $$$ out of it. In 2010 or 2010, reprocessed nuclear rods from France will be returned to Australia - going to the NT.The real, rational, risk is minimal (but not non-existent): The imaginary, irrational, risks outweigh the facts here because of the prevalent, and never tested, LNT theory rendering radioactivity one of the most evil things known to man.


http://ranprieur.com/crash/naturechernobyl.html
Asked if there was any evidence that wild animals had suffered long-term declines since the accident or whether the scientists had detected any increase in birth defects, Dr. Bondarkov replied: "Such evidence does not exist."

http://ranprieur.com/crash/naturechernobyl.html

Fails to note that most animals can curiously absorb many times more radiation than humans without suffering ill effect.

Well G3N13, "risk is mininal". That's what the people who ran 3 mile island and Chernobyl probably thought too. The sites are near Katherine and Alice Springs who also cop massive flooding once in a while.

Fails to note that most animals can curiously absorb many times more radiation than humans without suffering ill effect.Undoubtedly, even if you failed to give any kind of link or other info backing up your claim.

However according to this (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm) link Chernobyl was the cause of around 28 deaths in 18 years out of a population of who knows how many million, excluding the 28 that died directly because of radiation burns: The worst nuclear accident thus far has killed a whopping total of 56 people.

The question arises and I have to ask it: Why do you fear radioactivity and nuclear power so much?

Undoubtedly, even if you failed to give any kind of link or other info backing up your claim.

However according to this (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm) link Chernobyl was the cause of around 28 deaths in 18 years out of a population of who knows how many million, excluding the 28 that died directly because of radiation burns: The worst nuclear accident thus far has killed a whopping total of 56 people.

The question arises and I have to ask it: Why do you fear radioactivity and nuclear power so much?

Question - Would you drink from a water supply where the local nuclear reactor dumps is treated waste water?

Question - Would you drink from a water supply where the local nuclear reactor dumps is treated waste water?
Yes, why not? The cooling system is a doubly (depending on reactor type) closed circuit.

Yes, why not? The cooling system is a doubly (depending on reactor type) closed circuit.

So no concern about leakages of untreated water (which they don't report very publicly)? It happened in the Ranger Uranium mine run by ERA. Untreated waste water leaked into the "clean" water supply and workers got sick immediately. For a large water supply, the effects will be more subtle but still a build-up of contaminants wil happen.

Undoubtedly, even if you failed to give any kind of link or other info backing up your claim.

Yeah, sorry about that. The commonly known example would be cockroaches, but I recall reading that chickens and rats can take 8 times the radiation we can. Unfortunately a quick search on google to verify that reveals results that I can't access because the website in question needs a password for the online articles, or something.

I'd dig up something, but it seems to be a scientific grey area (not a lot of conclusive studies have been done), so it's not really worth the effort.

However according to this (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm) link Chernobyl was the cause of around 28 deaths in 18 years out of a population of who knows how many million, excluding the 28 that died directly because of radiation burns: The worst nuclear accident thus far has killed a whopping total of 56 people.

Sure, if you trust the old Soviet information sources. I don't. (plus, it's hard to pin down the underlying causes of cancer deaths, etc.)


The question arises and I have to ask it: Why do you fear radioactivity and nuclear power so much?

I don't, really. Quite the opposite, i've always had a curious fascination for it. My contention with nuclear power is that we presently don't have any feasible plan for storing long-term waste (I don't really trust this idea...as Jeruselem said, it's just a glorified tin shed) and the fact that it too, is presently a renewable resource (excluding breeder reactors, etc. which aren't in common usage). Plus, we can't exactly power our cars with nuclear reactors.

I'd dig up something, but it seems to be a scientific grey area (not a lot of conclusive studies have been done), so it's not really worth the effort.Indeed, especially if you search for information of low level radioactivity on humans.

Which is why I'm inclined to believe the reports from Taiwan (and few other places) that 'low level' exposure is actually good for you: Some evidence > no evidence.
Sure, if you trust the old Soviet information sources. I don't. (plus, it's hard to pin down the underlying causes of cancer deaths, etc.)Infact that's not based on old Soviet information sources which is why it's relatively reliable.
I don't, really. Quite the opposite, i've always had a curious fascination for it. My contention with nuclear power is that we presently don't have any feasible plan for storing long-term wasteSolid bedrock. Takes care for the problem for at least a half-a-million years. The possible minute leaks are inconsequental and can actually be healthy if you're willing to accept that the virtually untested LNT theory of radioactivity is false.
Plus, we can't exactly power our cars with nuclear reactors.We can with electricity...or even hydrogen.
So no concern about leakages of untreated water (which they don't report very publicly)?Why wouldn't they? Besides water contamination from a modern nuclear plant is extremely unlikely: It would require at least 3 independent systems + their safeguards and backup systems to malfunction simultaneously.

Infact I implore you to find a single case where such thing (contamination of natural water due to a water leak) has happened on a system where cooling has been done in a doubly closed circuit.
It happened in the Ranger Uranium mine run by ERA. Untreated waste water leaked into the "clean" water supply and workers got sick immediately.Because of the radiation or because of the Uranium or other waste material? And that's not exactly a nuclear powerplant.

Besides you have to put that into a perspective...they mine gold using cyanide. Think of what would happen if that 'waste water' would leak into a clean water supply: One such leak killed *all* aquatic life in 27 kilometers of *flowing river*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summitville_mine

What's all the outrage about nuclear waste dumps? They're safe, and usually thousands of feet below ground, and in addition, they are a repository of waste from much-needed nuclear fuel.

Indeed, especially if you search for information of low level radioactivity on humans.

Which is why I'm inclined to believe the reports from Taiwan (and few other places) that 'low level' exposure is actually good for you: Some evidence > no evidence.

I think i'll maintain a healthy dose of skepticism anyway.


Solid bedrock. Takes care for the problem for at least a half-a-million years. The possible minute leaks are inconsequental and can actually be healthy if you're willing to accept that the virtually untested LNT theory of radioactivity is false.

The problem, though, is that this facility is above-ground.

We can with electricity...or even hydrogen.

You need the electricity to come from some source of power :p

Fuel cell tech ain't there yet....at least not in mass production use. Soon, hopefully, but not yet.

What's all the outrage about nuclear waste dumps? They're safe, and usually thousands of feet below ground, and in addition, they are a repository of waste from much-needed nuclear fuel.

This one is above-ground, the government lied to it's constituents, and it is going to be mostly the rest of the world's waste, not ours.

That's the outrage, pretty much.

Now, the facility is above ground. It's not a state-of-the-art underground buried under tunnels facility (like in Sweden). Basically a over-glorified tin shed with lots of steel containers. Just borrow some No. 8 wire. It'll get it sorted, you won't need the radioactive protection suits, the inanimate carbon rods...

People get very upset about anything "nuclear" or "radioactive", don't they? It's almost like they think that the first gamma ray that hits them will give them cancer, make them glow in the dark, and cause them to grow two more heads and tentacles.
Heaven forbid they learn how much radiation is emitted by the bricks their houses are made out of, or the granite it's built on...

Surely it's better to store it properly 200km away than improperly somewhere else?

I'd love to glow in the dark... or have extra appendages...:p

You can't trust Australian governments with respect to handling nuclear issues properly. Put some dumps in the NT and later we'll be having shiploads of higher level wastes turning up because they can make $$$ out of it. In 2010 or 2010, reprocessed nuclear rods from France will be returned to Australia - going to the NT.
Get ya self a David Longe, too bad ours had expired:(

I'm sure Chernobyl killed plenty more than 26 people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4028729.stm

At any rate, Germany has a number of storage facilities, and to my knowledge there haven't been any health problems.
And France is making a killing out of taking nuclear waste and turning some of it into usable fuel again.

I just don't see why Australians are ok with exporting Uranium Ore, but don't want to see the money they'd get if they finally started value-adding.