thoughts on the proposed nuclear waste "facility" in S.A.

[Sox]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

instead of trying to create trouble in an effort to brighten your day why not answer the posed questions and actually think about your side a bit more.

the so called attractions of nuclear dumping were expressed by other contributors earlier in the post, I suggest you read them.

one question just for you to ponder and possibly give a reasonable answer to....if it makes so much fiscal sense why hasn't ANYONE else in the world taken it up.

if you can't supply common sense answers and engage in a reasonable discussion then **** off.

You mad bro?

[Mowdit]

I these are the canisters
"[The canisters] have to be type-tested against a nine-metre drop, an 800-degree-Celsius fire for 30 minutes, a drop on a penetrating spike and the design basis was to withstand the impact of a fully laden fighter jet," he said."

Then do we really think his stuff is going to leak ?
(yes, I can almost see ANSTO from where Ive lived the last 5 years)

Why do we have to have a royal commission into every second thing (just someone with little idea asking a few questions whilst getting paid a motza)?
If SA want it, then fine, but the federal government shouldn't be "cashing in" on it (otherwise send it to Canberra! )

"In the past two decades Australia has sent eight shiploads of waste overseas to France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, to be processed for long-term storage."

Why dont we build a processing facility right next door to the storage facility too? Would mean more jobs !

Launch it into the sun............
Good one, people don't want it transported on a train/boat/truck.......
But put it on a space shuttle "challenger" style so that "IF" it explodes in the upper atmosphere we are all KAPUT !!!!!

Still didn't really answer though . Sorry Poppa Smurf

[castellan]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

On the table in South Australia is a proposed plan to build a nuclear waste dump up the other side of nowhere in South Australia.

This dump will take in the worlds waste, reminds me of something I heard a little while ago overseas "give me your poor, your sick your needy"........but theres money in it apparently.

I might be old fashioned but I'm against it, I'm on the side of "you produce it in your state, your nation, your country, then you deal with it".

but we are broke and if radiated garbage is the future then hand me my radiation suit.

we have tourism to think of, we have aquifers, natural wonders, aboriginal land, all will be in jeopardy I feel if this goes ahead.

then theres transport, accidents, long term storage, as in thousands if not millions of years, we won't be here by then.

Non political discussion please just personal thoughts.

You can use all the wast now in the latest modern nuclear power stations you know and the world has like 150 years of the stuff to use as it is and after they are finished with it, then the wast from that is deadly for bugger all.

I don't know why most people don't know this, Nuclear power nowadays can be just as safe as houses and if you had a problem like in Japan it would not of been a problem at all.

USA and most of the world use backward old crap that is like a T model ford compared with a new FGX Falcon.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by FPV+fteT3

Can anyone guarantee it wont find its way into the artesian basin and contaminate all our water? If not then why risk everything for a few $'s? No water, no farms, no food, no worries we can all eat out at maccas and drink coke.

#livingthedream

[MR REKLAW]

tonnes U percentage of world
Australia
1,706,100
29%
Kazakhstan
679,300
12%
Russian Fed
505,900
9%
Canada
493,900
8%
Niger
404,900
7%
Namibia
382,800
6%
South Africa
338,100
6%
Brazil
276,100
5%
USA
207,400
4%
China
199,100
4%
Mongolia
141,500
2%
Ukraine
117,700
2%
Uzbekistan
91,300
2%
Botswana
68,800
1%
Tanzania
58,500
1%
Jordan
33,800
1%
Other
191,500
3%
World total
5,902,500 These are 2013 figures, so there will be some differences,as we are now in 2016.

Unable to locate newer figures.


I can see why the pollies are big on this idea, will ensure there larger super pay outs.

But as Australia is one of the largest, suppliers of uranium.

There is some assumption, from people around the globe, that this country should contribute, to the disposal of said waste.

While this is by far and large a contentious issue, we as a country supply a raw material.

We do not use it our selves and certainly don't enrich it for reactor or weapons use.

So should we be storing it for other nations?

I think this is another knee jerk reaction, by a bunch of jerks, who cant be bothered finding a suitable solution, in there own country, because of its size or geological instability.

That they should be able to say,Australia only has a small population, in regards to land mass, therefore a nuclear waste facility, would be great for all us, nuclear producing countries, as it wont sully our back yards.

So my thoughts on this is, if you enrich it, you dispose of it, in your own back yard, not ours.

[Chopper06]

Oils
When this stuff gets in, you can not get it out

https://youtu.be/-5fCrUQDtkI

Worked at Lucas Heights in the early 90's & they were developing Synroc as a form of encapsulating waste material with plans to bury it deep in the outback. Not sure if its still going. The Frogs were starting to make noise back then as they were receiving all the worlds waste.

The life (or half life) of this stuff will be far beyond what is now deemed stable as far as the earths crust or ground water goes.

I don't think the ocean can cope with any of more of our waste without biting future generations on the ****.

One way ticket to the sun gets my vote.

[buggo]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

instead of trying to create trouble in an effort to brighten your day why not answer the posed questions and actually think about your side a bit more.

the so called attractions of nuclear dumping were expressed by other contributors earlier in the post, I suggest you read them.

one question just for you to ponder and possibly give a reasonable answer to....if it makes so much fiscal sense why hasn't ANYONE else in the world taken it up.

if you can't supply common sense answers and engage in a reasonable discussion then **** off.

Because no other country is as suitable to handle this as Australia is.

We have vast, excessive, barren, uninhabited, flat, stable land bigger than the size of most countries.
We are one of the few first-world (i.e trustworthy) nations with the means, capability and space to do this. That's why no one else has taken this up or been offered the opportunity.

Nuclear is the way of the future so we might as well set ourselves up early and enable some huge returns on investment in generations to come.

[Falcon SXR8]

Money money money $$$$$$$$$$$$ so many great decisions by humans have been made because of the "dollars". Most of them destroy the environment in some way and only put money in a few rich guys pockets. Go for it, lets put other nations nuclear waste in our ground, such a great idea.

Sometimes the risk aint worth the reward

My opinion anyway

[poppa smurf]

Originally Posted by buggo

Because no other country is as suitable to handle this as Australia is.

We have vast, excessive, barren, uninhabited, flat, stable land bigger than the size of most countries.
We are one of the few first-world (i.e trustworthy) nations with the means, capability and space to do this. That's why no one else has taken this up or been offered the opportunity.

Nuclear is the way of the future so we might as well set ourselves up early and enable some huge returns on investment in generations to come.

I agree that nuclear is a POSSIBLE future although it is down the list....however on the subject of countries accepting waste and suitability of that nation to do it capably I can think of at least three that are just as suitable as Australia in fact possibly more suitable.

America, with it's central deserts and uninhabited plains....basically a stable economy good infra structure..more than suitable.......they don't want it.

central China, relatively stable economy, central deserts uninhabited except for nomads......good ports and railway

Russia, reasonable economy, stable lifestyle, central deserts infra structure needs work....they don't want it.

then a possible fourth is India, developing country, relatively stable and with help could easily be a contender.

not one of these have put there hands up, they realise what an impossible ask it is.

the problem I am having (one of many on this subject after attending a couple of meetings now) is that this government, local, state and federal can't even produce a hospital, highway, freeway on time, on budget and meet longevity factors.

in our current line of thinking 100 years is a long time, when we accept this waste, and as shown by very good information above there will be a lot, the storage will be for tens of thousands of years if not millions (unthinkable time span)......we won't be here then but it will still be.

we can't get a building to last much more than a couple hundred years at best with current technology.......

the structure must be 100% water tight, air tight, bomb proof, earthquake proof and withstand terrorism attacks.....a very big ask of any building and nation never lone a little populated country like Australia with limited knowledge of external affairs.

Geoff, I couldn't agree more.

[Sar4890]

Geeze i can see our number plates now
"SA THE TOXIC STATE" im starting to wonder if The Flinders ranges is latin for dump your crap here.

[383hq]

I did go to the roadshows that are part of the consensus (?) building process for this.

1. My main concern is the "what can go wrong" during the transportation part of the process.
Train wrecks, truck crashes, and boat sinkings have occasionally occurred in the past...

2. I am less concerned, (but still concerned) about earth quakes and what might happen underground regarding the aquifers. Anyone, with any underground mining experience understands you just don't know what's down there, until you've sunk billions of dollars in cash creating portals, drifts, tunnels.
Prelim drilling only ever gives a spot sample of U/G conditions.

This link shows Australian government data for earth quakes in and around SA over the last year.

http://www.ga.gov.au/earthquakes/sea...&search=Search


I do balance this viewpoint with the prospect of jobs and income, other countries do this well, (as the commission advised) but the time frames involved are beyond anything we can comprehend with our (relatively) short mortality. Given Australia is one of the major U3O8 mining resources of the world, we could do the cradle to grave thing, but transportation...

May be less of a risk in decades to come with the the GE fast breeder reactors, or the Utopian dream of nuclear fusion development.

I don't think there will be as many jobs provided as we'd like to think, once the infrastructure is put in place

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by MR REKLAW

While this is by far and large a contentious issue, we as a country supply a raw material.

We do not use it our selves and certainly don't enrich it for reactor or weapons use.

So should we be storing it for other nations?

I used to think that too.
Then I went to hospital for a broken bone and was given a hospital acquired superbug.
I now get injected by "radioactive stuff" regularly.

You would be surprised how much of this gets used in Australia and even more scarily how it is stored.
Another poster mentioned it gets stored in hospital stairwells. Sadly he's not joking.

It's not all about bombs, this ***** saves lives.
We are also most definitely enriching it too. Just not for reasons that most might think.

It's a big problem and answers need to be found. A couple of lead bricks in a hospital doesn't cut it.

[Madaya]

Originally Posted by Chopper06

Oils
When this stuff gets in, you can not get it out

One way ticket to the sun gets my vote.

The Saturn 5 that sent Apollo to the Moon could deliver directly to the Sun, no more than a ton of anything at about $500 million per launch. Besides, a failure at launch would be devastating.
Nope, this gear is here to stay and if we can locate an area in Australia which precludes leaching into water tables, it's best to keep it here.

[MR REKLAW]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

I used to think that too.
Then I went to hospital for a broken bone and was given a hospital acquired superbug.
I now get injected by "radioactive stuff" regularly.

You would be surprised how much of this gets used in Australia and even more scarily how it is stored.
Another poster mentioned it gets stored in hospital stairwells. Sadly he's not joking.

It's not all about bombs, this ***** saves lives.
We are also most definitely enriching it too. Just not for reasons that most might think.

It's a big problem and answers need to be found. A couple of lead bricks in a hospital doesn't cut it.

In Response to your informative post,I will amend some of my statements.

So we do supply the largest amount of product to the world and yes we do obviously enrich some of it for medical use, not reactor or weapons use.

It appears then that architects of new and modern hospitals are remiss in there design of the building, for not including proper storage of medical nuclear products.This need to be addressed.

But to address the title of this thread, should we be storing other countries nuclear waste?NO

As there is hundreds of such facilities world wide, each producing around 16 tonne of waste every year and most of those have temporary storage facilities.

Why are they then looking at Australia to provide them with long term storage.

It is some what ironic that, the SA government is even considering this, given that the population and previous successive political, parties have said no to producing power, this way in our country.

The USA who has the majority of nuclear power plants and submersible craft powered by said technology, are not prepared to keep there waste in there own back yard, even though they have a large one.

Having done some reading on this matter, of storage it has been highlighted that the unknown damage to a nuclear reactor, from constant neutron bombardment has only been studied for about the last ten years and no formal findings have yet been released.

So how can any country say yes we can, safely store your material, when the great unknown of structural degradation has not yet been addressed.

So I will say again, you enrich it for reactor use, you dispose of it, in your own back yard, not ours.

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

yep and see the damage that has left behind, still not allowed in there and won't be for thousands of years,

I can tell you have never been to Maralinga or the Monties.

Maralinga is able to be visited and is regularly. There is a few spots that are "risky" but are well marked and fenced. The clean up crew in the 90's lived there with no issue and the water used on site for drinking, washing down etc was from the local bores. Contamination was negligible and treatable by Reverse Osmosis.

The Monte Bello Islands are regularly visited and have been since the 1990's as well. Some of the best fishing in WA is done around these islands and numerous charters are run around these islands. We stayed 3 nights on Trimouille Island where the first detonation of a nuclear device in Australia happened and even dived the blast crater in the bay with no side effects or contamination. Trimouille Island is one of the best turtle breeding grounds for 3 headed turtles (just kidding) it is a turtle reserve.

They rebuilt Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[poppa smurf]

did the maralinga "tour" about 5 years ago as a matter of fact.......

[castellan]

Originally Posted by MR REKLAW

In Response to your informative post,I will amend some of my statements.

So we do supply the largest amount of product to the world and yes we do obviously enrich some of it for medical use, not reactor or weapons use.

It appears then that architects of new and modern hospitals are remiss in there design of the building, for not including proper storage of medical nuclear products.This need to be addressed.

But to address the title of this thread, should we be storing other countries nuclear waste?NO

As there is hundreds of such facilities world wide, each producing around 16 tonne of waste every year and most of those have temporary storage facilities.

Why are they then looking at Australia to provide them with long term storage.

It is some what ironic that, the SA government is even considering this, given that the population and previous successive political, parties have said no to producing power, this way in our country.

The USA who has the majority of nuclear power plants and submersible craft powered by said technology, are not prepared to keep there waste in there own back yard, even though they have a large one.

Having done some reading on this matter, of storage it has been highlighted that the unknown damage to a nuclear reactor, from constant neutron bombardment has only been studied for about the last ten years and no formal findings have yet been released.

So how can any country say yes we can, safely store your material, when the great unknown of structural degradation has not yet been addressed.

So I will say again, you enrich it for reactor use, you dispose of it, in your own back yard, not ours.

Look into the new Generation 3 and 4 plaints, in only a bit over 200 years all the wast is fine.

The Gen 3 and 4 use the old wast, because the old Gen system only uses under less than 10% of the potential of the fuel.

So that means we don't have to dig up any more for 150 years, as we have 150 years of fuel sitting as so called wast, that so called wast, it's all good fuel in the new tec Generators.

Why would anyone want to give that wast away, it's good stuff to use, only the old crap Generators are just backwards rubbish.

The world sat back and did not invest in upgrading the first type plants for years, some what like Cuba and it's cars.

The madness was all directed into making bombs, just think if all the money spent on madness like that, only went into up dating power stations.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by bungarra

I can tell you have never been to Maralinga or the Monties.

Maralinga is able to be visited and is regularly. There is a few spots that are "risky" but are well marked and fenced. The clean up crew in the 90's lived there with no issue and the water used on site for drinking, washing down etc was from the local bores. Contamination was negligible and treatable by Reverse Osmosis.

The Monte Bello Islands are regularly visited and have been since the 1990's as well. Some of the best fishing in WA is done around these islands and numerous charters are run around these islands. We stayed 3 nights on Trimouille Island where the first detonation of a nuclear device in Australia happened and even dived the blast crater in the bay with no side effects or contamination. Trimouille Island is one of the best turtle breeding grounds for 3 headed turtles (just kidding) it is a turtle reserve.

They rebuilt Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Some of the areas can be toured but please read the signs at what risk you are taking & you actually believe what the authorities say that it is really safe, sorry I won't takes risks when it is known that past & present Governments of Australia are known to have lied about these matters.

[Itsme]

In my opinion Australia should never be a dumping ground for other nations problems regardless of what money can be generated, if something goes wrong then we will be the bunnies living with the mess, ******* the new world order!!!

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by MR REKLAW

In Response to your informative post,I will amend some of my statements.

So we do supply the largest amount of product to the world and yes we do obviously enrich some of it for medical use, not reactor or weapons use.

It appears then that architects of new and modern hospitals are remiss in there design of the building, for not including proper storage of medical nuclear products.This need to be addressed.

But to address the title of this thread, should we be storing other countries nuclear waste?NO

As there is hundreds of such facilities world wide, each producing around 16 tonne of waste every year and most of those have temporary storage facilities.

Why are they then looking at Australia to provide them with long term storage.

It is some what ironic that, the SA government is even considering this, given that the population and previous successive political, parties have said no to producing power, this way in our country.

The USA who has the majority of nuclear power plants and submersible craft powered by said technology, are not prepared to keep there waste in there own back yard, even though they have a large one.

Having done some reading on this matter, of storage it has been highlighted that the unknown damage to a nuclear reactor, from constant neutron bombardment has only been studied for about the last ten years and no formal findings have yet been released.

So how can any country say yes we can, safely store your material, when the great unknown of structural degradation has not yet been addressed.

So I will say again, you enrich it for reactor use, you dispose of it, in your own back yard, not ours.

It can't be and shouldn't be stored in hospitals, even though it is.

The waste is a security issue and if people only knew of the gaping big hole we have we wouldn't be buying $50 billion planes. It's quite absurd.

We do need somewhere in the outback that is very secure.
Government shouldn't be even discussing this, it would be better if no-one knew of the site. They should just go ahead and do it. If terrorists had half a brain we would be in trouble.

Agree with the rest of your post though, we shouldn't be storing others crap.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

It can't be and shouldn't be stored in hospitals, even though it is.

The waste is a security issue and if people only knew of the gaping big hole we have we wouldn't be buying $50 billion planes. It's quite absurd.

We do need somewhere in the outback that is very secure.
Government shouldn't be even discussing this, it would be better if no-one knew of the site. They should just go ahead and do it. If terrorists had half a brain we would be in trouble.

Agree with the rest of your post though, we shouldn't be storing others crap.

I have no problem in storing for other countries where the politics are a bit volatile and it could fall into the wrong hands. At least out the middle of no-where it would be secure on both fronts. And it would be more preferable than have in floating around the world looking for safe storage. Besides, does it matter if we store 100 tons or 1000 tons?

[castellan]

Originally Posted by trublu

In my opinion Australia should never be a dumping ground for other nations problems regardless of what money can be generated, if something goes wrong then we will be the bunnies living with the mess, ******* the new world order!!!

The New World Order with do as it likes, as votes will have no power to sway at all.
You will do as they see fit, or they will call you a races, bigot and all the rest of the rubbish they go on with, you can't this you can't that, because big bro the fruit loop says so and the majority will be too gutless to say boo.

[nstg8a]

I wonder how many ships are out there just sailing the earth because no one wants the cargo...

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by trublu

Some of the areas can be toured but please read the signs at what risk you are taking & you actually believe what the authorities say that it is really safe, sorry I won't takes risks when it is known that past & present Governments of Australia are known to have lied about these matters.

Having been involved with the clean up, I would say more people get radiation exposure from their leaking microwave (when did you last do a 2 yearly check?) than visiting these sites, If you have never done one, get a specialist and check your microwave, you could be cooking your family, not just your dinner.

If your stupid enough to pick up and take home anything from a current or for a military weapons site your an idiot. There is more contamination around Australia and the world form "normal" explosives including current and former mine sites.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by bungarra

Having been involved with the clean up, I would say more people get radiation exposure from their leaking microwave (when did you last do a 2 yearly check?) than visiting these sites, If you have never done one, get a specialist and check your microwave, you could be cooking your family, not just your dinner.

If your stupid enough to pick up and take home anything from a current or for a military weapons site your an idiot. There is more contamination around Australia and the world form "normal" explosives including current and former mine sites.

Hate to disappoint you but Microwaves is nothing like radiation from radioactive poisonous material, getting yourself confused, I'm not saying microwaves is not dangerous if exposed to high frequency transmitters.

[RegSpec]

I think the idea has merit actually......the fees we would charge other countries to store waste would transform our economy, create a heap of jobs and secure the stuff from being stored at many locations around the world where it could create a lot more problems.
And what about this idea......how about a couple of nuclear powered desal plants....say, one in S.A and another in N.T.......pumping fresh water into central Australia?......can you imagine the possibilities?
Some of the most fertile areas of our country, abeit with little water.....we could increase our homegrown product a hundred fold?......

[poppa smurf]

Originally Posted by bungarra

Having been involved with the clean up, I would say more people get radiation exposure from their leaking microwave (when did you last do a 2 yearly check?) than visiting these sites, If you have never done one, get a specialist and check your microwave, you could be cooking your family, not just your dinner.

If your stupid enough to pick up and take home anything from a current or for a military weapons site your an idiot. There is more contamination around Australia and the world form "normal" explosives including current and former mine sites.

not what the tour guide told us.......pretty sure he'd know.

[poppa smurf]

Originally Posted by RegSpec

I think the idea has merit actually......the fees we would charge other countries to store waste would transform our economy, create a heap of jobs and secure the stuff from being stored at many locations around the world where it could create a lot more problems.
And what about this idea......how about a couple of nuclear powered desal plants....say, one in S.A and another in N.T.......pumping fresh water into central Australia?......can you imagine the possibilities?
Some of the most fertile areas of our country, abeit with little water.....we could increase our homegrown product a hundred fold?......

hardly think 5 billion will transform much at all, cost more than that to build, never lone run, the power and infrastructure for that power would be astronomical, then pipes and infrastructure for irrigation and purchase of land from aboriginals......we already have a desal plant that cost us a fortune to build and is costing us a fortune to run even though we don't use it (figure that one out), government owned at this point.

the amount of water needed to transform the centre would be astronomical.......certainly couldn't be made with so called profits from taking in plutonium (half life of 24,500 years).

this stuff is bad news, I know it is needed and currently stored badly but any country that is stupid enough to take it on will pay for ever.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by olfella

I have no problem in storing for other countries where the politics are a bit volatile and it could fall into the wrong hands. At least out the middle of no-where it would be secure on both fronts. And it would be more preferable than have in floating around the world looking for safe storage. Besides, does it matter if we store 100 tons or 1000 tons?

The countries I can think of where the politics are a bit volatile also have the bomb. In those cases I think the waste is the least of our problems.

We would easily be storing 1000 tonnes ourselves. So where does it stop, 100,000 tonnes, a million tonnes?

Is the outback as outback as most people think? There are cattle/sheep stations out there by the thousands. That's all agricultural land.
My neighbour bought up Warrowagine station which is 1.3 million acres east of Marble Bar. It's as outback as you can get. When I visit he flies me in.
Robin is now growing grain up there.
Marble Bar is officially known as the hottest place on earth.
http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/ag...s/2680629.aspx

http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/ag...n/2749758.aspx


I'm a bit sick of watching our country being sold off for a pittance and the environment taking a back seat to anything that involves money. Which is usually a pittance.
Yet I'm no greenie.

Just to reiterate. I think we need a storage area...but for US.

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

not what the tour guide told us.......pretty sure he'd know.

Tour guides are not trained in radio-logical control or management. They are paid to point things out and prevent souvenir hunters.
Did you have a dosimeter on you during your tour to ensure you weren't over exposed? Did you require to shower for decontamination prior to leaving? If not, then his spiel of danger meant nothing. This is basic stuff you have to do when leaving contaminated areas like Chernobyl and even now, that requirement is less likely unless you go close to the damaged reactor.

Even a tour of Ranger Uranium Mine in non active areas you still wear a dosimeter.

Even processing mineral sands creates more radiation than that is detectable at Marlainga or the Monties.

Even the original Trinity site of the Manhattan Project is now decontaminated and a tourist attraction and as it is still part of a military test range has set open days.