The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Managing Australia's radioactive waste > Comments

Managing Australia's radioactive waste : Comments

By Jim Green, published 12/8/2014

How should Australia manage radioactive waste? The short answer is that there is no obvious approach − hence the need for an independent Commission of Inquiry.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Jim Green's article demonstrates indeed the paradox of Australia's federal governments' insistence on the need for a central repositary for radioactive trash, while in reality, passing off the problem of existing radioactive wastes as a responsibility of the States.

Jim Green makes the most sensible suggestion - for the government to seriously face up to the question of radioactive trash management, by setting up an independent Commission of Inquiry.

Other questions arise from facing up to this issue. We know that Australia is legally bound to take back the Lucas Heights high level wastes that were processed overseas.

But why continue to produce this radioactive trash?

Medical isotopes can be made in other ways, not requiring a nuclear reactor. That might cost more, in the short run. But looking at the experience overseas - it's clear that in the long run, dealing with radioactive wastes from nuclear reactors is heinously expensive.

Anyway, the production of radiopharmaceuticals at Lucas Heights is very much a secondary function there - tacked on to give it respectability.
Australia has a great opportunity - to shut down its one nuclear reactor, and remain firmly in line with the great majority of world nations - as a nuclear-free country, exporting clean agricultural products.
Posted by Noel.Wauchope, Tuesday, 12 August 2014 10:21:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a great ideas.

Well a great idea if you think we need yet another multi million dollar commission, staffed by a bunch of idiot academics, green activists, & lawyers.

Even better would be the new Quango it would recommend to control nuclear waste. That should provide lots of jobs for do nothing academics, & have a billion dollar or so budget.

You can't skimp on these talk fests you know.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 12 August 2014 11:10:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim Green asking for an independent review? The same Jim Green who rejects anything that does not agree with the Friends of the Earth storyline? The one who cites his own unreviewed on-line postings in order to add a veneer of fake respectability to his subsequent writings?

An independent review satisfactory to Jim Green would be one where he would first hand pick the reviewers and then hand pick the facts.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Tuesday, 12 August 2014 11:28:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't see the problem, encase it all in concrete and drop it to the ocean floor at the subduction borders, it will eventually be absorbed into the mantle beneath, putting it well beyond any possible threat to humanity.
Posted by G'dayBruce, Tuesday, 12 August 2014 12:04:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In reply to Hasbeen and JohnBennetts
First - I am surprised that anyone would see it as such a trivial matter that radioactive trash management does not need a serious independent inquiry - seeing that successive governments over several years have tried to put a radioactive dump on Aboriginal land, and wasted much time, energy and tax-payer money in that effort.

Secondly, if JohnBennetts is so confident of this "deep ocean" radioactive waste solution, - it's also surprising that USA, UK, Japan, Finland, Sweden have all rejected this idea.
So far, Russia is the one country that has used the ocean dumping plan, and in this has brought on a whole heap of problems in the Arctic Ocean.

Thirdly, it seems that JohnBennetts, unable to answer the quite conservative and reasoned argument by Jim Green, has resorted to the time honoured tactic of the pro nuclear lobby, of denigrating him, rather than attempting to assess his argument.
Posted by Noel.Wauchope, Tuesday, 12 August 2014 12:30:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry it was not JohnBennetts, but G'dayBruce who put up the "deep ocean radioactive dumping" idea.
Posted by Noel.Wauchope, Tuesday, 12 August 2014 12:32:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How should Australia manage radioactive waste? The short answer is that there is no obvious approach; hence the need for an independent Commission of Inquiry."

The real short answer is "like everybody else".
Posted by Tombee, Tuesday, 12 August 2014 12:56:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If there were to be a commission or whatever to examine the issue(s) it would of necessity have to examine the best information re the risk of radiation various levels to the humans and others. Noel et al would hold to the belief/credulity that ANY level of radioactivity is dangerous. I, and others would rely on the heavy duty analyses of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl etc which all, without exception contend that no level below 100mSv constitutes a risk a all.
It would be fatuous to examine anything to do with nuclear waste or other nuclear issue including power in the absence of a firm scientific decision on the fundamental issue - what level of radiation, if any, is safe?
Posted by eyejaw, Tuesday, 12 August 2014 3:38:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh God.

The invitro solution was great.

Then dump the stuff back the hole it came from. As it is now depleted, it will be as safe, particularly in vitro, as it was before it was dug up.

There you are, problem solved, & for free without making a bunch of drongos rich sitting on their brains in a commission.

Then start developing a technique to get the stuff back. It will become valuable again sometime, if we humans last that long.

Next problem please.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 12 August 2014 4:34:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You mistake me, I suggested dropping it on the subduction zone, not just at the bottom of the sea.
Over time the containers would be carried down through the crust, that's what that zone is doing constantly, and which is how the long-term safety requirement is satisfied.
Posted by G'dayBruce, Tuesday, 12 August 2014 7:33:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I remember viewing a news item a few years ago about Finland building a huge nuclear waste repository inside a mountain in a remote part of the country, and if that's the case, why bother setting up a commission to address that question here?
Posted by SHRODE, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 10:23:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy