People who always know best are hardly ever likely or even capable of listening to the wisdom of others!

For some the spectre of storing radioactive waste will continue to remain a totally no go entirely irrational emotive issue!

To the point they will oppose it with their last breath!

What is required is the inescapable facts and a logical response, followed by just getting on and getting the job done!

Even if that means the minority opposition is challenged with bean bag rounds and pump action shotguns

And exactly What we pay our so called leaders for, regardless of the hyperventilated hysteria!
Rhrosty.

From "Since over twenty years..." onwards this is a brave attempt by Ms Niepraschk to write in English as a second language.

Oh! And let all us "voluntarists" hold hands and sing Kumbaya.*

Sing it Anica https://youtu.be/QKAolQ0yxIo .

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya

Macfarlane could always nominate his own land. Failing that, the way the Whetherill Labor government is driving jobs and industry from S.A, it will soon be declared terra nullius, and he can have the lot for nothing.

(from Noel Wauchope)
Anica Niepraschk's article makes complete sense.

Australia must face up to the reality that its radioactive trash that originated in Lucas Heights must come back to this country.
It's not a large amount, and probably could be safely stored at Lucas Heights.

Relatively safely, that is, because it will remain toxic for thousands of years.

Australians need to wake up to the distinction between this situation, of legal obligation to have wastes returned, and the cranky South Australian plan to be the only nation in the world to actually INVITE in the world's radioactive trash.

In a reasonable world, in which future generations are considered, the sane thing to do is to shut down the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, and stop making this trash.

The cry will rise up - "medical benefits, blah blah". Well the medical isotope thing was the fig leaf tacked on to the nuclear reactor. Medical isotopes can be made by a speciaLised cyclotron, as is being done in Canada. Sure, that's expensive, FOR THIS GENERATION. The current system's plan is to pass on the costs to our grandchildren and beyond. So yes, it LOOKS cheaper.

Hi Noel Wauchope/ChristinaMac1

I agree with your stand against nuclear waste dumps and against nuclear reactors.

My problem is how the tone of articles like Anica Niepraschk's gives the anti-nuclear movement a bad name of being full of airy-fairy, visionary dorks.

Niepraschk has clearly seized the voluntarist cause of voluntarism with both hands voluntarily. It may be besotting and no doubt liberating for her, but as a persuasive approach it looks "lets all hold hands, Kumbaya".

(from Noel Wauchope) Thank you Plantagenet. You make a very good case here about "lets all hold hands, Kumbaya".

It reflects a dilemma that I've been having: is it better to "sock it to 'em" with the truly horrific facts about the nuclear industry?
Or is it better to take a softly softly approach, which will not alienate people?

Those who do go along with this apparently so "reasonable" approach do seem, to me, to have an effect of slowing down the progress of the nuclear juggernaut.

Time is money for the nuclear industry, as the French company AREVA has found out - with its boondoggles in Finland and Flamanville. As renewables become ever cheaper, the whole nuclear fuel chain looks ever less viable.

So there's role for the Anica Niepraschks and the David Lochbaums.
So, I oscillate between the two approaches. But yes, spelling out the reality is really best.