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 > 3rd Minister in two years to handle Australia’s nuclear waste dump > Comments

3rd Minister in two years to handle Australia’s nuclear waste dump : Comments

By Anica Niepraschk, published 22/7/2016

Matt Canavan has now the opportunity to correct these mistakes and engage in a truly inclusive and transparent process which actually listens to the concerns of the community.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Well as long as massive misinformation is rewritten as "knowledge"! we'll just go forever backwards!

Yes, it is dangerous stuff and needs to be handled intelligently by folks who know what they're doing. and debate needs to be fully informed. Rather than led by the nose like some dumb farm animal that can be dragged hither and tither to achieve an outcome, not necessarily in the led animal's best interest!

Even so, accompanied by belligerent bellowing and big buckets of BS!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 22 July 2016 10:22:49 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
The problem with the debate is that those in opposition to the project are misinformed so that no agreement will ever be possible. A good site would be in the South Gippsland hills where no aboriginal has ever set foot and some local landholder might welcome some extra income.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 22 July 2016 11:40:05 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
OLO has again published an article written by and for Friends of the Earth, an organisation which has demonstrated consistently over the years that they have no interest in balanced, rational, fact-based discussion about the real and pressing problems involving nuclear waste management and disposal.

If FOE have ever published a positive, practical proposal regarding nuclear waste, I have yet to see it. My experience has been that they latch onto real and imaginary side issues which they use as bricks in a wall around their position, which can usually be described by the word "NO!"

FOE is an example of the type of organisation that must be excluded from the debate if the purpose is to find an optimal path to the issue of radioactive waste sources, management and fates.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Friday, 22 July 2016 11:51:58 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
It follows that many people are already being disrespected since they live within a kilometre of the scattered places this material currently resides. That includes hospitals, universities, industrial processors and Lucas Heights.

I find it odd that the Hawker SA indigenous people use the same expressions as those from Muckaty NT. You'd almost think they were being co-ordinated by city folks or perhaps it's a coincidence like Mrs Trump and Mrs Obama using the same speech. In contrast other indigenous groups seem happy to accept a role for the nuclear industry
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/UF-Wiluna-traditional-owners-sign-agreement-0707167.html
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 22 July 2016 4:42:48 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
The problem with the nuclear proponents who regularly comment on this site is that their so-called arguments are laughable. It is really not convincing to learn that anti-nuclear opinions can be discarded, because they come from "misinformed" people.

If the author of an article is connected with Friends of the Earth, does that automatically negate any opinion that she has?

In the present case, the writer is not even really opposing the federal government's plan to set up a nuclear waste dump, to take in the intermediate level waste that is returning from France and UK. She is merely arguing for a serious scrutiny of the process, and a genuine consideration of Aboriginal concerns.
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Saturday, 23 July 2016 11:02:59 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
ChristinaMac1 seems to have read a different article to the one at the head of this comments thread.

Where did the writer advocate management of nuclear waste? It was 100% negative.

I'd really appreciate something positive and practical from FOE regarding energy futures for our poor, tired and dirty globe. I really would. It could be the starting point for a fruitful discussion. However, my wait has been in vain because FOE determined its policies many years back and shows no signs of change.

Perhaps a starting point could be just a little advocacy for realistic safety regimes for nuclear wastes. I could go on, but in a polarised discussion, progress can only be achieved by folk who are willing to seek out points of agreement and to proceed from there.

The never-ending negativity of FOE is matched by its unthinking enthusiasm for unworkable "solar plus wind only" energy systems. South Australia's current twin electricity woes of unreliable supply and escalating prices are real world, painful example of where that leads to. Where is FOE in the discussion of ways to avoid the hardships that are being inflicted on SA's industries and population due to the decisions taken years back regarding their electricity supply industry?

Where is FOE's comment regarding the increasing reliance on bigger interconnectors to bring high-CO2 brown coal power from Victoria?
Posted by JohnBennetts, Saturday, 23 July 2016 11:03:03 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
Christina,

The problem with friends of the earth and their ilk is that essentially what they peddle are half truths and vast exaggerations.

There are two levels of waste dump being sought, the first is for a place to store low level waste (which makes up the vast majority of waste) which is generally the clothing and protective equipment used for handling radioactive materials, nearly all of which will have no measurable contamination. Quite contrary to the claim that this material remains "hazardous for hundreds and thousands of years" the reality is that if you buried yourself neck deep in this waste for a day you would suffer less radiation exposure than walking 20 mins in the sun.

Secondly the desire to get complete and unanimous consent from every single aboriginal group in the area is a clear attempt at sabotage, as this has never occurred for any reason. A majority representing > 60% is more than democratic.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 24 July 2016 11:29:49 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
Shock! Horror! An industrial process has dangerous waste by products!? Wow. This is somehow news?

Solar PV uses the "heavy metal cadmium, which is both a carcinogen and a genotoxin, meaning that it can cause inheritable mutations."
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think

Also:
"Many of the solar panels that now adorn European and American rooftops have left behind a legacy of toxic pollution in Chinese villages and farmlands.

The Post article describes how Luoyang Zhonggui, a major Chinese polysilicon manufacturer, is dumping toxic factory waste directly on to the lands of neighboring villages, killing crops and poisoning residents. Other polysilicon factories in the country have similar problems, either because they have not installed effective pollution control equipment or they are not operating these systems to full capacity."
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650

But FOE LOVE Solar PV! Surely, following the same logic, we should ban Solar PV the way they've banned nuclear because there are some waste products?

The bottom line? I'd rather LIVE in a low, no, let's make that high level radioactive waste bunker than live in a quaint Chinese village next to a Solar PV farm. Why? Because the high level waste bunker would be over-engineered to the nth degree for safety because everyone is so utterly paranoid about the word 'radiation', (newsflash: people are radioactive!), while the Chinese solar manufacturers are just dumping cadmium in the river or neighbour's farm.

The project of civilisation has wastes. We know how to deal with it. Let's build the fastest way to wean off fossil fuels, which is nuclear, and get over the fact that there will be a tiny amount of waste. (Approximately 1 golf ball per human lifespan, cradle to grave!)
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 24 July 2016 12:46:56 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
PS: There was a typo.

I accidentally said 'solar farm' when I meant 'solar factory. Everyone knows Solar PV farms or rooftops are relatively clean. It's their manufacture that hides the ugly truth. I'll try again. To be absolutely clear:

I'd rather live in a high-level nuclear waste dump than next to a solar *factory* because of all the toxic junk and cadmium that factory would likely be dumping on me if I were a Chinese farmer.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 24 July 2016 2:46:55 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
Two things. The aboriginals never "Managed" their land. They were mostly hunter gatherers and just lived alongside the fauna and flora. Put anything up and two clans tribes, whatever you like will have a fight about it. The yes no interlude I call it. You can try and glorify their stone age existence but they were living marginal lives.
Being an Atheist I also cannot go along with any "Spiritual" claptrap either. That is my opinion, for what it is worth.
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 24 July 2016 9:45:38 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
The following countries either already recycle spent fuel or are experimenting with a recycling process or both:
France, Japan Russia, China, India, South Korea. Spent fuel is worth trillions of dollars eventually. That is why it is illegal to dump it in the ocean for 50 years.
The US recycled spent fuel in the 1960s.  We don't recycle nuclear fuel now for two reasons:

1. It is valuable and people steal it. The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to was Israel. This happened in a small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. [I almost took a job there in 1968, designing a nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker.]

2. Virgin uranium is so cheap that it is cheaper than recycling.

Please read this Book: "Plentiful Energy, The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor" by Charles E. Till and Yoon Il Chang, 2011. You can download this book free from: http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf.

Charles E. Till and Yoon Il Chang, are former directors of the nuclear power research lab at Argonne National Lab near Chicago.
Get another free book from: http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/prescription-for-the-planet.html

Per Till & Chang: The Integral Fast Reactor [IFR] uses "nuclear waste" as fuel and gets many times as much energy out of a pound of uranium as the Generation 2 reactors we are using now. The IFR is safer than the Generation 2 reactors, which are safer by far than coal. The IFR is commercially available from GEHitachiPRISM.com

Coal kills 3 million people per year.
Posted by Asteroid Miner, Monday, 25 July 2016 11:11:33 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
Stayin’ alive in the gene pool – Part I  
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/11/01/stayin-alive-gene-pool-p1/

Stayin’ alive in the gene pool – Part II
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/11/08/stayin-alive-gene-pool-p2/

Stayin’ alive in the gene pool – Part III
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/11/15/stayin-alive-gene-pool-p3/

Natural Background Radiation has always been everywhere.

Where did natural background radiation come from? The universe started out with only 3 elements: hydrogen, helium and lithium. All other elements were made in stars or by supernova explosions. Our star is a seventh generation star. The previous 6 generations were necessary for the elements heavier than lithium to be built up. Since heavier elements were built by radiation processes, they were very radioactive when first made.

Our planet was made of the debris of a supernova explosion that happened about 5 billion years ago. The Earth has been decreasing in radioactivity ever since. All elements heavier than iron were necessarily made by accretion of mostly neutrons but sometimes protons onto lighter nuclei. Radioactive decays were necessary to bring these new nuclei into the realm of nuclear stability. That is why all rocks are still radioactive.

Radiation also comes from outer space in the form of cosmic rays. Cosmic rays come from supernovas that are very far away. There will always be cosmic rays.
Posted by Asteroid Miner, Monday, 25 July 2016 11:18:13 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
Coal contains: URANIUM and all of the decay products of uranium, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, THORIUM, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable ores. We should be able to get all the uranium and thorium we need to fuel nuclear power plants for centuries using coal cinders and smoke as ore. Unburned Coal and crude oil also contain
BENZENE, THE CANCER CAUSER. We could get all of our uranium and thorium from coal ashes and cinders. The carbon content of coal ranges from 96% down to 25%, the remainder being rock of various kinds.
If you are an underground coal miner, you may be in violation of the rules for radiation workers. The uranium decay chain includes the radioactive gas RADON, which you are breathing. Radon decays in about a day into polonium, the super-poison.

Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning in days, not years because Chinese industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic.

Yes, that ARSENIC is getting into the air you breathe, the water you drink and the soil your food grows in. So are all of those other heavy metal poisons. Your health would be a lot better without coal. Benzene is also found in petroleum. If you have cancer, check for benzene in your past.
See:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
or
http://clearnuclear.blogspot.com
in case the ORNL site does not work.

Make coal fired power plants meet the same requirements on radiation release that nuclear power plants have to meet. Coal fired power plants give you 100 to 400 times as much radiation as nuclear plants.
Posted by Asteroid Miner, Monday, 25 July 2016 11:25:00 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. 3
  5. All

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