"Unless someone can point out a mine in Australia where this isn't happening, I don't see there could be a problem."

1. Budget funds clean-up of old uranium mine sites in Kakadu National Park

Peter Costello says $7 million has been allowed to clean up parts of the Northern Territory's Kakadu National Park, which have been contaminated by uranium mining,. (ABC 2006)

2. Rockhole mine tailings washed into river

An internal report from the Office of the Supervising Scientist says tailings from an old uranium mine in Kakadu National Park are being washed into the river system and on to a tourist road. The report, obtained by the ABC, says tailings from the Rockhole mine which have risen to the surface are being washed into the South Alligator River and are mixing with the dust on the Gunlom Falls Road. (ABC News 6 June 2000)

3. State Member for Mount Isa Tony McGrady says people are ignoring warning signs at the Mary Kathleen open cut and tailings dam. McGrady says he is concerned about the number of people still swimming at the old uranium mine between Mount Isa and Cloncurry. (ABC 26 Oct. 2004)

Not surprising to see the usual lack of fencing at mine sites.

4. The Northern Territory Government has returned 96% of a clean-up bond on the former Nabarlek uranium mine, despite scientists' warnings that progress was "far from ideal".

The government released $9.6 million of a $10 million bond in September 2003 to Pioneer International, which mined the east Arnhem Land ore body.

But it was done without consulting the Commonwealth's Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS) and despite the concerns of the OSS and other experts over rehabilitation progress on-site.

Acting chief supervising scientist Alex Zapantis said the OSS was surprised to discover the territory had released the money without consultation, and raised its concerns at a meeting earlier that month.

And much, much more.....!

Sadly, disreputable luddites cling to a dangerous and obsolete technology, hanging out with dinosaurs to perpetuate falsehoods as an obstacle to 21st century enlightenment.

Graham Y and others, here is the Wikipedia entry on "Geothermal gradient":

"The geothermal gradient is the rate at which the Earth's temperature increases with depth, indicating outward heat flows from a hot interior. Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is 25-30°C per km of depth in most of the world.[1]

"Strictly speaking, geo-thermal necessarily refers to the Earth but the concept may be applied to other planets. The Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%).[2] The major heat-producing isotopes in the Earth are potassium-40, uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232.[3]"

For the complete article and citations, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient

Geothermal heat seems to me a benign use of natural radioactivity.

Those with a nose for old magazines may find, in the April 1981 issue of Scientific American, the article "Catastrophic Releases of Radioactivity". It compares reactor accidents, thermonuclear weapon detonations, and thermonuclear weapons that target reactors. A 1-megaton bomb that destroys a 1-gigawatt reactor, "for example an attack on a reactor in the Rhine-Neckar River valley could render uninhabitable about ...[32,000 square miles for a month or more] ...". (page 33) The authors are Stephen A. Fetter and Kosta Tsipis, acknowledged experts on such matters.

Further discussion of this article is at
http://www.mmmfiles.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=31

The spread of nuclear electricity is inextricably linked with the spread of nuclear weapons. I expect it is only a matter of time before the nuclear apologists have something very big, messy and radioactive to apologise and prevaricate about - as though Chernobyl isn’t enough.

Well, I've read some pretty flaccid defences of nukes in my time but this dribble fest just about takes the cake.

No-one has yet mentioned the on going costs of managing nuclear waste.

Where is the discussion of Yucca Mountain? If the US can't solve the nuclear waste problem, who can? You?

One dirty bomb in your CBD can ruin you whole millenium. What would that cost, or, what will it cost to manage nuke waste 24 X 7 X 365 X 10,000? Why isn't this cost incorporated into the economics of nuclear energy? It's just another instance of privatise the profit and socialise the costs to brain dead taxpayers.

I've had pro-nuke idiots try to tell me that nuclear waste doesn't contaminate materials used for its containment and we can just dig a really deep hole and bury it.

As a "naive innocent" I'd like to issue an invitation. If you want to convince me about the safety of nuclear energy and its waste products, volunteer to carry a suppository of "low level" nuclear waste for a year. I'll even let you define "low level nuclear waste". If you're game, I might think about considering nukes as an energy option...provided you pass the psychological tests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Decay_chains_and_multiple_modes

What nearly everyone forgets is that there is a constant level of background radiation. The carbon in the body has a significant portion of the isotope carbon 14 which comes from the interaction of nitrogen with cosmic rays.

Uranium 238 has such a long decay time that a geiger counter would find a tree more active than the uranium. After 10 000 years even the unprocessed fuel rods level of radioactivity will have dropped to within an order of magnitude of the back ground radiation. Which makes it far from "damned dangerous"

The whole point of reprocessing spent fuel is two fold: The worst radioactive isotopes are removed, and the remaining uranium can be re enriched to be used in the process again. This means that there is a fraction of the waste, and the waste starts off at a tiny fraction of the radioactivity.

As for the tailings, the control at the uranium mines in Aus means that less toxic waste gets into the environment that at any other mine.

I have been avidly following geodynamics, (the only viable base load alternative to nuclear) and to quote monty python "all of a sudden nothing happenned."

The $42bn that Rudd squandered could have built 4 multi reactor power stations by 2010.

@Shadow Minister: The $42bn that Rudd squandered could have built 4 multi reactor power stations by 2010.

I realise it is just a cheap throw away line Shadow, but ye gods - even for a cheap shot this is really bad.

Reactors typically take around 4 years to build and you are suggesting we would get them in what - 2 years?. From the wikipedia article all take more than 3 years, and if things go wrong it can be 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants Prior to that there is usually years of political wrangling and nimby'ism over where to site the things.

On top of that, to Rudd money had to be spent quickly, at the start of the GFC. There is no point applying the band aid after the wound has scabbed over. Of all things, nuclear power plants would be one of the least suitable projects for a fiscal injection.

Maaate, re: "innocent naivete about the complexities of the issues ..." It appears you took offense, sorry.

The topic does crop up on OLO from time to time and what you haven't found on this thread has been discussed ad nauseum in others.

Anyway, have you had a chance to digest the latest (not Wiki) at sites like this?

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/01/nuclear-century-cbg/

If you have the time, search the tabs and archives - many concerns and queries are addressed. That is not to say further work is not required, btw.

Now, suppositories are generally meant for one thing (as opposed to nuclear medicines).
You are inviting people to stick one (containing any level of nuclear waste) up their butt for one year - have I understood you correctly?