I have to add that radiation is everywhere and has been since the big bang. It comes to us from the sun and is present in the soil and in our foods. In some areas it is naturally at a dangerous level (the badlands in aboriginal belief). Our bodies have evolved to cope with it. The problem is when levels of radiation exceed the normal levels. To find radiation kilometers away from a site which suffered an accident is not significant unless the radiation is above the natural level which was always there.

Also the Einstein equation E=mc2 where c is a huge number means that we can get enormous energy from a small amount of material. Hence the nuclear waste at the moment is a very small quantity stored safely in containers. When it becomes larger there are several methods of storage. Diluting it in Synrock and burying it deep under the ground would be a lot safer than leaving it in the badlands where mother nature dumped it.

Oh, and nuclear power stations do not and cannot become bombs, the uranium isotope used in them is not suitable for a chain reaction. And Chernobyl was not a normal power station. To refuse nuclear power on the basis of that disaster is as silly as it would have been to refuse to travel on ships because of the Titanic.

Doesnt really matter any more as Kevin Rudd has worked out how it will cost less.
He will use overseas labor and products as this is the labor party's and unions way.
Dont worry about the worker.

And the used uranium he will store in australia on other countries behalf.

Ok, some facts.
- Electricity accounts for just 36% of the global sources of GHG emissions anyway (International Energy Agency) so the nuclear push merely attempts to ignore 64% of the greenhouse problem.

- If it weren't for uranium mining we'd be living in a world free of nuclear weapons and potential nuclear terrorism (terrorists don't target wind turbines or solar arrays). Had nuclear power existed in WW2 much of Europe would likely be totally uninhabitable.

- The government's own Parliamentary Research Paper of 4/12/06 states that a nuclear power plant would require "up to 83% more water than for other power stations" (ignoring uranium mining and milling, eg up to 155 million litres/day for the Olympic Dam mine expansion).
and "Expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities need not be part of a response to climate change... In our view it is unrealistic to believe that a reactor could be operating in as little as ten years. Similarly, the view that only 20 people a year would need to undergo relevant training and education is an underestimate." - the government's official peer review of the Switkowski draft report, chaired by (pro-nuclear) Chief Scientist Dr Jim Peacock, 9/12/2006.

Furthermore:
- "Safeguards" on uranium exports do not even apply to military nuclear facilities, do not guarantee inspections and facilitate the diversion of domestic uranium reserves for weapons.
("While China had enough uranium resources to support its nuclear weapons program, China's Australian Ambassador Madame Fu said it would need to import uranium to meet it's power demands." - The Australian', 2/12/05).

- The nuclear power/weapons connection exists via:
a) infrastructure
b) expertise
c) covert research and
d) the fuels themselves (uranium, plutonium, tritium).
http://www.myspace.com/icanw

Chernobyl - studies on exposure were based only on measurements of Iodine intake. The WHO Chernobyl report ignored the latent period of cancers and the 53% of fallout that actually fell on Europe & the UK.

Finally, It would require more money than has ever existed in the world to pay the overtime costs for even just two staff to guard/manage radioactive wastes for the periods required. NO accurate assessment can be made of death rates from the nuclear industry based only on the past.

Logic

I don't have a background in physics or engineering like you have.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on the "solubility of xenon" and Dr Caldicott's opinion. Please - do tell.

Your suggestion of vitrifying HLW waste in "Synrock" (sic) could work. Problem is Logic, the inception was realised by ANSTO in the '70's and the first Synroc demo plant established in 1987. To date, they can't even give it away!

Perhaps you are more au fait with the wonders of Synroc than the inventors?

The silly part about the nuclear industry is we do not need it. It is too expensive, too dangerous, and the waste problem goes on forever. Renewable technology is viable now and with a concerted effort we can get rid of coal. Stop the spin of 'clean, green' uranium and 'clean coal' and put the money into renewable energies now. Elect a decent government (ie, one not in the pocket of the mining lobby and concerned for the future), get rid of the 'greenhouse' mafia in Australia,and lets show the world what we can do.
Bravo Helen Caldicott!