Dear Crackcup,

Nuclear reactors produce notoriously hazardous wastes.
Most of it is "temporarily" stored on site.
what is needed is a place that will safely contain the
waste for at least 10,000 years, which is long enough
for most of it to decay.

However the location of such a site is a ticklish
political problem, for the obvious reason that people
are generally unenthused about the prospect of having
a radioactive dump in their own neighbourhood.
The disposal problem seems to be one that so far has
no acceptable technological fix, so in this case a
political solution may have to suffice.

One resource that is very much in short supply is
fresh water. The bulk of the fresh
water is hidden in underground aquifers in our country.
Only a small percentage is available at the surface
for our use - and much of it is in the "wrong place."
Yet our modern society requires huge amounts of water
for domestic, agricultural, and industrial
purposes. We consume enormous amounts of water.
We have to be careful, as I stated earlier where we
can safelt contain the toxic nuclear waste. We have to
ensure that it does not affect our underground water
supplies. Without a dependable water supply, our
vital regions would be largely useless for
agricultural purposes - a situation that could cause
extensive food shortages and make the economic plight
of today's farmers pale by comparison.

As said, not being aware of the facts, I am able to consider that the site may indeed be in a quake prone zone.

It would be better if we could look at the site assessment report of course.

..

U238 certainly has a long half life as *Arjay* suggests and even the UN reports into the U235 Enrichment Waste Munitions note that there is a predominance of conflicting information in this area.

I have read one animal study however that claimed that U238 alone has the potential to induce genomic instability which of course means that it is carcinogenic and studies of VETS who have say sucked in micron sized ceramic particles end up with deformed sperm and give rise to mutant babies, according to some published writers.

Is it that alone though or any number of the potential carcinogens that one can inhale on the battlefield and of course, if one is to believe *Dr Helen Caldicott* some of the left over D.U. munitions have been found to have minute traces of U235 in them, suggesting a blending from something like spent fuel rods?

As to what the truth of it all is, we would have to get some evidenced material up if available, but certainly, as of last I heard, relevant parties were none to willing to co-operate with independent investigations into the area.

Crackup I fully support your concerns with one caveat which was touched on by another poster. That is whoever creates the waste take responsibility for storage/disposal. The 'not in my backyard' scenario applies IMO only to where the rest of the world might be salivating at the prospect of using Australia to dump it's own waste product, then I would say NO.

It would seem ironic, given Australia has wisely not yet gone down the nuclear power path, if we were suddenly to act as a world dumping site. Madness indeed. Especially as the decision to go remote (not remote to the locals though) suggests an acknowledgment of the risk. Otherwise why not locate the dump near metropolitan areas where normally transport costs would dictate.

Disappointing to hear Bob Carr is already touting the prospect of nuclear energy which probably means another fight within the Labor Party over it's current policy. One thing is certain human beings must be the most short sighted mammals on earth if they cannot see the potential big picture risks in nuclear. How many nuclear accidents does a planet need to heed the wake up call?

Dear Pelly,

Hear! Hear!

Quite so Pelican.

Which is why the ACT is such a good place to have the current waste stored.

A guarantee would soon be given that no imported waste would be ever allowed on our shores, I bet.

Peli and Lexi:

I shudder at the thought of the long term situation if indeed they do go ahead with this whole concept and add insult to injury by accepting "foreign" radioactive waste.

Carr will be out there to make a name for himself of course to justify the "job for the boys" that has been gifted to him by Big Julia.

History would decree that the world in general views Australia as a "soft touch", and I should imagine that shipments of radiacative waste will become a big industry, with increasing numbers of foreign vessels plying the route to Australia, which creates another monster?
....what happens when one of these vessels runs aground or rips itself open on a reef,....instead of oil contamination we have radioactive contamination, which no detergent can neutralise or dissolve!

This whole scenario is frought with danger and reminds me of a statement made in the 70`s by Edward Teller, an adviser to the US President, who uttered the immortal words: "The United States is now in a position to survive a limited Nuclear Exchange!" ...that statement coming from a man who knew that at that time there was no such thing as a "limited Nuclear Exchange" in the policies of the US war-machine, and that any nuclear attack upon the US would result in an Armageddon type scenario!

Where is our commonsense in dealing withg these issues?