thoughts on the proposed nuclear waste "facility" in S.A.

[poppa smurf]

On the table in South Australia is a proposed plan to build a nuclear waste dump up the other side of nowhere in South Australia.

This dump will take in the worlds waste, reminds me of something I heard a little while ago overseas "give me your poor, your sick your needy"........but theres money in it apparently.

I might be old fashioned but I'm against it, I'm on the side of "you produce it in your state, your nation, your country, then you deal with it".

but we are broke and if radiated garbage is the future then hand me my radiation suit.

we have tourism to think of, we have aquifers, natural wonders, aboriginal land, all will be in jeopardy I feel if this goes ahead.

then theres transport, accidents, long term storage, as in thousands if not millions of years, we won't be here by then.

Non political discussion please just personal thoughts.

[Work Horse]

Not far enough away from Victoria for me

[Peter B - CV8]

We shouldn't be the dumping ground for the world. Especially for stuff that takes thousands of years to degrade - what a wonderful legacy for future generations....

[Franco Cozzo]

Got plenty of unsusable ground in the middle of nowhere here in Australia, if we can prevent it from breaking containment lines and there are some mega $$$ in it I don't see why not.

[FormulaFG]

Massive can of worms this one....

Plenty of valid arguments from both sides and I agree with most of them. Its difficult to form an opinion either way.

I think the thing that tips it for me is that everyone enjoys the benefits of this stuff and what does to improve our lives, yet no one wants to know about it after the fact. "We don't want it here. It's someone else's problem!" If everyone in the world has this mentality then where does it go?

I think we have a moral obligation to the world to store the stuff and we can make an absolute motser doing it. It's not like is going to be stored right next door to your house, which a lot of wowsers seem to think is going to happen. SA doesn't have a lot going for it at the moment and the finances gained, if spent correctly, could set up this state for future generations and create opportunities that I don't see happening otherwise.

Consider this too......would you want this stuff in the hands of some other countries? We will do this properly and there will be so much red tape and regulations to keep it all in check. Could you imagine a country like China or Russia or Afghanistan storing this stuff? Absolutely horrifying.

[Franco Cozzo]

It would create a lot of jobs too.

[poppa smurf]

my thoughts are that if it is produced in China or Japan or NSW then it should stay right there.

if the depleted uranium cannot be safely handled within a populated environment then it should not be produced in the first place......good enough for the goose scenario

the underground aquifer system extends from central South australia through Victoria, NSW and up into the great artesian basin system.......there can be no guarantees of that water systems safety when, not if, but when it is breached.

we have not got the technology to contain this for thousands of years, nor to safely transport it.....we can't even transport oil safely between countries safely yet never lone this stuff.

far better to bury it in the heart of the production area and not transport it at all.

many hundreds of visitors come from interstate and overseas to see the heart of this country, I know, I meet them "out there".....I don't think they will return after a great swathe of it is fenced in under government control and it becomes known that it is nuclear waste.

better ways to produce jobs.....once constructed the facility will be watched over by a very small number of people, possibly by remote observance (according to sources within the government).

very few ongoing jobs will actually exist, apart from transport and initial construction.......money will go directly to canberra and very little will siphon back to SA.....very little to no benefit to us.

I can see little to no benefit but a whole lot of problems to come from this.

[Franco Cozzo]

They've tested nuclear weapons here before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...s_in_Australia

I'm sure we can store the waste somewhere in the country.

[poppa smurf]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

They've tested nuclear weapons here before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...s_in_Australia

I'm sure we can store the waste somewhere in the country.

yep and see the damage that has left behind, still not allowed in there and won't be for thousands of years, is this what you want for some of the most pristine and beautiful remote country in the world.......there was talk of making the poms clean it up, good luck with that, and that will be exactly the thought process WHEN an accident occurs in Australia with the storage.

if it is SO attractive and SO safe and there are SO many jobs and SO many benefits then why not place it in NSW outback, plenty of room there out the back of Broken hill amongst the goats, what about NT outback, more than enough desert there, what about WA, nothing but desert and huge old mine holes everywhere, I'm sure Gina wouldn't mind it next door to her, then QLD has abundant desert but they don't want a bar of it.

why aren't these governments racing to claim the bounty of storage......I know Victoria can't take it, took me a week to turn the van around to get back out last time I was there, but wouldn't matter as most are over here trying to get some sun.

this "not in my backyard" has a reason behind it, just quietly between me and you it's a political hot potato, no government IN THE WORLD wants it, what does that say.

once accepted there will be no going back, reminds me of the Simpson episode when Homer took over the waste management, the result will be the same here.

[mcflux]

Dump it in Canberra

[nstg8a]

NIMBYs, NIMBYs everywhere....



I'm with damo, if there's money to be made, and it can be done properly why not?

Australia is a very safe country, politically and physically.
Earthquakes of any substance are extremely rare, no real volcanoes to worry about.
Dunno about sa itself, but surely if there's already an area that's unsafe because of nuclear testing doesn't that make it the perfect place to store radioactive waste?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

yep and see the damage that has left behind, still not allowed in there and won't be for thousands of years, is this what you want for some of the most pristine and beautiful remote country in the world.......there was talk of making the poms clean it up, good luck with that, and that will be exactly the thought process WHEN an accident occurs in Australia with the storage.

if it is SO attractive and SO safe and there are SO many jobs and SO many benefits then why not place it in NSW outback, plenty of room there out the back of Broken hill amongst the goats, what about NT outback, more than enough desert there, what about WA, nothing but desert and huge old mine holes everywhere, I'm sure Gina wouldn't mind it next door to her, then QLD has abundant desert but they don't want a bar of it.

why aren't these governments racing to claim the bounty of storage......I know Victoria can't take it, took me a week to turn the van around to get back out last time I was there, but wouldn't matter as most are over here trying to get some sun.

this "not in my backyard" has a reason behind it, just quietly between me and you it's a political hot potato, no government IN THE WORLD wants it, what does that say.

once accepted there will be no going back, reminds me of the Simpson episode when Homer took over the waste management, the result will be the same here.

The yellow and red dots are where people live in Australia:



Chuck it in one of the gray spots then, doesn't have to be South Australia.

Even construction of such a facility will involve all sorts of trades people and administration staff, it has to come into a port somewhere and someone has to unload it from the ship, then someone has to move it to where ever the facility will be and someone has to unload it and move it around at the site.

No doubt given the risks involved and the remote location, there will be some good coin involved for those who take up the task.

It has potential to be a big money earner for everyone involved, including our Government.

[poppa smurf]

well where are all the pollies worldwide queuing in the aisle to take up such a lucrative proposition........dont see a one.

I can tell you from experience that map doesn't show all of Australias inhabitants......a lot of folks live out in the "grey" spots

[Tonz]

I am all for it, Is it Sweden or Norway, one of them is doing it.

Bring the boats up to Whyalla, security and wharfing and transport will take a huge chunk of the unemployment, designated road up through Iron Baron or similar.

They dont just toss it in the ground there are concrete, fiberglass reinforced bunkers, built to hold it.
Mind you not happy with northern flinders area still shaky ground up there, but it could...not saying will but solve unemployment.

If I had land up there that my family had been busting balls to make a living from over generations then my hand would be up.

No sense in thinking about your grandchildren, this old earth is getting tired and will crumble away possibly not in our lifetime but Iam not betting on it, I wont be here long enough to collect.

[Blue Ice]

I watched a documentary a few years ago about a facility in Europe, it's quite worth watching, especially with regards to how much spent waste world wide is currently awaiting some form of disposal (estimated 200k -300k tonnes).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUQ-Mhb4OVo

Bit more info here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo...uel_repository

[poppa smurf]

The proposal currently in the pipeline is for shipping to come into a large existing port (they won't say which) by secure container (the container is capable of sustaining a direct impact from a fully laden freight train at 90 kilometres per hour), off loaded by existing wharf crane onto existing flatbed freight wagon, existing train to a to be constructed spur line to facility, crane off onto facility handling unit and into storage.

The estimated number of jobs after the initial construction period is minimal, certainly less than a couple of hundred and in the final facility where it is spoken of only a handful of jobs are needed.

Position of facility has not been finalised but upper flinders is one that is being looked at.

there will be no new constructions of port facilities, no new rail lines (apart from spurs) and no new loading or offloading facilities.

I just can't see how the future can be secured given politicians very quickly lose interest in an industry once the money is assured.

ports now are owned by overseas, rail is owned by America (up for sale if you want to buy it) and I will bet the facility will be foreign owned and run......cant see where the longterm benefit to Australia will be.

this info is directly from the spin doctors currently touring regional areas conducting public meetings (one of which I attended and the facts gleaned) in order to gain public sentiment on the matter.

[Sox]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

I can tell you from experience that map doesn't show all of Australias inhabitants......a lot of folks live out in the "grey" spots

Yeh nah.
I speak from experience too, and whilst there are dribs and drabs of people in some of the grey locations, there's most definitely not 'a lot of folk'.

[olfella]

This argument goes back to Hawkies time in politics. If we dont want to make money then why sell it in the first place. We sell them the yellow cake to make this and we can provide some very stable geological locations that can provide safe storage facilities and charge rent. Besides, I feel the way coal is going we will have to look at nec base power for ourselves soon. So besides out medical waste we need to look at storing it.

Edit. I am more concerned about one of the current ways of storing it by putting it on a ship and let it sail around the world. Where are they going to end up when there working life is over? Storage will still be a problem.

[Sox]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

yep and see the damage that has left behind, still not allowed in there and won't be for thousands of years, is this what you want for some of the most pristine and beautiful remote country in the world.......

Considering you can't even see or access the vast majority of it, what's it matter?

if it is SO attractive and SO safe and there are SO many jobs and SO many benefits

Why the emphasis on 'so'?
I don't think anyone said all of those things with such certainty.

As far as I can see, most seem to think if they can do it with all those positives, then go for it.

then why not place it in NSW outback, plenty of room there out the back of Broken hill amongst the goats, what about NT outback, more than enough desert there, what about WA, nothing but desert and huge old mine holes everywhere, I'm sure Gina wouldn't mind it next door to her, then QLD has abundant desert but they don't want a bar of it.

SA makes more sense because it's outback is closest to ports and it's already been hammered.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by Sox

SA makes more sense because it's outback is closest to ports and it's already been hammered.

AND they are making our new subs - Which I think should be nec powered.

[Trump]

Launch all nuclear waste into the sun, hell it worked in Superman 4!

[HO 3]

So when this waste is transported, who's front door is it going to go past on its way to the storage facility?

Cheers Mick

[Adamz Ghia]

If it's safe and secure and out of reach of North Korea then why not? They could always cover up one of the old mines and put it there.

[GSP07R]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-1...cility/7005516

Nuclear waste arrives at temporary Lucas Heights storage facility after being processed in France
BY LARA HYAMS AND STAFF
SUN DEC 06 20:45:45 EST 2015

Australia's first import of reprocessed nuclear waste has arrived at its temporary storage facility in New South Wales without incident, after being repatriated from France.

In the early hours of Sunday morning, a tank holding 20 canisters of what is called immediate-level waste, was taken to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANTSO) facility at Lucas Heights.

The canisters, each about one metre in height and with a 170-litre capacity, were carrying about 25 tonnes of nuclear waste.

ANTSO's head of nuclear services, Hef Griffiths, moved to allay concerns the tanks and the BBC Shanghai ship, which was commissioned to transport the waste, were unsafe.

"[The canisters] have to be type-tested against a nine-metre drop, an 800-degree-Celsius fire for 30 minutes, a drop on a penetrating spike and the design basis was to withstand the impact of a fully laden fighter jet," he said.

"French maritime authorities conducted a full safety inspection of the ship and in discussions with the captain, he told me it was the most thorough safety inspection he had been involved in, in 26 years."

The waste will be stored temporarily at Lucas Heights until the Federal Government decides where to build the national dumping site.

Six areas have been named on its shortlist, including three in South Australia, where a royal commission is currently underway to investigate whether the state should become more involved in the nuclear industry.

Potential nuclear waste sites
Click through to explore the six sites the Federal Government has shortlisted as locations to store nuclear waste.

The Government says it needs to build a facility to store the low and intermediate nuclear waste that’s been accumulating in at hospitals, universities and at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney.

Landowners were asked to volunteer their land, with the government offering to buy it at four times the market value. Local communities are being offered $10 million for local projects.

The Government wants to finalise a decision by the end of next year.

Arrival of nuclear waste alarms environmentalists
The ship's arrival at Port Kembla on Saturday attracted a number of spectators, including Greenpeace activists arguing the Australian public did not support the return of nuclear waste.

The environmentalist group commissioned a poll which showed nearly three quarters of Australians opposed plans to store nuclear waste for other countries.

What nuclear waste will be stored?
Greenpeace spokeswoman Emma Gibson was on a boat following the BBC Shanghai and said it appeared unsuitable to transport the radioactive waste.

"It's a right rust bucket of a ship which is what I was expecting," she said on Saturday.

"It's been banned by the US government from carrying any kind of government cargo at all, but the Australian Government has decided that this ship is good enough to transport highly radioactive nuclear waste from France to Sydney.

"[The Australian Government] is saying it's intermediate-level nuclear waste like gloves, protective clothing, but the French authorities have told Greenpeace that this is high-level nuclear waste containing plutonium — that's the most dangerous kind of nuclear waste you can get."

ANSTO have said Greenpeace's comments about the presence of plutonium were inaccurate, and maintain the waste is safe and medium level, and that high-level waste stems from weapons and energy production.

In the past two decades Australia has sent eight shiploads of waste overseas to France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, to be processed for long-term storage.

The waste sent to the UK will return in the second half of this decade and the shipments sent to the US will remain there.

The next shipment of waste to be brought back to Australia is expected to arrive in 2020, and will be a quarter of the size.

[Mercury Bullet]

I'm a bit conflicted by all this.

I'm not too happy about being the worlds dumping ground. Do we get a one-off payment for taking it or do we rent space for the next 100,000 years?

I've used our nuclear medicine services a lot. This stuff has to go somewhere.

Will it fade my curtains?

[poppa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sox

Considering you can't even see or access the vast majority of it, what's it matter?

Why the emphasis on 'so'?
I don't think anyone said all of those things with such certainty.

As far as I can see, most seem to think if they can do it with all those positives, then go for it.

SA makes more sense because it's outback is closest to ports and it's already been hammered.

instead of trying to create trouble in an effort to brighten your day why not answer the posed questions and actually think about your side a bit more.

the so called attractions of nuclear dumping were expressed by other contributors earlier in the post, I suggest you read them.

one question just for you to ponder and possibly give a reasonable answer to....if it makes so much fiscal sense why hasn't ANYONE else in the world taken it up.

if you can't supply common sense answers and engage in a reasonable discussion then **** off.

[Junkyard-Dog]

Sure, why not. I've always wanted to experience Metro 2033 first hand anyway.

[FPV+fteT3]

Can anyone guarantee it wont find its way into the artesian basin and contaminate all our water? If not then why risk everything for a few $'s? No water, no farms, no food, no worries we can all eat out at maccas and drink coke.

[danzvtil]

Originally Posted by HO 3

So when this waste is transported, who's front door is it going to go past on its way to the storage facility?

Cheers Mick

Do you live near a hospital or university? These places are storing this gear under stairwells and in basements.

They should open up Radium Hill SA again, that place has a shaft half a Kay deep, in rock with no water table, geologically stable,no farms nearby and the best bit-it's already radioactive from the uranium taken out in the 40s and 50s.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Launch all nuclear waste into the sun, hell it worked in Superman 4!

^^^ This times 11ty billion. If they have the funds to pay someone to store it, they have the money to launch it into the sun for incineration.

Personally I am not one for storing it in Australia, inhabited or not. What if it leaks into the water table. What then? Who is responsible for the clean up should that happen?