Sally's Flat nuclear waste dump.....
- Thread starter Heatho
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
Filthyphil said:Bacchus said:
Correct, as we don't manufacture or produce intermediate to high level waste here and transporting it internationally is not currently done, although I'm sure it's being discussed and if they can make money will be on the agenda.
I'd be very careful of the greens propaganda on the subject, most of the areas suggested already have radiation readings that are naturally occurring and in some cases more dangerous to long term exposure than the prescribed waste intended for storage.
Further to add to the discussion.
Less people have died from nuclear power generation than solar or wind generation, that's including fukushima, chernobyl and 3 mile island and the death total from coal is staggering
Fact - the fukushima reactor was 20 years past it's original use by date and was coming to the end of it's last 5 year operating license when the tsunami struck, unfortunately no one knows what would have happened with up to date technology and latest practices or has it even been discussed if that's the why, only the what's and with all technology, especially in control and back up systems have got alot more robust since 1971 when the reactor was first commissioned.
I get where you're coming from Phil but at least after we stop using coal people will still be able to use these areas where coal fired power stations have been unlike where nuclear meltdowns have occured. The nuclear industry is very secretive and will only ever disclose these accidents when they are so bad that they can't cover it up any longer. Yeah there has been numerous nuclear bombs and stuff tested around the world and radiation spread far and wide with supposed relatively minor effects but you've gotta ask yourself why cancer has become so common since we first let off a bomb?? Radioactive particles are not an instant killer in most circumstances but are very insideous instead. Inhale one microscopic particle of Plutonium and you are a gonner.
I know the stuff they want to build depots for in Aus is only low grade and we do need nuclear medicine but it still bothers me. In Sydney there is an area in Hunters Hill where a Radium processing plant and Uranium smelter used to be and the place is quite badly contaminated, no one really knew about this until recently. Quite a few weird cancers from that area that will be blamed on something else totally!
The Fukupshima accident will poison the ocean around Japan for a long time to come and poison their people, radioactive contamination is still even rising on the West Coast of America, there will be probably be a lot of deaths from this but the deaths will be blamed on something else entirely. There are regularly accidents at nuclear power stations that no one will ever find out about, it happens because people become complacent.
I just don't see why they can't build the depot where the stuff is made out at Lucas Heights.
If governments put half the amount of money into nuclear fusion research instead of wasteing it the way they do we would have clean energy on tap.
Rant over
Totally agree that we need to put more money into fusion technology as it is the future of unlimited clean power ( IMO ) and from an economical point of view with Australia having some 40 percent of the worlds mineable yellow cake we should be striving to become world leaders in the field. As far as waste storage is concerned , low level , no real problem , but the production and storage of any future high level waste must be done well away from the Eastern seaboard or heavily populated areas , as well as reactor problems and natural disasters unfortunately in this day and age we need to take into account possible terrorism attacks on such a facility. We are blessed in this country with wide open , easily policed , flat , non seismic and sparsely populated areas and thinking ahead it probably makes sense to do it all in one place and I reckon the SA or WA desert will win the lottery . My rant is also over and have enjoyed the debate and peoples views , hope the pollies isten to common sense from the common people but won't hold my breath
Another thing to consider is the six sites have been chosen from a list of sites that have been volunteered by land holders.
Landholders that can receive up to four (4) times the land value.
I bet the landholders that have volunteered do not live in the area either.
Sallys Flat is not a good option.
1. It is a farming district.
2. It is in the catchment area and not that far from the start of Lake Burrendong. A vital water resource in western NSW,
that flows down stream to the Murray Darling System.
Not an option in my eyes.
Landholders that can receive up to four (4) times the land value.
I bet the landholders that have volunteered do not live in the area either.
Sallys Flat is not a good option.
1. It is a farming district.
2. It is in the catchment area and not that far from the start of Lake Burrendong. A vital water resource in western NSW,
that flows down stream to the Murray Darling System.
Not an option in my eyes.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 591
- Reaction score
- 700
Heatho said:
I have often thought the same thing, there is not a human being alive on the planet that does not have strontium in there body from all the testing that has been done. The fukushima accident will and is spreading around the entire globe due to the ocean current circulations. When I was at University studying Marine science we would have discussions about nuclear vs fossil fuels and they are just as bad as each other. Some solutions that were discussed on what to do with nuclear waste were, put it on a rocket and send it to the sun, put it at subduction zones to be slowly absorbed deep within the earth, there are inherent problems with all these ideas but plausible all the same.
It may take thousands of years for nuclear waste to become safe but it also takes thousands of years for the ecosystem to absorb all the CO2 and other pollutants from fossil fuels so a no win situation with either. As for Australia not being seismically active that may be true at present but on the other hand it was in the past and can become active in the future and there is just no telling when or if and by how, as for coastal areas there is evidence up and down the east coast of Australia that we have been hit by large tsunamis in the past (so yeah keep nuclear waste and facilities away from the coast). The problem with a lot of outback Australia is the Artesian basin ground water becoming contaminated so that's not a really good option neither for the current dilemma of where to store waste. But undoubtedly something does need to be done so its a matter of weighing up all the options available and choosing the safest.
If we can master fusion that will be great but it too has safety concerns. An interesting fact is if oil production ceased overnight 3/4 of the worlds population would die within the first 3 months that's how reliant on energy we are, and we are still a long way away from the perfect solution, at least renewables are a step in the right direction.
Either way economy is a mind set based around a balancing act that can be adjusted (and often is) to suite individual situations and needs, and money (a particular value) is just a part of that adjustment of the balancing act. So i suppose the question is what do we value more wealth, or health and the environment, which all can add or subtract from the quality of life.
I dont have any answers i just know we need to do something about our energy needs and the wastes it produces moving forward into the future or we are all screwed.
Hi HeathoHeatho said:Filthyphil said:Bacchus said:
Correct, as we don't manufacture or produce intermediate to high level waste here and transporting it internationally is not currently done, although I'm sure it's being discussed and if they can make money will be on the agenda.
I'd be very careful of the greens propaganda on the subject, most of the areas suggested already have radiation readings that are naturally occurring and in some cases more dangerous to long term exposure than the prescribed waste intended for storage.
Further to add to the discussion.
Less people have died from nuclear power generation than solar or wind generation, that's including fukushima, chernobyl and 3 mile island and the death total from coal is staggering
Fact - the fukushima reactor was 20 years past it's original use by date and was coming to the end of it's last 5 year operating license when the tsunami struck, unfortunately no one knows what would have happened with up to date technology and latest practices or has it even been discussed if that's the why, only the what's and with all technology, especially in control and back up systems have got alot more robust since 1971 when the reactor was first commissioned.
I get where you're coming from Phil but at least after we stop using coal people will still be able to use these areas where coal fired power stations have been unlike where nuclear meltdowns have occured. The nuclear industry is very secretive and will only ever disclose these accidents when they are so bad that they can't cover it up any longer. Yeah there has been numerous nuclear bombs and stuff tested around the world and radiation spread far and wide with supposed relatively minor effects but you've gotta ask yourself why cancer has become so common since we first let off a bomb?? Radioactive particles are not an instant killer in most circumstances but are very insideous instead. Inhale one microscopic particle of Plutonium and you are a gonner.
I know the stuff they want to build depots for in Aus is only low grade and we do need nuclear medicine but it still bothers me. In Sydney there is an area in Hunters Hill where a Radium processing plant and Uranium smelter used to be and the place is quite badly contaminated, no one really knew about this until recently. Quite a few weird cancers from that area that will be blamed on something else totally!
The Fukupshima accident will poison the ocean around Japan for a long time to come and poison their people, radioactive contamination is still even rising on the West Coast of America, there will be probably be a lot of deaths from this but the deaths will be blamed on something else entirely. There are regularly accidents at nuclear power stations that no one will ever find out about, it happens because people become complacent.
I just don't see why they can't build the depot where the stuff is made out at Lucas Heights.
If governments put half the amount of money into nuclear fusion research instead of wasteing it the way they do we would have clean energy on tap.
Rant over
Your right, any meltdown poisons the ground ocean for thousands of years,
the point I was trying to make is that the fukushima reactor should have been shut down or upgraded as per it's design life criteria, years before what happened, unfortunately profit won out? Everything has a defined amount of cycles before failure, even the human body. Lucas heights is to close to ground water, population etc. to be feasible, cost to high?Everything has a cost to do it the right way, just ask VW?
I'm with you Phil, though Sally's Flat is between the Turon and Macquarie Rivers which drain into Lake Burrendong, I just don't think it's a great spot to select. Anyway it's gotta go somewhere.
Yeah, we have plenty of no go and non productive zones in this country that would be more suitable, if not for construction, operational and transport costs, pretty simple in my book, the cost of storing waste of that nature will cost heaps because.
1 Must be remote.
2 No Fault lines.
3 No ground water.
4 Not productive for farming and or flora & fauna.
And if you don't want to pay for the safe storage, p!ss off and store it some where else.
1 Must be remote.
2 No Fault lines.
3 No ground water.
4 Not productive for farming and or flora & fauna.
And if you don't want to pay for the safe storage, p!ss off and store it some where else.
Horse said:
Ahh yes you're right Horse. Cheers.
Hill End detectorists will hate the EMI emitted by the plant and security system if it gets the go ahead.
Tourism will decreased significantly.
Tourism will decreased significantly.
My perspective on this even though I agree with energy supply being a plus as dr.duck said but with fusion and nuclear there's always the byproduct of contaminated water that needs disposal. So what's been done so far - buried deep in deserts and deep sea: the safety 'protective' capsyles tge waste is buried in still last a fraction of the length of time for the actual radiation to decompose. If we make it, it will be here a long long time after our deaths or even world. Launching it into space..now who's genius idea was that to add to the already littered atmosphere barrier of satellite junk and then contaminate an area man hasn't even explored a droplet of. Ridiculous. As efficient as it is, the waste will be one of the other reasons for future generic mutations and cancers. If we could see the radiowaves that already follow the freeway of aether straight through our bodies we would suffocate...but radiowaves are another subject...so is aether
There's always concern that reactors can get the strength to have a powerful enough disaster that I feel fission-fusion-fission catastrophe is always possible. The bomb that the world never wants to see.
There's always concern that reactors can get the strength to have a powerful enough disaster that I feel fission-fusion-fission catastrophe is always possible. The bomb that the world never wants to see.
The only by-product of fusing Hydrogen is Helium, the only real problem is it will make a huge explosion if things go south. There would be no radioactive contamination. The only reason a Hydrogen bomb leaves radiation is because Nuclear Fission with Uranium or Plutonium is needed to kick start the reaction.
Australia,s environmental record sucks. Watched a doco on coal mining pits
Which have closed in the last 30 years. Civil engineers estimate it will cost
20 billion to return these massive pits back to original state,or at least useable land.
The government has 100 million in security funds to do this clean up. Big companies simply go to court pay a 5mil fine and leave a 50mil clean up bill to the tax payers.
They stated the cost to the tax payer to keep Mt Morgan gold pit in Qld stable
Is 2.5 mill a year. To fix the problem 2billion.
And now were going to play with uranium.
Which have closed in the last 30 years. Civil engineers estimate it will cost
20 billion to return these massive pits back to original state,or at least useable land.
The government has 100 million in security funds to do this clean up. Big companies simply go to court pay a 5mil fine and leave a 50mil clean up bill to the tax payers.
They stated the cost to the tax payer to keep Mt Morgan gold pit in Qld stable
Is 2.5 mill a year. To fix the problem 2billion.
And now were going to play with uranium.
Heatho said:
Yes, technology has increased the efficiency of nuclear weapons, bigger yields with less fission material etc. The expected half life of modern weapons is under 6 years, so in around 9 years nothing remains, however typically the shorter the half life, the more dangerous, the more radioactive.
Depleted uranium rounds used in projectile weapons have a longer half life, can be in to the hundreds of thousands of years, but less radioactive in nature, less dangerous, especially to short and periodic term exposure. Typically the material used in projectile weapons is waste from nuclear reactors, less dangerous, less radioactive, but it will be around for hundreds of thousands of years.
Half life arguments can also be deceptive when used out of context as illustrated above, yes waste is dangerous and yes it can be active for thousands of years, but some wastes, the more dangerous wastes will be depleted in days, weeks, months and years, it really is all about context, what waste will be stored where and how and while exposure is extremely dangerous, radioactive materials are naturally occurring substances on this planet and have to be dealt with.
Oil and coal are also naturally occurring substances on this planet, it's what man does with them that makes the all the difference, both good and bad.
