Nuclear has to be in our future for baseload generation, together with renewables.

Storage of waste is an issue to be addressed.

Will do some reading on this and post what I find.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:16pm:

Nuclear has to be in our future for baseload generation, together with renewables. Storage of waste is an issue to be addressed. Will do some reading on this and post what I find.

Maybe you should have done some reading before posting your preconceived view.

rhino wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:20pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:16pm: Nuclear has to be in our future for baseload generation, together with renewables. Storage of waste is an issue to be addressed. Will do some reading on this and post what I find. Maybe you should have done some reading before posting your preconceived view.

Don't worry - I educated him here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1500790939/105#108

Well, I am raising the issue for discussion.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:22pm:

Well, I am raising the issue for discussion.

Jovial - I know a lot about this subject.  ;)

I bet you know stuff all. Did you learn everything you “know” from YouTubes?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:29pm:

I bet you know stuff all. Did you learn everything you “know” from YouTubes?

No

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:16pm:

Nuclear has to be in our future for baseload generation, together with renewables. Storage of waste is an issue to be addressed. Will do some reading on this and post what I find.

Many of us have already told you.
We don't need you to
1 start another topic
2 regurgitate stuff you are currently ignorant of as you already do on this forum.

You don't listen... ::)

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:33pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:16pm: Nuclear has to be in our future for baseload generation, together with renewables. Storage of waste is an issue to be addressed. Will do some reading on this and post what I find. Many of us have already told you. We don't need you to 1 start another topic 2 regurgitate stuff you are currently ignorant of as you already do on this forum. You don't listen... ::)

Where did he get his BSc from - a cornflakes packet?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:31pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:29pm: I bet you know stuff all. Did you learn everything you “know” from YouTubes? No

I think: yes!

You do not have any scientific knowledge or you would not believe that liar Dubyne in the face of all the real world data, like 2017 being only slightly cooler than 2016 despite there being no El Nino in effect this year.

I got my BSc from Adelaide University!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:37pm:

I got my BSc from Adelaide University!

Your professors should be jailed.

Think what you like, Booby. You can’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag and you have wasted hours and hours of your life watching and believing videos made by liars like Dubyne.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:25pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:22pm: Well, I am raising the issue for discussion. Jovial - I know a lot about this subject.  ;)

I worked at ANSTO in material sciences and radiopharmaceuticals?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:31pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:29pm: I bet you know stuff all. Did you learn everything you “know” from YouTubes? No

Then why is that the only 'evidence' you seem to post?


While it is difficult to prove if someone has a degree or not, it is easy to prove that you and nails do NOT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel

Spent nuclear fuel, what it is, how to treat it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:12am:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel Spent nuclear fuel, what it is, how to treat it.

Gee thanks...  your point?

Be informed.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 9:28am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:25pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:22pm: Well, I am raising the issue for discussion. Jovial - I know a lot about this subject.  ;) I worked at ANSTO in material sciences and radiopharmaceuticals?

Good - set Jovial straight please.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 9:28am:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:25pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:22pm: Well, I am raising the issue for discussion. Jovial - I know a lot about this subject.  ;) I worked at ANSTO in material sciences and radiopharmaceuticals?

ouch

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:32am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 9:28am: Bobby. wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:25pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:22pm: Well, I am raising the issue for discussion. Jovial - I know a lot about this subject.  ;) I worked at ANSTO in material sciences and radiopharmaceuticals? Godd - set Jovial straight please.

You mean that we do in fact have very good methods for storing nuclear waste. We do. Synroc for instance.

Booby, I doubt you know much more than what Profs Google and YouTube have told you. Sorry but clinging to that liar Dubyne like a turd to a blanket shows me you do not know much science at all and lack the ability to think clearly and logically.

All the Dubyne lies I exposed—you couldn’t refute but still believed Dubyne.

Sorry.

2017 lining up to be the second hottest year despite no El Nino shows me AGW is accelerating!

And when it comes to actual danger to humans, those isotopes with short half-lifes are far more dangerous than those with extremely high half-lifes.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:38am:

And when it comes to actual danger to humans, those isotopes with short half-lifes are far more dangerous than those with extremely high half-lifes.

Much more radioactive.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:39am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 10:38am: And when it comes to actual danger to humans, those isotopes with short half-lifes are far more dangerous than those with extremely high half-lifes. Much more radioactive.

Umm mthats why they are more dangerous, having said that though it also depends on the type of emission they produce and what they do in the body.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:30am:

Be informed.

Was informed.
Was well educated.
You?

Grendel wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 10:33pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 24th, 2017 at 10:16pm: Nuclear has to be in our future for baseload generation, together with renewables. Storage of waste is an issue to be addressed. Will do some reading on this and post what I find. Many of us have already told you. We don't need you to 1 start another topic 2 regurgitate stuff you are currently ignorant of as you already do on this forum. You don't listen... ::)

Why would anyone listen to Grendel?

http://thestringer.com.au/major-uranium-leak-endangers-kakadu-but-played-down-5811#.WXcxpFFLeUk


In 2010, millions of litres of radioactive water from the Ranger uranium mine flowed into Kakadu’s wetlands.

The Traditional Owners opposed then plans for a huge expansion of the 30 year old mine by ERA. At the time, the ERA attempted to downplay a spike in contaminated water flowing from the Ranger to Kakadu’s Magela Creek between April 9 to 11. 40 Aboriginal people lived downstream from the site where a measure probe recorded up to five times the warning level of electrical conductivity – including uranium, sulphate and radium contaminants.

“As more of our people understand the death knell dangers of uranium mining we will then come together in greater numbers and we will close down Ranger and Olympic Dam,” said Mr Buzzacott.


http://thestringer.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/006-Kakadu12-300x200.jpg

That is mining waste not used nuclear fuel.

This crap happens all the time because mines take short cuts.

And of course there would never have been leaks in  its wild state.

5 times the warning level? Is that above or below the danger level?

Oh, electrical conductivity?

lee wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:09pm:

And of course there would never have been leaks in  its wild state. 5 times the warning level? Is that above or below the danger level? Oh, electrical conductivity?

Kakadu national park is now contaminated for the next 100 million years - or more.

What a disaster.

http://thestringer.com.au/major-uranium-leak-endangers-kakadu-but-played-down-5811#.WXcxpFFLeUk


In 2010, millions of litres of radioactive water from the Ranger uranium mine flowed into Kakadu’s wetlands.

The Traditional Owners opposed then plans for a huge expansion of the 30 year old mine by ERA. At the time, the ERA attempted to downplay a spike in contaminated water flowing from the Ranger to Kakadu’s Magela Creek between April 9 to 11. 40 Aboriginal people lived downstream from the site where a measure probe recorded up to five times the warning level of electrical conductivity – including uranium, sulphate and radium contaminants.

“As more of our people understand the death knell dangers of uranium mining we will then come together in greater numbers and we will close down Ranger and Olympic Dam,” said Mr Buzzacott.


http://thestringer.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/006-Kakadu12-300x200.jpg

by electrical conductivity?

So it glows at night now, does it Booby?

lee wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:13pm:

by electrical conductivity?

By radioactivity from: uranium, sulphate and radium contaminants.


http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/environmental-aspects-of-uranium-mining.aspx

The uranium orebody contains both U-235 and (mostly) U-238. About 95% of the radioactivity in the ore is from the U-238 decay series. This has 14 radioactive isotopes in secular equilibrium, thus each represents 7% of the total. (In the case of Ranger ore – with 0.3% U308 – it has about 450 kBq/kg, so irrespective of the mass proportion, 32 kBq/kg per nuclide in that decay series.) When the ore is processed, the U-238 and the very much smaller masses of U-234 (and the U-235) are removed. The balance becomes tailings, and at this point has about 86% of its original intrinsic radioactivity. However, with the removal of most U-238, the following two short-lived decay products (Th-234 & Pa-234) soon disappear, leaving the tailings with a little over 70% of the radio-activity of the original ore after several months. The controlling long-lived isotope then becomes Th-230 which decays with a half life of 77,000 years to radium-226 followed by radon-222.

So Kakadu glows at night, does it Booby? Two headed crocodiles running around?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:15pm:

By radioactivity from: uranium, sulphate and radium contaminants.

Then perhaps you should quote an article detailing radioactivity rather an one quoting electrical conductivity.

I guess Blooby has no real evidence, as usual.

256 page Ice Age thread, 500 videos the Blob watched, nothing real, no evidence just lies and bullshit.

lee wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 10:15pm: By radioactivity from: uranium, sulphate and radium contaminants. Then perhaps you should quote an article detailing radioactivity rather an one quoting electrical conductivity.

They are probably using conductivity as a cheap way to measure radioactivity.

Yes - a set of Geiger counter measurements would be better.

I am sure they have done that too & probably a scintillation counter
to measure the actual isotopes.

Some people measure at home with such instruments:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x6rnNgRBNg


Geiger Counter vs. Scintillator

So, how much radioactivity is in Kakadu?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:29pm:

So, how much radioactivity is in Kakadu?

I don't know but would you like to drink some water from there?

So not much more than background radioactivity? Doesn’t glow at night? No two headed crocodiles?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

So not much more than background radioactivity? Doesn’t glow at night? No two headed crocodiles?

Jovial,
I suggest you get your water supply from Kakadu national park.

Enjoy all that Uranium & Radium - you'll love it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

So not much more than background radioactivity? Doesn’t glow at night? No two headed crocodiles?

But look what it did to the Abos :D LOL

So you have no clue what is in Kakadu.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:57pm:

So you have no clue what is in Kakadu.

In 2010, millions of litres of radioactive water
from the Ranger uranium mine
flowed into Kakadu’s wetlands.

You already said that you guppy!

HM is left.

Is it concentrated or spread far and wide. HM made it out of Kakdu.

God, can’t you present complete information? No wonder you believe that stupid liar Dubyne.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 11:07pm:

You already said that you guppy! HM is left. Is it concentrated or spread far and wide. HM made it out of Kakdu. God, can’t you present complete information? No wonder you believe that stupid liar Dubyne.

Jovial nut,
I have presented facts bout the nuclear cycle:

the mining is dangerous.
the Nuclear power plants are dangerous.
the waste they make is dangerous.

What more evidence do you need?

HM radioactivity is in Kakadu?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 11:11pm:

HM radioactivity is in Kakadu?

Too much to drink the water.

Arguing with you is like punching a big blob of jelly. No real debate, no real facts.

HM radioactivity is there in Kakadu?

What is the balance of risk between being cooked by AGW or some nuclear accidents.

Coal has killed more than nuclear in any comparable period.

Balance of risks. Where do you strike it? Being “safe” and cooking the planet or what?

So the spill happened 4 years ago.

And maybe the radioactive waste didn’t even get into Kakadu?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 11:24pm:

So the spill happened 4 years ago. And maybe the radioactive waste didn’t even get into Kakadu?

2010 was 7 years ago.

lee wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:13pm:

by electrical conductivity?

By radioactivity from: uranium, sulphate and radium contaminants.


http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/environmental-aspects-of-uranium-mining.aspx

The uranium orebody contains both U-235 and (mostly) U-238. About 95% of the radioactivity in the ore is from the U-238 decay series. This has 14 radioactive isotopes in secular equilibrium, thus each represents 7% of the total. (In the case of Ranger ore – with 0.3% U308 – it has about 450 kBq/kg, so irrespective of the mass proportion, 32 kBq/kg per nuclide in that decay series.) When the ore is processed, the U-238 and the very much smaller masses of U-234 (and the U-235) are removed. The balance becomes tailings, and at this point has about 86% of its original intrinsic radioactivity. However, with the removal of most U-238, the following two short-lived decay products (Th-234 & Pa-234) soon disappear, leaving the tailings with a little over 70% of the radio-activity of the original ore after several months. The controlling long-lived isotope then becomes Th-230 which decays with a half life of 77,000 years to radium-226 followed by radon-222.

How much radioactivity is in Kakadu Booby?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 11:07pm:

You already said that you guppy! HM is left. Is it concentrated or spread far and wide. HM made it out of Kakdu. God, can’t you present complete information? No wonder you believe that stupid liar Dubyne.

Bobby makes a fair factual point and you have a rabid spray... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Do leave off with your repetitive crap. :D

A Million Litres Of Radioactive Waste Leaked At A Kakadu Mine
Sarah Kimmorley
Dec 8, 2013, 9:35 AM

A burst leaching tank at Ranger Hill mine has oozed what is thought to be up to a million litres of acidic radioactive slurry into the Kakadu National Park overnight.

At around 1 am workers discovered a hole in the tank and were immediately evacuated, concerned the tank would explode.

While no one was injured it is the third security breach at for Energy Resources Australia’s site in just over a month, and traditional landowners are “sick with worry”.

Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt has ordered an immediate clean up and investigation, while Greens Senator Scott Ludlam and the Northern Territory Environment Centre are calling for an indefinite suspension of all operations at the site.

ERS remains insistent that no uranium leaked into the surrounding National Park but local sources have told The ABC otherwise with the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, which represents the traditional owners of the area, calling it one of the worst nuclear incidents in Australian history.

“This is up to a million litres of radiological material in the form of an acid exploding from a drum, bending a crane, twisting metal all around it, pouring down into stormwater drains, with 20 or so people ordered to evacuate,” Justin O’Brien, chief executive of the GAC told The AAP.

O’Brien plans to contact the World Heritage Committee requesting international help and a comprehensive external audit of what O’Brien said was an “endemically failing site”.

So HM radioactivity is in Kakadu?

Quote:

Radioactive waste threat to Kakadu Wednesday, March 15, 1995 By Pip Hinman Energy Resources of Australia, the operator of the Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu in the Northern Territory, announced on March 9 that it intends to release radioactive water into nearby Magela Creek. ERA has been given permission to pollute this World Heritage wetlands area by the federal government, the Office of the Supervising Scientist and the NT acting mines and energy minister, Fred Finch. A request for an injunction to stop the release, sought by five traditional owners, will be heard by the Supreme Court on March 16. ERA argues that the release of contaminated water from Retention Pond 2, for the first time in Ranger's 15-year history, is unavoidable because of the near-record wet season. "For this very reason, release standards were set and approved in 1985, defining the safe maximum amounts of contaminants permitted to enter the Magela Creek system", said Finch. Finch argues that the wastes will be diluted to a virtually undetectable level. "With creek flows of this nature, the water is not only safe but is guaranteed to reach the ocean." The minister caused further controversy when he said he would be "very happy" to drink the diluted water. NT Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW) spokesperson Philip Nitschke described Finch's comments as "foolish" and "irresponsible". "There is no 'safe' level for the ingestion of radioactive materials, and it is an accepted medical principle that humans should be exposed as little radiation as possible." MAPW has called on the federal government to publicly release information about the nature of the contamination, and in particular their half-lives, the quantities of each of the isotopes to be released, and the expected distribution of contaminants across the flood plain. "When this information is made public, the broader community will be in a better position to assess whether it supports such an environmentally irresponsible act." According to the NT Environment Centre's (NTEC) Richard Ledgar, Ranger was originally designed as a no release mine, but due to design faults ERA has consistently sought to release. "The natural environment should not have to pay for poor design. This is an ongoing, long-term problem which will not be solved by this release." The NTEC is concerned that a release approval would set a dangerous precedent and represent a major weakening in the environmental safeguards protecting the World Heritage wetlands of Kakadu. "These pollutants do not just dissolve in water and disappear. They lodge in the food chain and accumulate." The NT government has been attempting to play some of the traditional owners off against each other, saying it had received "mixed reactions" to ERA's release application. However, Northern Land Council chairperson Galarrwuy Yunupingu said on March 9, "Aboriginal people oppose the release because they are worried about their water and food supply. What would happen if Retention Pond 2 water was released into Darwin's water supply. Wouldn't the people of Darwin be outraged and rightly concerned about the effects? That is exactly how the people downstream of the pond are taking the news — they feel they are being forced out." According to the Land Council and the NTEC, ERA has alternatives which will keep the contaminants within the restricted release zone. For instance, ERA could release excess water into the empty pit of the ore body, which was mined out last December. "Water management has always been a problem at Ranger and approval for this release will allow ERA to sidestep its obligations and to go for the cheap option. The only long-term solution is to immediately cease production, close and rehabilitate the Ranger mine site", concluded the NTEC.

http://ecnt.org.au/34000-tonnes-of-radioactive-waste-inside-kakadu/

So you don’t know.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 26^th, 2017 at 9:12am:

So you don’t know.

No...
But its apparent You cant read... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Uranium truck mishap in Kakadu
Lindsay Murdoch

THE bogging of a semi-trailer loaded with uranium oxide, or yellowcake, in Kakadu National Park has highlighted the danger of transporting the dangerous material long distances by road, conservationists say.

None of the material, contained in 44-gallon (200-litre) drums in two shipping containers, leaked when the semi-trailer bogged on the side of the Arnhem Highway on Wednesday as the driver pulled over to let a truck pass about 20 kilometres from the long-troubled Ranger uranium mine.

But Dave Sweeney, nuclear campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the incident showed the dangers associated not only with the Ranger mine but also the federal government's proposal to build Australia's first national nuclear waste dump on a remote cattle station 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek in central Australia.

"This is a wake-up call for federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, who appears to be hellbent on pushing the Muckaty proposal," Mr Sweeney said.

Under the proposal, radioactive waste from major cities will be transported thousands of kilometres to the dump on Muckaty Station. The waste has been accumulating for more than 50 years.

A dump at Muckaty would also mean radioactive waste that Australia sent overseas would be transported from Darwin port overland to Muckaty. Under an international agreement, the waste must be returned to Australia in 2015 and 2016.

Mr Sweeney said the release three days before Christmas of the report of a parliamentary inquiry into the feasibility of Muckaty was a cynical attempt to avoid public scrutiny of the proposal, which has bitterly divided Aboriginal traditional owners in the area.

"This inquiry had no public input, only took evidence from the project's proponents and failed to provide procedural fairness to affected landowners," he said.

Mr Sweeney said the National Waste Management Bill, which the House of Representatives removed the appeal rights from the Muckaty community, suspended key indigenous and environmental protections and overrode all federal, state and territory laws.

"It is not based on good science and does not follow a robust, open, transparent process," he said.

An interim finding in a Federal Court challenge to the Muckaty proposal is expected to be announced later this month.

Mr Sweeney said the incident involving the semi-trailer transporting yellowcake from Ranger to Darwin for export showed that the ageing mine had "hit the point of diminished return and increased environmental impact in the world heritage-listed Kakadu park".

Energy Resources of Australia has announced plans to expand its operation at the mine despite being dogged by operational problems, including unresolved seepage from the tailings dam and delays in establishing methods to handle contaminated water.

"ERA should not be permitted to prolong this unacceptable situation by constructing a new mine tunnel or fast-tracking the unproven and polluting acid-heap-leach method of processing waste rock," Mr Sweeney said.

ERA denied there was any risk of spill from the bogged semi-trailer.

And the actual radioactivity in Kakadu? Don’t know? Then just say so.

There have been at least 150 leaks, spills and licence breaches at the Ranger Uranium Mine between 1981 and 2009

As of March 2009, the Ranger uranium mine is leaking 100,000 litres of contaminated water into the ground beneath the Kakadu National Park every day, according to a government appointed scientist. Energy Resources of Australia has been repeatedly warned about its management of the mine.


Quote:

Kakadu mine operations suspended after 1.5 million litre uranium spill KATINA VANGOPOULOS, NT News December 9, 2013 12:00am PROCESSING operations at the Ranger Uranium Mine have been stopped by a government taskforce until they complete a full investigation into Saturday's radioactive spill incident. A joint taskforce led by the Northern Territory Government will include assistance from the Department of Mines and Energy (DME), Northern Territory WorkSafe, the Australian Government Department of Industry and the Australian Government Supervising Scientist Division. The spill, of up to 1.5 million litres, came from a failed leach tank about 1am on Saturday. An Australian uranium expert says the acid mixed with the slurry that spilled from the tank is likely to be an even bigger concern than any radioactivity. Energy Resources of Australia has reported the spill was contained by the mine's management system and would not impact Kakadu National Park. However, Ms Peris said for the environment and local communities, enough was enough. "All operations should cease and independent scrutiny should be applied to the mine's operations," she said. "The office of the supervising scientist also needs to step up and make a contribution in this debate." Backing concern from the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation and fellow senators, Ms Peris said the situation foreshadowed future occurrences. "I am also concerned these sorts of spills and events are what would happen if we are forced to have the Muckaty nuclear waste dump imposed on us," she said. ERA released a second statement yesterday that said all water-monitoring points had reported normal readings. Processing operations at the mine had stopped and clean-up operations were "well-advanced". A spokesperson said ERA would commission a full investigation into the incident and was co-operating with Commonwealth and Territory regulators. He said further announcements would be made once the full impact on operations was understood. It is believed production could be shut down for months, affecting hundreds of employees. ERA employs more than 500 people as a large contributor to the Alligator Rivers Region and Northern Territory economies. Meanwhile, a uranium expert at the University of Adelaide told the ABC yesterday the slurry that spilled from the tank was likely to have a low level of radioactivity. Professor Steven Lincoln said uranium ore was broken down when mixed with either sulphuric or nitric acid, as part of the uranium refining process. He said it was the acid, rather than the uranium, that was the concern. "So at this level, the radioactivity is not a worry," he said. "The chemicals they used are more worrisome than the radioactivity. Sulphuric acid is a very strong acid, so it's something you keep very carefully under control."

You don't seem to appreciate the environmental impact of Uranium Mining itself Monk...  there are may problems, not just radioactivity, not just exploding nuclear reactors waste and dangerous waste takes many forms storage and transportation of all forms of this waste is very problematic.  And you want a dump as well...  in a country where much of its water is artesian. :D :D :D :D :D :D
Once we lose 1 aquifer we are in very big trouble. ::)

And HM radioactivity is in Kakadu?

I have said way ^^^^^ that mines are often too slack with stuff like tailings and slimes dams. But you cannot give any evidence of higher than normal radioactivity in Kakadu

Any problems with Olympic Dam?

We cannot keep burning coal.

Renewables are intermittent in nature.

A mix of nuclear and renewables is best.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 26^th, 2017 at 9:23am:

And the actual radioactivity in Kakadu? Don’t know? Then just say so.

Why don't you tell me since you know everything?
I mean the information must be so easy to come by if you know it.

Your argument is spurious...  Kakadu is a very large area. That doesn't mean parts of it aren't seriously damaged or polluted.   I suggest you actually try reading what I've posted instead of wasting my time...

Once in the environment it will be there for a very long time and work its way into the water table and food cycle...  just Ranger has had 150 accidents...  and radioactivity is not the only issue, but hey...  you are a dope.  Your questions and strawmen prove that. :D :D :D :D :D

Then tell me about the parts that are seriously polluted.

But AGW is cooking the earth, we need to switch to non–emitting energy sources—renewables. Renewables are intermittent at heart—we need a non–intermittent energy source to back up renewables. Until fusion is commercialised that has to be fission.

Grendel wrote on Jul 26^th, 2017 at 9:00am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 25th, 2017 at 11:07pm: You already said that you guppy! HM is left. Is it concentrated or spread far and wide. HM made it out of Kakdu. God, can’t you present complete information? No wonder you believe that stupid liar Dubyne. Bobby makes a fair factual point and you have a rabid spray... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Do leave off with your repetitive crap. :D

Thanks Grendel ,
let Jovial go up there & make some measurements before
he drinks the water & eats the fish.

None of you have any info about HM radioactivity there is in Kakdu.

Since you are making such fuss about a spill I would have thought you would have done the follow up.

Booby waving his white flag as usual. No real evidence ever, eh Booby.

Ranger should not have been given the go ahead because of its location: tropical rain.

But the issue is not the accidents at one mine or another. Or the very few failures of nuclear reactors and the handful of deaths they caused.

The issue is that we are cooking the world with our carbon emissions and we have to urgently reduce them.

I suggest a mix of fission and renewables. Until fusion is commercialised.

Oh and before I forget...

The Great Artesian Basin...

http://antinuclear.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/great-artesian-basin.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 26^th, 2017 at 9:54am:

None of you have any info about HM radioactivity there is in Kakdu. Since you are making such fuss about a spill I would have thought you would have done the follow up. Booby waving his white flag as usual. No real evidence ever, eh Booby. Ranger should not have been given the go ahead because of its location: tropical rain. But the issue is not the accidents at one mine or another. Or the very few failures of nuclear reactors and the handful of deaths they caused. The issue is that we are cooking the world with our carbon emissions and we have to urgently reduce them. I suggest a mix of fission and renewables. Until fusion is commercialised.

I hath given unto thee much evidence.
You are exposed as a nuclear warrior.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 26^th, 2017 at 9:54am:

None of you have any info about HM radioactivity there is in Kakdu. Since you are making such fuss about a spill I would have thought you would have done the follow up. Booby waving his white flag as usual. No real evidence ever, eh Booby. Ranger should not have been given the go ahead because of its location: tropical rain. But the issue is not the accidents at one mine or another. Or the very few failures of nuclear reactors and the handful of deaths they caused. The issue is that we are cooking the world with our carbon emissions and we have to urgently reduce them. I suggest a mix of fission and renewables. Until fusion is commercialised.

You idiot how much do you need posted on problems accidents etc before YOU get it?

I expect you to post the information you demand of others in your strawman.

Come on do it... 
Oh what?  No measurements have ever been taken that address your strawman?  Really?
Well who'd have thunk it?
You are a proper goose. :D :D :D :D :D

So, roach, HM radioactivity is there in Kakadu.

How do you weigh the balance of risks.

1. Stick with coal—more deaths than caused by nuclear generator accidents, cooks the planet

2. Switch to renewables backed up by fission. Some accidents might happen, none of Chernobyl or Fukushima scale—we have learned and moved on.

Jovial nut,
I have presented facts about the nuclear cycle:

the mining is dangerous.
the Nuclear power plants are dangerous.
the waste they make is dangerous.

What more evidence do you need?

Coal is even more dangerous even without its GHG emissions.

There is no easy choice, Booby, balance of risk is what we must do.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 26^th, 2017 at 7:08pm:

Coal is even more dangerous even without its GHG emissions. There is no easy choice, Booby, balance of risk is what we must do.

Really....  never heard of anyone dying of exposure to coal radioactivity.  I assume you get the point without me having to be more specific and dumb it down any more.

Grendel wrote on Jul 26^th, 2017 at 9:45pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 26th, 2017 at 7:08pm: Coal is even more dangerous even without its GHG emissions. There is no easy choice, Booby, balance of risk is what we must do. Really....  never heard of anyone dying of exposure to coal radioactivity.  I assume you get the point without me having to be more specific and dumb it down any more.

Jovial doesn't base his arguments on facts.

I have posted details earlier in this thread.

That Booby hasn’t heard of something does not surprise me. Nevertheless he should read what I posted.

Particulate emissions from coal fired generators cause respiratory problems in people, some die of them. Coal fired generators also emit uranium and cadmium—heavy metals—out their smokestacks. And they belch out CO2 etc, not good. We see Greenland and West Antarctica ice sliding into the sea, we should recognise the problems we are causing. Men should. Cowards run away as usual.

.....

The issue is not the accidents at one mine or another. Or the very few failures of nuclear reactors and the handful of deaths they caused.

Coal mining and burning has caused more deaths than the nuclear industry

The issue is that we are cooking the world with our carbon emissions and we have to urgently reduce them.

We see Greenland glaciers calving off large amounts of ice each NH summer, 200Gtons a year or so. Now we see Antarctica starting to do the same, Larsen A&B but more importantly Thwaites and the other glaciers draining into the Amundsen Sea are starting to retreat faster and faster.

So we need to act to reduce the CO2 being emitted then the harder task of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. Reforestation, marginal land turned back to native vegetation, chemical or biochemical engineering to extract CO2 and turn it into something useful.

Be really nice if we could see what is happening and start action before some entirely foreseeable climate–caused disaster happens. I am not that hopeful.

You do post alarmist nonsense...

http://epaabuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/chickenlittle1.jpg