Nuclear waste headed to South Australia - Greens




THE Greens say the South Australian Government has abandoned its tough stand against the transport of nuclear waste through the state.

Greens MP Mark Parnell said former Premier Mike Rann won a High Court challenge against Howard government plans to locate a nuclear waste dump in SA.

Mr Rann also opposed the transport of nuclear waste through the state to a proposed dump in the Northern Territory.

Federal parliament yesterday passed a Bill authorising the NT dump and Mr Parnell said the State Government now appeared to accept nuclear waste from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney would travel through SA.

He said the Government told the SA upper house that it expected the Federal Government would enter into discussions and keep the state fully informed of any future transport of significant quantities of radioactive waste.



"This transport is completely unnecessary," Mr Parnell said today.

"Even if you accept the need to build a waste-storage facility in the Northern Territory, which the Greens totally reject, the most direct route from Lucas Heights to the NT is nowhere near South Australia."

Mr Parnell said in 2009 a federal government report found that transporting waste through SA was an option that would avoid the emotive idea of taking it through the Blue Mountains.

But he said if the waste came through SA it would travel through Australia's food bowl and tourist areas such as the SA Riverland.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/nuclear-waste-headed-to-south-australia-greens/story-e6freonf-1226300436521



Is Adelaide planning on being the capital for the world's nuclear waste.

Ship it in via the port, and past the city.
Also via other states by road.

What is actually the long term plan for LibLabs nuclear madness in South Australia and across the country?

Are they planning on taking responsibility for all the uranium waste, they want to sell, some to make nuclear weapons with.

What better place than SA for the world's nuclear waste, it's a rust belt sh1t hole with mostly desert that was used for nuclear bomb testing not so long ago anyway.


At's all good and well to demand answers to Australia's nuclear waste, how about answers to Australia's medical needs if we were to shut down Lucas heights, let Australians die a slow painful death from cancer.

There are literally thousands of small nuclear waste depositories through-out Australia because we don't have a nuclear waste dump; personally I'd rather see the waste go to SA rather then the NT.

BTW that horsesh1t you're still spreading about QLD getting nuclear power, let it go, it's only a deranged figment of your imagination.

you'd think they were transporting spent plutonium rods and nuclear weapons material. the vast majority of the waste is medical nuclear waste now stored in cardboard boxes in the basement of hospitals. there is virtually nothing that is highlevel whatsoever.

and im buggered how they plan to get waste to NT without *shock horror* travelling thru another state to get there! ACT doesnt even have the sea option!

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 3:05pm:



It's hard to tell what you were WTFing about, so answering your question will rely on my ability to interpret a TLA with a question mark.

The first sentence was solely to gee up greens wank


The rest of it is pretty much in english and easy to read but I'll assume it's the bit about the small depositories, well that's a fact of life in this country because we are stupid people, easily scared  by a good beat up, so we avoid building a nuclear waste facility for few decades all the while waste is piling up all over the country.




Radioactive waste is currently in temporary storage at numerous locations across the country, often within towns and cities. Since these storage facilities were not purposely built for this, an incident could potentially put the public in a danger. Purpose built storage and disposal facilities are required to safely manage radioactive waste.

http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/radioactive_waste/Pages/RadioactiveWasteManageme...

I could not think of a worse policy than Australia becoming the worlds nuclear waste dumping ground, no matter how much they paid us.

Fair enough that if we get nukes we keep our own waste, but to take the rest of the worlds toxic waste?

Madness.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 3:39pm:




So how do you transport via ocean, via places like the Great Barrier Reef, into ports, loaded onto trucks and then through cities, down highways and past schools and people's homes ... when we can not do this safely with other stuff.

China ship 'seriously damaged' Great Barrier Reef

The Australian authorities have said a Chinese bulk carrier which ran aground off Queensland has caused widespread damage to the famed Great Barrier Reef.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8616880.stm

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 3:01pm:




How long was Lucas heights closed for ... wasn't it longer than 12 months.




Lucas Heights employee raises nuclear safety concerns

A man who worked at Australia's only nuclear facility for 28 years has alleged that serious breaches of safety have occurred at the reactor.

David Reid has come forward to tell Lateline that safety breaches at Lucas Heights in Sydney were being played down or ignored.

He says in 2008 a vial of highly radioactive material was dropped, exposing one employee to a substantial dose of radiation.

Mr Reid says the incident was not reported for hours.

"It was such a massive dose, none of our instruments could measure it, it was way off scale," he said.

The ABC understands the employee has an elevated white blood cell count.

Yet it was not until more than 12 months after the accident that Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) emailed the employee to offer medical and psychological support.

The incident took place at ANSTO's radio-pharmaceuticals business, ARI.

ARI General-Manager Shaun Jenkinson says it has been in production for 40 years.

"The organisation has a very good record on safety and doesn't tolerate breaches of safety," he said.

"All events that happen are reported to [industry watchdog] ARPANSA and they decide whether its a breach."

ARPANSA's report into the incident said radioactive vials were being regularly dropped and there had been no apparent attempt at improving the way they were handled.

David Reid says someone could be killed at the plant in the future.

"If you don't follow the safety procedures and investigate the accidents, somebody is going to pay the ultimate price one day," he said.

Mr Reid was suspended from his position last year, accused of bullying. The case is yet to be resolved.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-06/lucas-heights-employee-raises-nuclear-safe...

Carr the elephant in Labor's anti-nuclear cabinet

IN one of the political surprises of a generation, Australia has a new Foreign Minister. Bob Carr's abrupt and unexpected entrance into the Senate puts an elephant in the middle of the room, but not the pachyderm most may think.

In March 2005, I delivered a speech to parliament advocating, at the minimum, active consideration of nuclear power for electricity generation in Australia. Not long after, while still premier of NSW, Carr indicated his support for a nuclear future. In a blog in December 2010, he stated: "Australia has a theological objection to nuclear power. It's illogical but deeply entrenched."

Honestly, Bob, I couldn't have said it better myself.

I wonder what his position will be now that he is part of a government that is fervently opposed to nuclear energy.

Sticking to an agreement with the Greens she never needed to sign, Julia Gillard continues in her pursuit of a hugely expensive and damaging carbon tax, affectionately referred to by Labor as a Clean Energy Future. The carbon tax is ignorant policy because the government failed to consider nuclear energy in the mix of policies to reduce emissions.


As Carr notes: "I support nuclear power because I take global warming so very seriously. Nuclear power is the least cost, low-emission technology that can provide baseload power. It is well established and should certainly play a role in Australia's future mix of energy sources."

History shows us a carbon tax won't work. Irrespective of how high you price something to deter people from using it, when no viable alternatives are available, there will be no change in behaviour. People simply will pay higher prices.

A great many of the Prime Minister's policies fall short of the nuclear payload.

For a few years there was the promise of so-called clean coal, where carbon dioxide emissions are captured, pressurised, liquefied and pumped deep underground into suitable geological formations to be preserved. This idea offers false hope, which may shock a government that has not been endowed with an iota of technical competence. Despite promoters claiming the practice is easy and every element of the process is proven, the fact remains it is hugely expensive and technically risky, to say the least.

Tim Flannery's promise that hot rocks is simple, proven technology, and that it could provide decades of cheap electricity, also has failed to come to fruition. The problem is the company that Flannery had invested in has fallen sharply on the sharemarket because of a number of technical failures.

Solar and wind technologies are also said to have promise. The fact is, both these technologies are expensive and require back-up when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

As a scientist, I am a great believer in reality checks. In this debate the reality check is that if renewable power sources are technically and economically competitive, you would expect at least one nation in the world to generate most of its power from renewable sources.

Despite large subsidies, this has not happened, including in Australia.

As Carr says of nuclear power: "It remains the only serious base-load alternative to incinerating more coal."

Apart from hydroelectricity, where Australia has little additional potential capacity, the only very low carbon dioxide emitting technology is nuclear power. It's safe and affordable, and Carr knows it.

Yet the Gillard government, unique among OECD nations, continues to refuse even to consider using nuclear power as a means to reduce emissions.

Instead Australia can look forward to the widest ranging and costliest carbon tax on earth.

This is not only stupidity of the highest order but symptomatic of a government that is abrogating its responsibilities.

If nuclear power were indeed uneconomic, as some nay-sayers continue to insist, why ban it in legislation? The market would simply price it out.

The reason nay-sayers want it banned is that they fear that it is economically competitive, and thus generators would consider it on an economic basis, let alone an environmental one.

Gillard has ramrodded Carr into the Senate and the cabinet, no doubt having a very high regard for his capabilities; indeed, capabilities that must be superior to all other Labor colleagues. Perhaps the Prime Minister will listen to her new recruit on an issue where she is clearly not only ill-informed but not informed at all.

My hope is Carr's appointment will give new impetus to the nuclear debate. Perhaps this discussion will even turn to the potential of thorium. I applaud Carr for his outspoken views on a number of wide-ranging and sometimes controversial topics.

In his six years of absence from public life, Carr has kept himself relevant with a catalogue of blogs, opinions and musings that map his stance on key policy areas for which the federal government holds responsibility. These also provide us with a benchmark from which to judge how membership of the Gillard government tempers these positions.

Just how far Carr drifts into Labor's nuclear vacuum remains to be seen.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/carr-the-elephant-in-la...