From the newspaper
Much talk has been going on here about where to bury nuclear waste, with various sites being proposed by government (near towns and/or in good farming areas) and many people saying "no way! not there!" or "not here!"
Various persons over time have written to the newspaper "Letters to the Editor" page with their ideas on the subject and I fully agree with them.
Here's one:
"Nuclear Hill
Bob Major makes sense in his proposal to store nuclear waste at Radium Hill in lieu of Kimba (Move the dump" The Advertiser, Friday).
Radium Hill is geologically stable, has good transport infrastructure (road and rail) and little farming is conducted in the area.
Uranium was mined there, so why not put it back?
Rod Smith, Semaphore Park"
and here's another in today's paper
"Geologist knows
As respected retired geologist Bob Major has outlined, the ideal site for a low-level repository is at Australia's first uranium mine, Radium Hill (Move the dump, The Advertiser, Friday)
This is 460km northeast of Adelaide and was mined from 1906-1961
Dr Jim Gehling, AO,Adelaide."
My thoughts:
I've been noticing similar letters to the paper for months now and agree 100%, the nuclear waste could and should be put back into the same hole it came out of.
This makes perfect sense to me.
I don't understand how the government can't (or won't) see this. It's not rocket science!
It's the same basic principle we teach our kids, at the end of the day, all toys get put back into the same toy box they came out of. We don't wander around the neighbourhood asking others if we can store our stuff in a giant hole in their yard!
.png)
Agree with you River. Interesting topic.
ReplyDeleteMargaret D; I have to admit I never gave it any thought until it was all over the papers.
DeleteJust so long as the site is made safe. And that safety is monitored and ensured...
ReplyDeleteElephant's Child; that would be my #1 priority!
DeleteFar away would be good, or where it came from, I agree.
ReplyDeleteWe have one 30 km from our doorstep, the Asse.
Wiki says: "One of these mines, Schacht Asse II, is now used to store low- and medium-grade radioactive waste produced by medicine and nuclear power plants."
Many say they buried it in a hurry and hence who knows what´s going on in there - is it safe?
You will see many a wooden, big, yellow "A" hanging from balconies etc.
Where do these people get their energy from? Wood? Do they go and really harvest that?!
There is no clean solution.
Also... look at Ukraine. If the Russians ... radiocative material does not stop at the border, just think of Tschernobyl... We play with stuff we do not know enough about.
Soon we´ll get LNG, not from Australia but Katar, irony. And it will only be 3% of what Germany needs, they said in the new yesterday.
I´d prefer solar energy. But I have no idea what damage you cause producing the panels...
You can say something against any form of getting energy, I suppose. Wind-energy on land kills birds, in water sea life... we sure live in a crazy world.
They even consider fracking here now.
Iris; wind energy on land is a good idea, birds are smart and will become accustomed to avoiding them, but the wind doesn't always blow. Solar panels are another good idea, but they only last a few years then need replacing, what happens to all the old unwanted solar panels?
DeleteAnyway, I hope they decide to store the radioactive waste in the mines it came out of. With safety measures in place.
Yes, I often drove by still wind plants... There is even a The Simpsons-episode on that.
DeleteWish we could find a proper way.
That sounds so sensible, as long as there isn't a local indigenous population who would be affected.
ReplyDeleteAndrew; no one cared about the locals when they mined the stuff, but I hope they can work something out for storage if there are people there. I hadn't thought there might be anyone there, I thought it was just an abandoned area. I shall ask google.
DeleteThe problem with "putting it back in the same place" is that what's going back in is processed uranium. Besides, I've read recently where newer type nuclear power plants will run using the old spent fuel and use it up to a point of safe disposal. There may not be enough of old spent fuel in the long run.
ReplyDeleteMike; I haven't done any research on this, I really suck at research, I just go on gut feelings when I read stuff. The newer type plants using up spent fuel seems like a good idea, it means storing the old spent fuel will be safer at least.
DeleteIt seems that governments are always inclined to ignore good sense and expert advice and choose to 'decide for themselves' Often there are bribes involved. What a mess.
ReplyDeletejabblog; an excellent reason to distrust governments and politicians.
DeleteThat does seem to make sense, unless there are great expenses associated with transportation or some other mitigating factors I'm not aware of!
ReplyDeleteSteve Reed; I imagine there would be just as much expense with any other method.
DeleteDon't really know if there is a safe solution and only hope speed and expense are not the determining factors.
ReplyDeleteArkansas Patti; with most government ideas I think the determining factors are how can we do this as cheaply as possible and how can we hide it from the public!
DeleteWhy do governments anywhere allow this to happen before knowing what is proposed and approved for the waste materials? Now, it is said, we are even going to have trouble with the arms of the hugh windmills (which I love seeing) around the world because there are materials in them that are not recyclable and could be dangerous! Really?
ReplyDeletePeace Thyme; governments do not look too far into the future, they see only as far as the next elections and how much they can do or pretend to do while they are in power. I did not know that about the windmills, but I know the same is true about solar panels not being recyclable.
DeleteI understand very little of this topic, but you seem to have a good discussion going.
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about nuclear waste disposal, but surely your country has more remote areas that could be suitable, rather than near towns and farms.
ReplyDeleteOften the best solution is ignored for monetary reasons, and it is sad.
ReplyDelete