Hi Penny, if you would like to report an issue, please get in touch with us at yoursaynuclear@sa.gov.au and we will look into it.

yes Penny,
Do you have any evidence...of anything?? or are you going to continue making pathetic attempts to malign my character in a public forum with no supporting evidence...
Does the word #facepalm have any meaning for you???

Marcelina I have asked that you confirm you really exist and that your real name is Marcelina Wood. I have also asked Brooke to confirm what safeguards there are in place to stop people using fictitious names to put up posts. If you are a real person, you wouldn't have a problem with this. So I will ask you again. Are you, Marcelina Wood, a South Australian resident? Easy question to answer. Is this your real name or is it a pen name? I use my real name. # facepalm means nothing to me at all.

Can't wait to see them try and Pass a Bill through the Senate to Create a Nuclear Waste Dump if they think the Senate is hostile now try to push this through LOL a big shout out to the Pro Nuclear Lobby thank god for Democracy LOL

You do know this is a STATE commission don't you? The senate doesn't matter much.

Will be required if they push for a HLW Dump Aaron but I appreciate your concern on the matter.

Hello Martin,

I like your thinking. I would say this is well beyond Royal Commission scope but very much a consideration for policy formation.

I agree, we need to think about the need to make fuels not just electricity. I personally don't think hydrogen as an energy carrier is the most promising pathway, for a range of reasons. However, based on the basic concept you lay out, methanol, di-methyl ether or ammonia offers greater potential as the staring points for refining the full range of hydrocarbon fuels, with the original energy source being completely carbon free. E.g. synthetic fuels that bypass fossil carbon.

Advanced reactor designs that run at much higher temperatures may be excellently suited for this type of activity and I want the government to be thinking along these innovative lines.

Hello Martin,

I like your thinking. I would say this is well beyond Royal Commission scope but very much a consideration for policy formation.

I agree, we need to think about the need to make fuels not just electricity. I personally don't think hydrogen as an energy carrier is the most promising pathway, for a range of reasons. However, based on the basic concept you lay out, methanol, di-methyl ether or ammonia offers greater potential as the staring points for refining the full range of hydrocarbon fuels, with the original energy source being completely carbon free. E.g. synthetic fuels that bypass fossil carbon.

Advanced reactor designs that run at much higher temperatures may be excellently suited for this type of activity and I want the government to be thinking along these innovative lines.

Hi Ben,

Good comments. I agree such ideas may appear beyond the direct scope of the report but cascading effects of a nuclear industry beyond its immediate impacts are great to consider. I agree we should be thinking innovative approaches. I agree we should take on waste and use it in mk iv reactors as a fuel source.

I realise the report mentions hydrogen as a fuel source but leaves it at that. Somewere, sometime we need to expand upon that. It would be good to see some innovative real world hypotheticals written down that could give us a vision of the possible alternatives.
Thanks for the insights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splittinghttps://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/industry/nuclear-process-heat-for-industry.aspx&ved=0ahUKEwiq6ZmWhdzNAhUDipQKHVwFAUwQFgggMAI&usg=AFQjCNF2XjfS1Cc_yHZi5sw4OafkOivivA

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/transport-and-the-hydrogen-economy.aspx

Agreed.

Recently I finished a good book on these topics. A bit repetitive but the core information was great, called "Beyond Oil and Gas: The methanol economy". Worth a look.

What I find among people really trying to clean up the whole energy system is that there is near-universal agreement that we need synthetic fuels of some kind, energy carriers of some kind but which? Hydrogen? Methenol or DME? Ammonia? Boron? I would be thrilled if we could be at the stage of having that conversation because then we would be trying to tackel oil and gas which is MUCH harder to displace than coal from a technical point of view

Why use a pseudonym when professing the high ground?

If you cant even be upfront with your identity, your opinion is of no value. Don't expect to be taken seriously when you hide behind a mask!

What an Election go Australia you little beauty such a diverse wonderful country has seen fit to Create a more diverse and creative Senate. Time to wave bye bye to Australia becoming the World's toxic nuclear waste dump hip hip HOORAY............

Couldn't agree more.
The only thing our government has left to sell is our clean environment.
Hence the push to become a nuclear waste dump and drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight.

Hello Alec,

I undertook research work parallel to the Royal Commission in this area. I will be presenting the paper at a conference tomorrow as it happens.

The pricing is anything but guess work. There are multiple lines of evidence for establishing a range of prices on which to base calculation. A very simple truth (the market is not yet active) get's continually misconstrued into "we have no idea". We do have an idea, a very good idea, and no one has been better resourced, with better access, to investigate this than the consulting team under the auspices of the Royal Commission.

"We have to take the waste before we get the money". No, that is completely incorrect, in fact the opposite is true. Forward contracts for acceptance of material will be secured to fund the establishment of the above-ground facility. Customers will then pay the full disposal cost up-front because, for them, they now have what they want, which is an approved discharge of custody. Leveraging a relatively low cost above-ground facility in this way allows the profitable establishment of a below ground facility over time. This was a key finding from my early work, pre-dating the Royal Commission.

As to back-of-envelope calcuations, all I can say from my own work is that their envelope must be the size of a bus.

Hi Alec, thanks again for having your say. To note, we've responded to the same post on our other discussion board with a few key points.

Hi Ben
I don't think you have reasured me in any way. We still take the waste before a "safe" underground facility is built hence my point stands that we may be left with waste in barrels on the surface indefinitely.
As for your calculations, I still maintain that there are too many variables to have accurate costings. See the opinions of economists Prof Richard Blandy and Rod Campbell who throw serious doubt on your economic assumptions.
This whole thing remains a massive risk that a minority with vested interests is pushing through as surreptitiously as possible which future generations will have to sort out.
I would implore the moderators and the jury to have a more open mind and not be seduced by the highly financed pro lobby (which includes the Royal Commission). The no side has not been given the resources to compete fairly.

@Alec ok, there are a few things in that statement so bear with me:
- Dry casks are not barrels in the sense that my daughter's money box is not a bank vault. We are not talking about barrels
- You are welcome to maintain your doubts as to my work however I am welcome to rest on the fact that I did the work as did the Royal Commission
- Neither Blandy nor Campbell have any knowledge, track record or experience in this sector to recommend them to comment. Campell's work was his along with a junior researcher and no peer review whatsover. Lean on it if you wish but, again, I maintain the right to move on
- I am trying to work out how a year long Royal Commission with video testimony, transcripts, public consultation, public submission, early findings, final findings, followed by a citizens jury and then 12 months to a state election is surreptitious and I can't.
- As to the highly financed pro-lobby, mate, perhaps I flatter myself that I am a prominent face for the pro point of view and I can tell you I get jack from anyone. It costs me money, it costs me time, it costs me energy. If you wanna compete with me, don't complain about resources. My wordpress blog costs about $100 per year. Go your hardest

Rather blinkered quote don't you think?

First of all, any energy decision has to be placed in a heirarchy of options. How does the nuclear waste option compare to other options? I can tell you that compared to fossil fuels it compares brilliantly. The reason nuclear waste is a challenge is because we actually attempt to to manage it properly. With fossil fuels we don't even bother. We have come to call the consequence of that climate change.

Secondly "we still dependent on time". With the fullest level of recycling the time we are talking about is only three hundred years, and thanks to the curve of the radioactive decay, the levels are reduced to 1/8th within 100 years. Meanwhile there are several pollutants through our economy that we call "persistent". They fundamentally never go away.

It's easy to make the nuclear monster look big as long as we determinedly don't compare it with alternatives.

I wonder, if we would pair this commitment to the commercialisation of several types of machines that recycle this material (which, we can all agree, already exists) into carbon-free energy and reduces the long-lived material at the same time, would you be more inclined to look at this? Just for now, imagine this could be done, I would like to know how that might alter your thinking.

I have a similar background. For a long time I had an old Gamma Knife source in my office. Obviously it's a gamma emitter, encased in a steel shell, don't know where it ended up, but it would have remarkably little life left it now. I used to contemplate when I had nothing better to do how many lives it improved, prolonged and saved.

That some are so irrationally frightened of radioactivity is astounding to me.

Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile island. Real events. Irrational to be
frightened of radioactivity? Tell that to the people who once lived in these places. Why do the pro nuclear lobby insist on insulting us with their continual references to 'irrational' etc. There is only one rational way to deal with this industry. Shut it down. Medical waste is another matter entirely. Please don't keep confusing low level radioactive medical waste with high level radioactive waste. It is not constructive and is very misleading.

Huh... believe it or not I really find a lot to agree with in what Penny says.

Calling people irrational is, frankly, unhelpful. In fact, there seems no better way to keep people in their trenches.

I happen to think it is quick rational to be really concerned about something that we need to bury deep underground. What I know and understand about used nuclear fuel, as per Isabel's comments, tells me we should be entirely satisfied with above ground storage with a clear plan for recycling. To a significant extent the nuclear industry has built their own monster here. Their incessant focus on safety (as a point of communication I mean) just makes people think "danger".

Penny, it's safe. I have offered to sleep among those dry casks for a week it it will help convince people. It is safe to put it in the ground and in my opinion it is smarter to keep it above the ground and recycle it. I am sure there are some things I could inform you about when it comes to nuclear material, but I do not think your position is irrational.

Penny, nearly everyone that lived near TMI either still does, or moved most likely for reasons not linked to TMI2.

TMI radiation release amounted to about 14 uSv, in perspective, my mum took double that having a chest X-ray on Saturday - I actually specifically asked the radiographer for the dosage. I hold no extra fears for her health and wellbeing due to that X-ray.

There is no increase in cancer or a single death attributable to TMI2. The Americans at the time had equipment sensitive enough to detect radioactivity from Chinese nuclear weapons tests, it didn't detect the release from TMI...

Just found an even better statistic - of those evacuated due to TMI2, 98% returned to their homes within 3 weeks.

That's 2% who either thought it was better to stay away longer or moved away entirely, 2% - put that in perspective, 9% of people in QLD think having Pauline Hanson back in the senate is a good idea! You'd likely struggle to find anyone who thinks that's a good idea, and you've got about a quarter of that chance finding someone who was evacuated from TMI and thought it was a bad idea to go back. I think the residents of the area surrounding TMI have a good sense of rationality.

I think formerly known as might be a stretch.

How's your research going Aaron

Christopher do you work?

Are you still Studying Steve or are you a paid proponent of this fiasco.

Let's pray Steve us Nay-Sayers can prevent the Nuclear Industry and their Lobbyists from DUMPING THE WORLDS TOXIC HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR WASTE IN OUR BACKYARD.

Steve Whats with your fixation on moderators I can understand being concerned about the moderators used in FUKUSHIMA and their release into the environment but so much more deadlier forms of radioactive materials with far longer half life's have been released into the World Environment i struggle to see what your fixation is with moderators used in the reactors I'm more concerned about the missing fuel from the reactor cores that TEPCO can't locate.

If you don't want to protect Australia for yourself protect it for your children and future generations to come.

Toxic? Since when has chemical energy had anything to do with nuclear energy?

Christopher: Future generations: oh so what is wrong with the grandchildren of SSN-577?

Future generations: In fact all of the other crews, children and grand-children of all Submarines of the U.S. and U.K. Navy's ever since SSN-577?

Future generations: What's wrong with the CEO and all other staff and their children at our 20MW reactor?

.
.

More nonsense.

If they have been exposed to radiation long term yes there is possibly a very good chance Steve

Which consortium?

ARIUS

That's not the one I expected you to say.

I don't think Arius has been doing much lobbying here.

Your first 3 words second sentence sum up your input Aaron (I don't think).

Christopher all over the website, so much time on his hands.

Britain stores its own waste... Has done since shortly after WWII.

Aaron your research skills need a bit of improvement if you had bothered to research the facts instead of just trolling everyone's responses and had the spine to come up with your own you would know that currently there is no geological dumps and currently no plans to create one but be assured they are looking to Australia for the Answer to their problem yes Aaron they intend to DUMP THEIR NUCLEAR WASTE IN AUSTRALIA ON AUSTRALIANS it's worked in the past when they had problems to get rid of send the convicts to Australia and they believe sending their HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR WASTE TO AUSTRALIA GETS RID OF THE RISK TO THEIR PEOPLE and they are behind the company PANGEA which has been busy lobbying our inept and morally corrupt politicians using any and every technique at their disposal to finalise their agenda. Even resorting to the slogan Australia could make the world a safer place, for the world this rings true but what of Australia and the poor saps that live here surely we would not be safer Aaron. Now go and try to post something on your own Aaron do the research yourself come up with your own conclusions Aaron then post them for all to read Aaron have a go mate.....lol

My research skills are good, yours not so.

I cannot research what HAS NOT happened.

The corporation you refer to as PANGEA has not existed since 2002! Don't think PANGEA has been doing much lobbying mate!

I am not trolling, merely trying to work out exactly what it is that you are talking about. Might be nice if you worked out what you were talking about too!

If you researched, you would know Britain stores its own waste. You don't even need to research to know that. If you just actually bothered to THINK for a second, Britain made/tested nuclear weapons, what was left over has to be somewhere...

If you researched you would have noted nuclear waste was dumped into the world's oceans up until 1993 when it was banned worldwide Now they want to dump it on us.

Britain stores waste on land too.

Yes they are storing it until they can legally dump it on Australians.

Christopher do you work?

Steve do you ?

Steven McColl are you suggesting that only people who 'work' can comment? Very insulting. Christopher has a right to comment. One day you may find that you can no longer work, through injury, sickness, family reasons- many many reasons. Will you stop having opinions then? And a right to voice them? Stop the personal attacks.

If it's such a marvellous idea why don't the people in the countries that are trying to dump it in our backyard won't allow there own brilliant scientific minds dump the toxic nuclear waste in their own backyards. Sorry bob just can't seem to swallow the rhetoric from those wih vested interests or those that feel they are EXPERTS similar experts built the safety protocols into FUKUSHIMA now the experts don't seem to be able to fix that stuff up let's not allow our incompetent government and the EXPERTS stuff our country up.

Christopher, at least I am bringing some sense of rationality to the debate instead of your wild conspiracy theorist and capital letter views.
Firstly in reply, other countries that have similar mixes of deep strata stability, available land in isolated areas and political stability have been and are doing just as we are contemplating.
Secondly, let's not start cross-comparing technologies and industries. The conduct of a nuclear power plant and the conduct of a waste dump are two entirely different things and to allow conversations on issues with Fukushima to enter into the debate is simple to inject emotion to no positive effect in the debate - unless of course all you wish to do is to inflame people's fears in an irrational way. In a similar way, your assumption that all experts stuff things up is pretty broad and unfounded when we actually look at the evidence.

Bob, It would appear as though Ranger Uranium Mine where you have worked wasn't without spills! Always the risk of spills it seems even well engineered structure can fail.

"Ranger uranium mine toxic spill was second in days at Rio Tinto sites in Australia and Africa

It has been revealed that the collapse of a leach tank at the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory was the second such incident at a Rio Tinto mine in less than a week."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-11/ranger-uranium-spill-follow-namibia-mine-rio-tinto-era/5149686

Thanks Ian. This was about 30 years after I was there and I don't remember it. It does however serve to highlight two things, firstly that fact that a spill at RUM didn't get people excited at all. Why? Because in that part of the process the most dangerous aspect of a spill is the sulphuric acid that they use to leach the uranium from the ore. Clean that up and everything is fine. In fact all of the spill would have been contained within concrete bund walls. Radiation levels in that part of the process are no greater than those in the surface rocks throughout that area.
Secondly, it draws attention to and supports my point made above about painting all parts of the nuclear industries with the same brush: cross-comparing without due knowledge and thought. There is a world of difference between the uranium mining, uranium enrichment, nuclear power and nuclear waste industries - in just about every aspect, as there is between iron ore mining, steel manufacturing, steel bridge construction and steel recycling and to look the dangers inherent in running a blast furnace and therefore say that we shouldn't have a car crushing plant would be silly!

Bob, my point being, scientists, engineers and construction/maintenance staff are all human and all fallible!
Doesn't matter what the industry is, mistakes still happen. Real problems arise when the material being processed is toxic and nuclear. Mistakes with nuclear weapons, power and waste, increase the consequences exponentially.

Yes, agreed Ian, humans are fallible but let us look to the consequences of that fallibility and assess those on a realistic basis. Thus those who continually point to issues (and the consequences of them) within the nuclear power cycle or with nuclear weapons are inciting the fear of consequences that just do not exist at that level within the waste management area.

Bob, fear is a natural response necessary for survival. If some people fear nuclear weapons, power and toxic waste, then I say it is for a good reason. That reason is based on the experience of being exposed to past mistakes made in the nuclear industry.

If you think all the mistakes are in the past and will never happen again, then I respectfully suggest to you that you are indeed wrong!

Show me a man made nuclear waste storage facility that has been in service and maintained for 1000 years?

Unfair question?

If Australia was considering storing only LL and MLW that only requires containing for short periods of time then that is a different matter. The problem is for me that Australia wants the high revenue that comes from storing HLW and then we require storage for millennia. To design a facility that's all new and can last and be maintained for these extended periods of time is asking too much of the concerned people of Australia to accept or believe to be possible.

Bob I admire your willingness to work with the fixated.

Ian, can you show me a green, bulk energy production technique that's never had a problem in 1000 years?

Building structures to last a millennia is not a problem.

Aaron contact TEPCO they are looking for EXPERTS

Bob may be one of the few, who know the difference between nuclear and chemical energy.

Christopher so what is your core area of expertise?

And why is it that you have not yet banned yourself from flying in a B777?

Christopher the moderator please for the RBMK and Daiichi Boiling Water Reactors (BWR)?

Steve do not need to be a Nuclear Physicist to tell the difference what's good and bad luckily us mere mortals will have the final say I know how this must upset those with vested interests in turning AUSTRALIA INTO A NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP.

Buildings lasting several millennia are not easy to achieve Christopher so long as you understand central Australia DOES NOT HAVE meaningful earthquakes and with even less rarity experiences TSUNAMIS. Even more benefit yet can be gained from the understand that storage repository is very different to an energy production facility. Even if we talk nuclear energy production, central Australia is indescribably more 'safe' to a Japanese coastal facility build 40 years ago...

Blergh, this forum needs an undo/delete/edit function.

The above is what happens when you change 'not difficult' to 'easy' and leave the 'not' behind.

Building structures to survive millennia is not difficult...

Ian, fear is an emotion, and is indeed natural, but fear without cognition is not rational.

I maintain that Christopher in particular, and some others here do not have the cognition required for their fear to be rational.

Aaron, looking at the info available on managing nuclear waste, I am of the opinion that LL and ILW are manageable and the countries producing these types of waste have a responsibility to store it safely. I also believe from what I have read that the technology exists to handle these levels of waste.

What concerns me is the handling and storage of HLW and the current understanding of the technology and engineering materials used to store it. I am not convinced it can be handled and stored without considerable risk to the communities and the country as a whole.

In the most basic form of expression, I have a fear of HLW coming into this country and exposing me and the community to an unacceptable and unnecessary risk. A nuclear HLW accident resulting in a spill that cannot be contained is a catastrophic event!

Arron Morley, Central Australia (Tennent Creek) recorded the strongest earthquake recorded in Australia's short white history. Plenty of references to earthquakes in Aboriginal mythology.
So your statement is entirely without fact.

Hi Penny, just to note regarding seismicity - the Royal Commission gathered evidence around South Australia's suitability for this activity and concluded that on a global scale, seismic activity in South Australia is very low. You're welcome to read more about this on page 89 of the Royal Commission's Report.

Penny, 'entirely without fact'? Here's some for you.

On 17/1/1995 a magnitude 7.2 quake hit (and did severe damage) in the region of Kobe-Osaka. It was a 'proper' quake, 887 Gal horizontal, 332 Gal vertical. There were reactors with 110km that survived (due to good design) without even needing to shutdown, NO DAMAGE. Read about them, Ohi and Takahama were the closest, Mihama a little further away and the research reactors at Kobe and Kyoto - zero problems.

In 1999 (September 21) there was a mag 7.6 quake (a full magnitude bigger than the Tennant Creek quake) in Taiwan it killed HUNDREDS, maybe even THOUSANDS of people. The reactors at Kuosheng and Chinshan shutdown automatically and safely to the south of the quake Maanshan continued operation throughout. Energy production resumed TWO DAYS LATER after zero damage was sustained to the Kuosheng and Chinshan reactors.

In mid 2005 there was an earthquake northish Honshu. Three reactors were **** down automatically for safety the surface accelerations hit up to 400 Gal, for a mag 7.2 quake. Onagawa 2 was restarted after checks and was subsequently upgraded and certified safe for shear wave quakes to 580 Gal, that's up to 8.2 magnitude.

In 2007 the approx 8000MWe Kashiwazaki Kariwa plant was hit by a mag 6.8 quake that was centred less than 20 km away from it. The plant was subjected to forces about three times its design specification and yet the plant still survived. The was NO RADITION ESCAPE, and the plant was operational again.

Fukushima DID NOT fail due to an earthquake, it failed when it's backup system was engulfed by a tsunami, these simply do not occur in central Australia.

Building structures (including nuclear reactors) is entirely possible and demonstrable.

The above cases are energy production plants, surface built, not underground storage facilities. They are all vastly more complex than a waste repository, far more vulnerable to quakes being on the surface.

All of them, Kashiwazaki Kariwa in particular, located at vastly closer distances to epicenters of quakes than any place in SA you could name is to Tennant Creek. All of them survived unscathed quakes bigger - in many cases much bigger than Tennant Creek.

Do you know of a nuclear plant that has had a serious accident due to an earthquake? I'd be pleased to read the details of it.

Seems when you typo a vowel replacement 'i' into 'shut' the forum replaces it with ****!

Fukushima failed. People make mistakes. The weather is unpredictable. We do not know the long term stability of any part of this earth for so far into the future.Corporations push their own agendas on governments. We do not know the long term consequences of this. Scientists make mistakes. making a mistake with high level nuclear waste is a real possibility. if it were not, we would not be having this forum, this commission or other countries trying to dump their waste on us. Accidents happen. Why do no other countries want to store their own waste permanently on their own soil?

Hi Penny, thanks again for your comments. Based on the findings of the Royal Commission, South Australia's underlying geology is composed of hard crystalline rock which formed about 2.5 to 1.5 billion years ago and is classified as 'old and stable'. This forms the basis for the Commission's recommendations around the future geological stability.

Hello Bob, thanks again for your contribution to the conversation. To address a point you made in your original post around further risk analysis/catastrophe scenario analysis, and extra details on the financial model - the current process is to undertake a community consultation program to ascertain whether there is broad social consent for Government to continue investigating opportunities associated with nuclear activity. If consent exists and Government chooses to take any further steps down the track, this is where detailed further analysis (such as legislation, site planning, safety cases, risk assessments and so forth) will take place. Thanks again for joining the discussion.

Penny, really, first this was about geological stability, now you've shifted it to a strange argument based on weather.

Weather in what most clear thinking people would regard as weather, will have no effect on a waste repository. H. sapiens discovered how to build structures to survive weather long before we discovered how to make them earthquake proof. Do I have to go and dig out examples of atomic facilities surviving hurricanes and tropical cyclones now?

Fukushima 'failed' because a tsunami inundated a backup plant, Fukushima itself 'survived'.

Please try and understand that meaningfully sized tsunami NEVER occur in central Australia.

Lastly, weather is predictable, it's a peer reviewed science called meteorology - one of the simplest predictions in all of meteorology to make is that a hurricane/typhoon/cyclone or any similar atmospheric event WILL NEVER occur 4km below ground!

Lastly, and hopefully for the last time because it is getting tiresome, other countries do store their own waste in their own country. Sure, some countries cannot, their geology is not 1Ga+ old and stable, their storage solutions cannot be as safe and secure as a facility here in Australia. These countries may choose to pay us handsomely, in full, and upfront, I think this might be unlikely, but at the very least we should be building such a structure if only for ourselves.

Ethics? No Technicium -99 or Molybdenum 99 for your X-rays then Ranae if you get cancer my dear.

I get cancer, i expect to die. That is life.

Steve again you fail to realize us mere mortals are sick and tired of listening to the so called EXPERTS we prefer to protect the population from the destructive and dangerous lobbyists for the nuclear power industry.

Renae, I strongly suspect that if you ever were diagnosed with cancer you would not simply accept death without treatment.

Likewise, I strongly expect that you might have already (and unknowingly) accepted other benefits of radioisotopes in your day to day life.

PLEASE stop comparing LOW LEVEL MEDICAL WASTE with what is being suggested. Aaron Morely you are now scraping the bottom of the barrel by suggesting that without this dump, people will no longer get cancer treatment. This is a monstrous lie. Shame on you.

No one is storing their waste from burning coal, gas and wood. No one. They, and we, are all polluting with gay abandon. If the nations who might be our customers reverted their energy systems to fossil fuels, they would not take responsibility for the waste material, they would do what we do: pollute.

It's not a monsterous lie Penny, if we don't have a nuclear waste repository to take at least low level medical waste, where do you expect we continue to maintain it? Keep what you regard as some of the planets most dangerous wastes as close as possible to our most immunocompromised and otherwise sick people?

I never suggested without a repository that people would not get cancer treatment, I never said that, again NEVER. Renae suggested (I hope not seriously) that SHE would REFUSE treatment - I didn't say it, and what she said wasn't to imply that other would be denied. Shame on you Penny, yours is the monsterous lie.

My suggestion was, and will remain that the idea of 'NO NUCLEAR WASTE' (to borrow Christopher's favourite emphasis) is not a reasonable or indeed possible ideology. The waste is already here, it comes from activities that are not in any way controversial. We need the activities, we have to accept the left overs, we have to store them appropriately and safely. My contention is, at the bottom of an elevator shaft, or similar in a hospital is NOT the best we can do.

Can you name the companies and countries doing the lobbying?

COMPANY PANGEA 80% owned by Britain 20% owned by Canada (golder associates) and Swiss nuclear own the other 20%. Aaron research PANGEA RESOURCES this is the international consortium still lobbying our government they have been busy lobbying them for the past 16 plus years Aaron but I'm not surprised by your lack of knowledge on this fact it's something the government prefer to keep in the dark.

Nuclear knowledge Christopher?

Still waiting for you to please tell us what a Moderator is please and why the moderator type is so important.

Sievert?

When you disclose your vested interest in this idiotic proposal of turning AUSTRALIA INTO THE WORLDS NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPING GROUND

Good Despite Thomas! Some non-emotional input; which we often do not see from some others here.

Actually not 'concrete' but Post-tensioned or Reinforced concrete, both to AS3600.

Some other relevant Structural Engineering Australian standards: AS1170 (loading), AS4360 (risk).

.

Proposed loading may also be considered to come from radiation. . .

Radiation is an adjective to describe an atom

.

Radiation types:
Radioactive atoms decay (in order of increasing ‘penetrative capacity’ below becoming more harmful listed below) by radioactive atoms emitting or 'giving up' the following;

- ‘alpha’ particles (a helium nucleus) moving to the LEFT of the Periodic table – so the atomic number gets smaller,

- ‘beta’ particles (an electron) and a neutron change to a proton also occurs - so a move to the RIGHT of the Periodic table,

- or harmful ‘gamma’ electromagnetic waves.

Summary:

During radioactive decay the nuclei of the new atom formed either moves to the left or to the right of the periodic table (but may still have too much energy).
So these atoms may still emit highly penetrating gamma-rays to become completely stable.

.

Radiation Shielding:

- beta particles can be stopped by a piece of paper.

- alpha particles can be stopped by say thin aluminium sheet.

- gamma rays require most shielding.

Enjoy.

**************

Got an old newspaper and a roll of aluminium foil for you Steve give them to TEPCO problem solved why have they wasted half a billion dollars on an ice wall when you could have rectified the issues for a few bucks.

Typical rant from Mr Huckel incapable of putting anything constructive forward -
probably the most ignorant person on this topic, yet the first to comment outside of his own core area of expertise (the dole).

Still does not understand what a moderator is and worse not interested to learn - so prefers to remain ignorant.

Keep trolling Christopher.

Luckily the EXPERTS won't have the final word.

I like the pragmatic tone of Despite Thomas's comment. However we do not need to find "hot" areas. In my opinion we do not even need to bury it. Rolling storage arrangements and progressive recycling is a much better idea. It is about 95% recyclable for energy.

Let's hope they develop a way to process the most dangerous material known to mankind but until they have a foolproof way of cleaning up this extremely dangerous material I suggest those that enriched it making it far deadlier than the original uranium ore that we mine can hang onto it until science catches up or the people wake up and shut the nuclear industry down.

Point number 5. Yes we may have stable ground to store it, but how will it get transported here. How many oil tankers have had issues, where oil has leaked throughout the ocean? There is no safe method of transport, therefore it is pointless worrying about the stability of our ground. Also level of radioactive material coming into our country would rely on other countries having the same strict standards we would expect here. Look at the food industry where our government allows sub standard food to be imported. Why wouldn't they do the same thing with the nuclear industry, just to make money.
As a whole planet maybe countries should have thought about the future and sustainability more before they chhose nuclear. Every government goes on about growth, but the planet doesn't grow, maybe they should look at sustainable development that doesn't continuously eat into the planet.
Maybe those countries should look at their infrastructure and stop being so energy greedy.

Car companies don't buy back their old cars, or even store them, no other business does this, why should we be expected to take back the nuclear waste. I would prefer we did not sell it in the first place, but that is not the debate. I also know i receive many benefits of the sale of the product. I would rather go without though and leave a healthier future for my descendants

Renae, your point about transport is interesting but valid only if we are talking about a waste that is in liquid form instead of a solid. I don't know why you might think that it would be in liquid form since things that usually produce high level wastes (with some exceptions) usually produce solids such as spent nuclear fuel rods from reactors.
Part of the conditions under which we take high level waste would need to involve the form in which we receive that waste.
One other small point to remember is that the waste is in fact waste because most of the 'nuclear' part of it has been used up. We also need to remember that this material originally came from the ground - largely in Australia, and not far underground (Ranger Uranium Mine, for example is an open-cut mine). The total radioactivity of the material being returned to us is actually less than that of the original material that we took out of our own ground because the 'good stuff' or radioactivity has been put to use.

Digging the uranium out of the ground, enriching and putting what's left after use back in the ground is an actual NET LOSS in the natural radiation of the area.

Bob Schroder good point on the transport and yes, Renae, it pays to be aware that we are talking about very heavy ceramic. Dispersal and pollution in an ocean is not possible.

Bob, the point about it being waste because it is used up is not, in fact, correct.

The material we would be looking at would have a small but notable amount of plutonium and other actinides, all "nuclear stuff" and all recyclable (and destroyed in the process). There is a very small amount of fission product. All "nuclear stuff", not good as fuel but short lived and thus much less challenging. The vast majority, 90% or more, will be uranium-238. That's...nuclear stuff but not really. It's uranium, yes, but it's not very radioactive at all because it's the wrong isotope (uranium-235 is the stuff that makes energy). U-238 has negligible radio-toxicity however it can be recycled and turned into material that is good for fuel if we want to.

Hi Harold, thanks for taking the time to compile and share your feedback. You raise some good points which are of great benefit to the wider conversation.

Renae, we noticed your comments about transportation of radioactive materials. The Royal Commission investigated in depth this topic including the routine transportation of material via road, rail, sea and air. They looked at the risks, regulatory regimes and the history, all of which you can read about in Chapter 9 of the report.

Thank you Christopher for your input. Certainly the Federal Coalition Government is pursuing a site 35 Km northwest of Hawker for a low level waste dump for all Australian primarily medical radio active waste. That would appear to have a shorter time frame for a decision and implementation. If the Federal Government can be stopped from going ahead with that dump then there would be more confidence that the Federal Government could stop Jay Weatherill's proposal to have a high level radio active dump in this State bringing nuclear waste not from other States but from other countries. I agree that what used to be called "people power" is the key to stop these dumps in South Australia. I still cannot understand who is behind the push to put radio active waste both low level and high level into this State. Why is South Australia seen as a "pushover"? Is South Australia seen as so poor, so lacking in a future, so gullible that the pushers of the radio active dumps see us as the best place for the dumps? I have a far better opinion of this State and the people of this State than it appears that Jay Weatherill, the SA Labor Government and the Federal Coalition Government have of us. We need to be "SA proud" and voice out support for a future without radio active waste dump anywhere in this State.