• "Citizens Jury" rejects nuclear waste dump proposal
    47 replies, posted
[quote]Two thirds of a citizen's jury deliberating the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission do not want South Australia to store high-level nuclear waste "under any circumstances". The jury of more than 300 randomly selected people delivered its 50-page report to Premier Jay Weatherill on Sunday evening after deliberating on the issue across three weekends in October and November. The report outlined concerns with the economics of the proposal, trust, safety and a lack consent, particularly from Aboriginal elders.[/quote] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-06/sa-citizen's-jury-vote-against-storing-nuclear-waste/7999262[/url] The idea of a citizens jury was stupid from the beginning. Ignoring the fact the layman isn't educated enough to understand this the selected the jury from volunteers. As soon as the jury was announced every anti-nuclear loon came out of the woodwork to "volunteer" for this. On top of that, according the Ben Heard, the CSIRO, ANSTO and SA Health were not permitted to prevent evidence to the jury based on the stakeholders group who chooses the witnesses making a vote. Disgraceful.
"If we don't look at it, we don't need to worry about storing it, see no evil!" :goodjob:
we're living in simcity 2000 [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] [img]http://lparchive.org/SimCity-2000/Update%2011/2-protest-1.png[/img]
the containers they keep nuclear waste in are so strong that a nuke could hit them and they'd survive the blast just another case of people who don't do the research being made to make decisions
The lack of consent from Aboriginal elders is a good point, though.
Can't we just dump it in the ocean and let the future deal with the consequences?
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;51317767]Can't we just dump it in the ocean and let the future deal with the consequences?[/QUOTE] I'm gonna need you to pack a bag and meet me in Sydney at 14:00 sharp on this coming Wednesday. I'm going to give you the absolute most horrible wet willy you've ever endured. Don't be late.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;51317767]Snip-O[/QUOTE] We've done that already. It didn't turn out that well. [QUOTE=Untouch;51317635]Snip-O[/QUOTE] For a few decades at least then they eat the containers and you've got leaking materials but why does Australia have to store material from other countries? Can't they take care of this waste themselves? rather than ship it out of sight and mind. [QUOTE=FlandersNed;51317750]Snip-O[/QUOTE] I wouldn't build my argument around that as opinions can be change very easily with the introduction of money.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;51317767]Can't we just dump it in the ocean and let the future deal with the consequences?[/QUOTE] why dump it in the ocean? just store it in a properly constructed storage house and when nuclear plants start switching over to current gen those storage houses change from waste storages to raw nuclear fuel depots. [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sims_doc;51317892]For a few decades at least then they eat the containers and you've got leaking materials but why does Australia have to store material from other countries? Can't they take care of this waste themselves? rather than ship it out of sight and mind.[/QUOTE] We dont need to store it for a few decades, but even if we did as long as you dont store it in the dead sea where metal erodes at the speed visible by the human eye those containers can last for multiple centuries left alone if stored properly, if maintained every so often they can pretty much be stored indefinitely for as long as humans take care of them. the real point is they don't need to be, we already have construction work going on today for plants that use this waste (and waste of far lower quality) as fuel... so worst case in 25 years these storages are buffer sites to store the 'waste/fuel' for a while before it can be processed and used up further. Technology fixed the nuclear waste problem like 10 years ago already, but people just haven't caught on yet and new plants keep getting blocked even though they are the solution to the problems people talk about as the reason why they get blocked.
I don't think humans would like to be damage by the harmful effects of spent waste as you've got chemicals and radiation that are none too pleasant.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51317963]I don't think humans would like to be damage by the harmful effects of spent waste as you've got chemicals and radiation that are none too pleasant.[/QUOTE] I woudnt like to be damage by the harmful effects of coal plants spewing out their far more harmful waste into the air me breathing it... that is by far more unpleasant, also what are you talking about with the chemicals, everything is chemicals, saying spent fuel is bad because it has chemicals is like saying milk is good because its milk.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51317892] I wouldn't build my argument around that as opinions can be change very easily with the introduction of money.[/QUOTE] If you think that Aboriginal Elders will be swayed with money, then you're mistaken. They've been fighting for land rights since the 1960s, up to now. Something like this has to have elder consent, or it will never pass.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51318015]Snip-O[/QUOTE] I agree with you that some cannot be swayed by money. Others have and most are to do with mining and the land rights go back further than just the 1960's.
[QUOTE=Untouch;51317635]the containers they keep nuclear waste in are so strong that a nuke could hit them and they'd survive the blast just another case of people who don't do the research being made to make decisions[/QUOTE] source that claim, this is just ridiculous. I know it can withstand an airliner crashing directly on it, but a full blown nuke, that seems improbable.
For those that are wondering why the world doesn't adopt a closed loop fuel cycle that consumes the waste as fuel (like France), its because it is cheaper to mine new uranium and process that rather than recycle old fuel. France loses money with their breeder reactors, but it solves their waste problem and makes the country less reliant on foreign uranium for fuel.
Its fucking stupid that the disposal of nuclear waste gets tangled up in debates over using nuclear power. Its like if a dog shits inside and you refuse to clean it up because you never wanted a dog in the first place, like of course you arent just going to leave it there, you fucking clean it up.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;51318317]Its fucking stupid that the disposal of nuclear waste gets tangled up in debates over using nuclear power. Its like if a dog shits inside and you refuse to clean it up because you never wanted a dog in the first place, like of course you arent just going to leave it there, you fucking clean it up.[/QUOTE] That's.. that actually a really fucking good analogy
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51318015]If you think that Aboriginal Elders will be swayed with money, then you're mistaken. They've been fighting for land rights since the 1960s, up to now. Something like this has to have elder consent, or it will never pass.[/QUOTE] If you think that an aboriginal elder or member would not change his or her opinion on the matter when flashed $20,000 then you are living in the dreamtimes. It happens, they really do not care about their land, they are just in it for the money like everyone else.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51318160]its because it is cheaper to mine new uranium and process that rather than recycle old fuel. [/QUOTE] It's also because breeder reactors and reprocessing are how you make weapons-grade plutonium, and that's something most global powers are keen to avoid proliferating. [QUOTE=ZakkShock;51318954]That's.. that actually a really fucking good analogy[/QUOTE] It's a pretty bad analogy because the solution advocated by anti-nuclear protestors is to not get the 'dog' in the first place and consequently not have to worry. It's not like anyone is saying we should refuse to clean up nuclear contamination after it happens- they're suggesting not dealing with it in the first place. Now I have to add the disclaimer that I'm in support of nuclear power before the bandwagon descends upon me. It's just a bad analogy. A lot of people are misinformed on nuclear power, but that doesn't mean their concerns are logically invalid, just based on bad info and a mistaken belief that power sources like coal are cleaner and less risky than nuclear.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51319218] It's a pretty bad analogy because the solution advocated by anti-nuclear protestors is to not get the 'dog' in the first place and consequently not have to worry. It's not like anyone is saying we should refuse to clean up nuclear contamination after it happens- they're suggesting not dealing with it in the first place. [/QUOTE] Well we already produce nuclear waste. We don't need nuclear power stations to do that.
[QUOTE=$$>MUFFIN<$$;51319165]If you think that an aboriginal elder or member would not change his or her opinion on the matter when flashed $20,000 then you are living in the dreamtimes. It happens, they really do not care about their land, they are just in it for the money like everyone else.[/QUOTE] Wow, take a history lesson dude. The money won't sway.
[QUOTE=$$>MUFFIN<$$;51319246]Well we already produce nuclear waste. We don't need nuclear power stations to do that.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/15/inquiry-backs-nuclear-waste-dumps-for-outback-australia"]According to the Guardian[/URL], the proposed storage facility would be for holding spent nuclear fuel rods from other countries, not for the comparably minute amount of nuclear byproducts that result from medicine and other domestic industries. The plan seems to be about profit, not containment of an existing environmental threat.
I'd be against transporting nuclear fuel rods from other countries as well, as much as i think current gen nuclear should be implemented right away and that nuclear waste is no real threat inside the country. Asking people to store everyone else's nuclear garbage for-profit too is just a bad idea and wont help nuclear improve it's image in the public's eye. The vote sounds like a complete failure though.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51319548]I'd be against transporting nuclear fuel rods from other countries as well, as much as i think current gen nuclear should be implemented right away and that nuclear waste is no real threat inside the country. Asking people to store everyone else's nuclear garbage for-profit too is just a bad idea and wont help nuclear improve it's image in the public's eye. The vote sounds like a complete failure though.[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised at the effectiveness of a citizen's jury. A lot of the really base criticisms for them don't hold up when you scrutinise how they are actually implemented and run. In fact there has been interest in Canberra for a rotational citizen's jury to replace the senate - will likely never happen but it's an interesting thought
[QUOTE=killerteacup;51319678]You'd be surprised at the effectiveness of a citizen's jury. A lot of the really base criticisms for them don't hold up when you scrutinise how they are actually implemented and run. In fact there has been interest in Canberra for a rotational citizen's jury to replace the senate - will likely never happen but it's an interesting thought[/QUOTE] I'll have to do more research on them, honestly i havent heard too much about them before. The senate's problems usually stem from the power its given, power corrupts afterall, a citizen jury might just end up with similar issues if given significant power. Also i can just imagine what a citizen jury in the deep south of the US might do if given the ability to act on some of their inclinations.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;51319249]Wow, take a history lesson dude. The money won't sway.[/QUOTE] I work in the resources industry. He's right.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51319218]It's also because breeder reactors and reprocessing are how you make weapons-grade plutonium, and that's something most global powers are keen to avoid proliferating. It's a pretty bad analogy because the solution advocated by anti-nuclear protestors is to not get the 'dog' in the first place and consequently not have to worry. It's not like anyone is saying we should refuse to clean up nuclear contamination after it happens- they're suggesting not dealing with it in the first place.[/QUOTE] My point is that there has been unreasonable oposition to the disposal of nuclear waste, and that even though they arent directly opposing its disposal they are through other means. The subject of nuclear waste disposal is like the trolley problem because if it isnt dealt with in an expedient manner a nuclear incident could happen, and if it is then someone is going to have to deal with all that radioactive waste.
It would be more practical to move to reactors that don't produce as much waste such as newer generation of reactors or thorium maybe even cold fusion?
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51320304]It would be more practical to move to reactors that don't produce as much waste such as newer generation of reactors or thorium maybe even cold fusion?[/QUOTE] You're mentioning cold fusion again? That's hilarious.
[QUOTE=download;51320310]You're mentioning cold fusion again? That's hilarious.[/QUOTE] Just like you not researching the topic, we are really a match made in heaven aren't we?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.