[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]
Wtf
You're as naive as a child. Money can buy their favour, it has before, and it will again, never underestimate the power of a good bribe.
It should be irrelevant what the aborigines think, unless the waste site is on designated aboriginal land.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;51320179]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.[/QUOTE]
I legitimately do not understand what you're talking about. How is Australia refusing to house other countries' nuclear waste risking a nuclear incident in Australia? It's not like the jury recommended against a disposal solution for Australian nuclear power generation; the proposal was strictly about creating a facility to house imported nuclear waste for profit. I don't see how nixing that plan is putting the Australian public at greater risk.
[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]
cold fusion is physically impossible and it has been proven impossible countless times
how dense are you
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;51320628]Snip-O[/QUOTE]
I genuinely would like to know why you say it's physically impossible.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51320412]Is it that hard to dig a massive hole and drop lead lined steel casks into it and guard it with a small army?[/QUOTE]
To a point, we kind of already did that (Yucca Mountain). Unfortunately, that one is all tied up in the courts and, so far as I know, is still not in use since the Obama administration put it on hold back in 2009.
I really hope that the public gets over its fear of nuclear power eventually and, more importantly, that the media and politicians stop with the fear mongering that influences the ill-informed public with misrepresentation. Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's far and away the safest energy source (per TWH) we have thus far.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51320412]Is it that hard to dig a massive hole and drop lead lined steel casks into it and guard it with a small army?[/QUOTE]
Why would it need to be guarded?
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51320811]I genuinely would like to know why you say it's physically impossible.[/QUOTE]
Well, when something cannot actually be performed under any conditions, that sounds to me like pretty good evidence that it is "physically impossible".
But, y'know, feel free to post any evidence whatsoever that it can be performed.
[QUOTE=download;51320940]Why would it need to be guarded?[/QUOTE]
So no one digs it back up and makes a dirty bomb or reprocesses it for weapons
Nuclear "waste" is actually very valuable because radioactive material is very hard to come by. There are tons of applications for it but it is easier to make more radioactive stuff than adapt to what is already radioactive. The US needs a breeder reactor program that is subsidized by energy taxes similar to how we pay to recycle materials so that we have less trash to deal with.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51320438]I legitimately do not understand what you're talking about. How is Australia refusing to house other countries' nuclear waste risking a nuclear incident in Australia? It's not like the jury recommended against a disposal solution for Australian nuclear power generation; the proposal was strictly about creating a facility to house imported nuclear waste for profit. I don't see how nixing that plan is putting the Australian public at greater risk.[/QUOTE]
Its reflecting a problem that many places outside of Australia face with nuclear waste, long story short no one wants to deal with nuclear waste but it has to be dealt with someday before something bad happens.
It seems the Australian people do not trust the government to handle nuclear waste properly, and the same could be said in the US for example. The longer problems like that keep us from properly storing nuclear waste, the more opportunities there are for current containments to fail in some manner. Its really an international problem at this point.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;51321037]Snip-O[/QUOTE]
Ah! You see they didn't say that it works and then sometimes doesn't work and that scientists still don't know why instead they said it was physically impossible.
Thank you for clearing that up! They've really gotta word their statements better.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51321064]So no one digs it back up and makes a dirty bomb or reprocesses it for weapons
Nuclear "waste" is actually very valuable because radioactive material is very hard to come by. There are tons of applications for it but it is easier to make more radioactive stuff than adapt to what is already radioactive. The US needs a breeder reactor program that is subsidized by energy taxes similar to how we pay to recycle materials so that we have less trash to deal with.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you appreciate how overblown dirty bombs are or how much infrastructure is needed to dig down hundreds or thousands of meters.
The theft risk is zero.
[editline]7th November 2016[/editline]
[quote]A citizens' jury that deliberated against a high-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia was "heavily skewed with small organisations with negative agendas", Business SA has said.
A jury of more than 300 randomly selected people delivered a report to Premier Jay Weatherill on Sunday, outlining concerns about a lack of consent from Aboriginal people, the economics of the proposal and its safety.[/quote]
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-07/nuclear-storage-report-criticised-by-busienesses-sa/8001688[/url]
Hopefully they get the ball rolling on how dumb this was.
The fact their statements sound like they were pulled word for word out of a FoE anti-nuclear pamphlet should be telling.
[editline]7th November 2016[/editline]
[quote]All, here are some insights from the minority report section of the report:
"Jury selection process has allowed selection bias. Our concern is that by announcing the question before requesting volunteers the process has allowed for an over representation of opponents to the idea of the storage of nuclear waste. Our concern is that selection bias has led to potential confirmation bias through selection of witnesses. Community polling in random selection of 4016 people revealed 42.2% ok with further investigation and 36.8% against.
Community polling in a voluntary example of 4329 people revealed 19.7% ok with further investigation and 66% opposing further investigation. The witness selection process allowed Jurors to decide who they wished to hear from. Selection bias has resulted in a bias in the witnesses presented. This has likely led to confirmation bias, i.e. if you have a position and you request witnesses who share your view, your position will be strengthened.
Reference the ‘Economics’ session, where Jurors chose to hear from economists who clearly had a negative view of the nuclear industry. This situation allowed a visible focus group to polarise the Jury.
Indigenous consultation
The suggestion that this Jury can speak for the Indigenous community only perpetuates the disempowerment of that community. We have been told that the consultation process was either non-existent or insufficient. To suggest that the Indigenous community then has a unanimous position without adequate consultation is incorrect."[/quote]
[quote]Decarbonise SA No, some damage, but ironically, probably too much. This report is SO bad: ugly, incoherent, making statements and assertions that are unverifiable, that it would be frankly embarassing to see a policy pivot. Furthermore the jury process itself was deeply, deeply flawed. I have just had a debrief with a minority juror who reached out to me (never met this person before). This was a terribly bad process, obviously gamed in several ways, with people in the process subjected to cyber stalking, bullying and a really feral online forum. There is a way forward because the fact is this process turned out to be weird and dysfunctional in too many ways to be taken altogether seriously.[/quote]
[url]https://www.facebook.com/DecarboniseSA/posts/1201158116594248[/url]
[editline]7th November 2016[/editline]
[url=http://assets.yoursay.sa.gov.au/production/2016/11/06/07/20/56/26b5d85c-5e33-48a9-8eea-4c860386024f/final%20jury%20report.pdf]The majority report[/url]
I'm going to go look for the minority report.
[editline]7th November 2016[/editline]
Seems the minority report is in the same pdf as the majority report.
Here is a golden section:
[quote][I]The witness selection process allowed Jurors to decide who they wished to hear from.[/I] Selection bias has resulted in a bias in the witnesses presented. This has likely led to confirmation bias, i.e. if you
have a position and you request witnesses who share your view, your position will be strengthened. [/quote]
That would explain why CSIRO, ANSTO and SA Health were excluded.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51321088]Ah! You see they didn't say that it works and then sometimes doesn't work and that scientists still don't know why instead they said it was physically impossible.
Thank you for clearing that up! They've really gotta word their statements better.[/QUOTE]
Cold fusion is the realm of crackpots and every case of someone claiming they've done it has been false. As for being physically impossible, the force repelling nuclei away from eachother is insanely strong (which is why fusion requires insanely high temperatures), and it cannot be overcome through chemical means.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;51321381]Cold fusion is the realm of crackpots and every case of someone claiming they've done it has been false. As for being physically impossible, the force repelling nuclei away from eachother is insanely strong (which is why fusion requires insanely high temperatures), and it cannot be overcome through chemical means.[/QUOTE]
There are other ways of overcoming it though... Like kinetics
Not saying its something for the forseeable future, but maybe one day.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51321536]There are other ways of overcoming it though... Like kinetics
Not saying its something for the forseeable future, but maybe one day.[/QUOTE]
There literally aren't ways to make it happen on paper, let alone in practice. And physicists can make almost anything happen on paper. We gotta figure out hot fusion first, yo.
We have a shitload of space here in Finland, in Onkalo. Can't ya'll just ship the waste here? We're literally tunneling into the bedrock, to build a massive underground complex that will eventually be closed, hidden, and forgotten, when it's full.
The idea is to build houses and other stuff on top of it, including on top of the entrance. You can't really go digging under some guy's house, so it'll be mostly forgotten.
[QUOTE=AtomicSans;51321887]There literally aren't ways to make it happen on paper, let alone in practice. And physicists can make almost anything happen on paper. We gotta figure out hot fusion first, yo.[/QUOTE]
Dont worry about it, im not holding my breath, but ive read some futurologists talk about possible ways it could be done in the future.
In reality its nuclear today, and hot fusion tomorrow
[QUOTE=nikomo;51321927]We have a shitload of space here in Finland, in Onkalo. Can't ya'll just ship the waste here? We're literally tunneling into the bedrock, to build a massive underground complex that will eventually be closed, hidden, and forgotten, when it's full.
The idea is to build houses and other stuff on top of it, including on top of the entrance. You can't really go digging under some guy's house, so it'll be mostly forgotten.[/QUOTE]
Onkalo is pretty cool, but I think the problem is that it is one of the very few repositories out there. Its pretty much intended just for Finland's nuclear waste. Also if I recall lawmakers in Finland have established that that knowledge of the repository will be maintained by future generations, although I have no idea how that is going to be guaranteed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.