Site 12km from "Wiruna" on Federal Govt nuclear dump short list

[gary]

In news this afternoon, the Federal Government has included the
locality of Sally's Flat, NSW in a short list of six sites in the country
to become Australia's first nuclear waste dump.

Sally's Flat is approximately 12km from the Astronomical of New South
Wales dark sky property, "Wiruna".

Story at ABC here -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-1...torage/6937244

[gary]

In a follow-up story, ABC reports that residents of Sally's Flat want it
removed from the short-list.

Originally Posted by ABC

NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley said he would be surprised if the site was chosen.

"Every sensible suggestion I've heard says that Australia's nuclear depository will be almost certainly in South Australia," he said.

"I think people in New South Wales will take an enormous amount of convincing for such a repository to be placed in our state, somewhere around Bathurst.

"We're not talking about the outback, we're talking about a pretty well populated area."

The other shortlisted sites are Cortlinye, Pinkawillinie, and Barndioota in South Australia, Hale in the Northern Territory and Oman Ama in Queensland.

Story here -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-1...ts-say/6937442

[xelasnave]

Thanks Gary.
My view is "they" always make a list but have a particular site in mind.
If only one site is presented everyone is against it..but with a list everyone just wants it to be somewhere else other than near them...the question of do it or not disappears in the squabbles to go somewhere else.
It's a divide and conquer strategy.

[deanm (Dean)]

I agree with Alex.

Somewhere in SA or NT is the obvious choice: utterly remote, vanishingly-low population density and geologically extremely stable (on the scale of millions of years).

Hell - SA is already one of the most nuked places around (think Emu & Maralinga)!

Why would anywhere near Bathurst even be contemplated - other than as a red herring?!

The only issues are those of transportation, security and compensation to indigenous (or other) land owners.

Dean

[gary]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Thanks Gary.
My view is "they" always make a list but have a particular site in mind.
If only one site is presented everyone is against it..but with a list everyone just wants it to be somewhere else other than near them...the question of do it or not disappears in the squabbles to go somewhere else.
It's a divide and conquer strategy.

Hi Alex,

Rob Stich and the Working Dog Productions script writers for the ABC satirical comedy series Utopia would no doubt have come up with the same spin.

Oscar Wilde once said that "life imitates art far more than art imitates life", so you are definitely on to something.

[RB (Andrew)]

I just finished watching the doco - "Uranium, twisting the dragon's tail", very interesting and an eye opener.
Scary to think what they did back then to our indigenous people and now we propose to dump the world's nuclear waste back into our country.

I find it hard to believe that they'd pick Sally's Flat but then again I wouldn't put it past any government.

[Wavytone]

So what's the problem ?

Worried that you'll all come home with a faint green glow in the dark ?

[glend (Glen)]

Originally Posted by RB

I just finished watching the doco - "Uranium, twisting the dragon's tail", very interesting and an eye opener.
Scary to think what they did back then to our indigenous people and now we propose to dump the world's nuclear waste back into our country.

I find it hard to believe that they'd pick Sally's Flat but then again I wouldn't put it past any government.

Please get your facts straight. The six sites being considered are for Australian nuclear waste - not a world dump site. The Australian waste is low to medium grade waste from reactors like Lucas Heights, and low grade research and medical waste.
Of course those that are ' professional outragers', like the Greens, will rant, distort the truth, etc. I guess they are happy to have it sitting in drums at Lucas Height.

Now down the track Australia does have an 'opportunity' to deep bury waste for countries that we supplied uranium to as exports. This is probably a moral obligation as well. There is nothing wrong with remote, deep cavern storage - there is one in Sweden I believe. After all a lot of it came out of the ground at Olympic Dam SA so why not put It back.

[xelasnave]

No more dangerous than DDT
Moral obligation to take back waste mmm
I would be happy to hear how that logic was arrived at and who presented such a outlook.
If someone disagrees I gather they must be a fool.
My mind is open but I would like to be convinced that morality is a monopoly that is called into play by one side and the opponents must not be so unreasonable.

[DJDD]

With respect to the current proposal of storing our own waste at a remote site: I am in favour of that.

With respect to storing waste for other countries:

I cannot agree that it is a moral obligation of ours to store it.
If a country wishes to use nuclear reactors then perhaps they should store their own waste.

Are there any countries that provide minerals or materials to other nations that then store the waste? I do not think that is the case.

However, is there an "opportunity" to store the waste as a commercial venture? Sure there is. Do we want to? well, that is the debate.

But putting it in terms of morality I think is overreaching.

[xelasnave]

Why store our own waste.
If others store their waste someplace else should we not do the same.
After all we are the clever country just not as clever as others who don't store their waste in the home land.

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by glend

Please get your facts straight. The six sites being considered are for Australian nuclear waste - not a world dump site.

Now down the track Australia does have an 'opportunity' to deep bury waste for countries that we supplied uranium to as exports. This is probably a moral obligation as well.

Facts can be manipulated, as you well know Glen.

I was thinking more along the lines of 'down the track' because I heard a recent radio interview discussing the fact that Australia could wipe off some of its debt by becoming the world's nuclear waste dumping ground.
Other countries are willing to pay big money to dump their waste here.

Now as has been mentioned, our waste from medical and research should be stored here. We produce it, we should be responsible to 'dispose of it'.

I don't want to see our country though become the dumping ground for other nations that use our resource for nuclear weapons etc (like the British and others did back when they conducted nuclear bomb testing here).
I fail to see our 'moral' obligation in that.

'Nuclear' for medical and research that can save human life, I'm all for it.
'Nuclear' for weapons and other uses that destroy human life, I'm against it.

Perhaps I have learnt not to trust the government, any government.
That I try and read between the lines and not just blindly digest the 'facts and figures' as they're presented to me.

Like the days in which we live, the forums, social media and even the news are infested by 'armchair art critics' as I like to refer to them.
Like art critics they have the head knowledge and spit out facts, figures and opinions yet they themselves fail to possess the ability to produce 'a painting', the very thing they purport to be experts in, so to speak.

I don't have much respect for such people and don't be fooled into thinking I'm a 'Greeny', or easily swayed by the ' professional outragers'.

My opinions are based on my experiences in life, using discernment to make a judgement call on matters that effect me and my family.

I assume you have similar concerns about governments and the state of the world in which we live, no?

RB

[g__day (Matthew)]

I prefer my nuclear fuel to be stored about 8 light minutes from us.

Seriously storing things that can poison in minute quantities and last for tens of thousands of year is a recipe for a future disaster. America has huge problems with spills from waste storage that are only detected when someone draws a cancer map 10 - 30 years later and says what is going on.

It may be intended to only be low to medium grade yield, but watch this foothold blossom into spent weapons grade in your life time; and realse no containment system is safe over what has to be evolutionary timescales.

[Wavytone]

But none of you have suggested why being within 12km of Wiruna makes this a "bad thing".

As I said, are you worried you'll come home from a weekend there glowing in the dark, or what ?

If not then frankly the rest of the discussion is irrelevant, and you have nothing any more significant to say than the opinions of the other 8 million NIMBY's in this country.

And I'll suggest the locals who actually live in the region have a stronger position to argue than ASNSW.

And no doubt this post will be deleted by those intolerant of a different opinion.

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

And no doubt this post will be deleted by those intolerant of a different opinion.

Wrong again, why would your post be deleted.
It would only be deleted if it contravenes the TOS.
But you see, it's easier to cast aspersions, to create guilt by association in the minds of people rather than just defending the point.
The very thing you critasise others for.

[gary]

If Sally's Flat were chosen, the nuclear waste would need to be
trucked in via the Goulburn-Ilford/Sofala Road.

This is the road one takes from Ilford before turning into the Tara Loop
Road to Wiruna.

The town of Sofala was where the 1974 Peter Weir film "The Cars
That Ate Paris" was shot and the Sofala Road is where the fictional
townsfolk of "Paris" would cause the cars of passers-by to come off the road and crash.

See scene starting at 3:15 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f52V7LTpVI

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

But none of you have suggested why being within 12km of Wiruna makes this a "bad thing".

Because the site will be drenched in powerful floodlights all night long.

For security reasons, of course

[xelasnave]

ad hominem attack suggests that side of the argument. has nothing to offer in useful debate and suggests those who resort to same have little of substance to contribute.

Professional outrages and nimbys eh..

How do you expect to gain respect from anyone who does not agree .. How do you expect to be taken seriously.
Great debating tactics revealing an unnecessary eliItist approach.

[Wavytone]

On the contrary - I'm not attacking anyone - merely pointing out that with one (recent) exception, not one of the previous posts have said why it is supposedly bad to have a waste dump 12 km from Wiruna.

And even that - re lighting - is also an assumption with little basis in fact.

Ad hominem? Try a dictionary ...

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

And even that - re lighting - is also an assumption with little basis in fact.

This is the radioactive waste storage facility at San Onofre, California, by night:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ight_tx201.jpg