Perth Independent Media Centre

Perth Indy Guide

Editorial Policy

You Publish!

Search Us
Calendar
Library
Chat

Email Lists:
Perth-IMC General
Editorial Mob
RadioFreePerth
Techgeeks

RadioFreePerth:

Oceania
Oceania Indymedia
newswreal
email list
video list
tech list
chat
wiki

about indymedia

indymedia
www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa
ambazonia
canarias
estrecho / madiaq
kenya
nigeria
south africa

Canada
hamilton
london, ontario
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor
winnipeg

East Asia
burma
jakarta
japan
korea
manila
qc

Europe
abruzzo
alacant
andorra
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
bristol
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
euskal herria
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
imc-london
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
nice
norway
oost-vlaanderen
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
saint-petersburg
scotland
sverige
switzerland
thessaloniki
torun
toscana
toulouse
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela
venezuela

Oceania
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
oceania
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india
mumbai

United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
austin
baltimore
big muddy
binghamton
boston
buffalo
charlottesville
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
tennessee
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
armenia
beirut
israel
palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
volunteer

email the perth indmedia mob...

Pangea and the International Nuke dump rears it's head again
by yella	2005-11-01 4:04 PM +0800
ANAWA: The Uranium mining industry desperately are trying to get its hands on Australia’s uranium deposits. A Federal Representatives standing committee on energy and resources has been carrying out a nation wide inquiry into the benefits of an expanded uranium mining industry...
Nuclear power stations produce the most dangerous industrial wastes known to humankind. There are many different kinds of nuclear waste, but attention tends to focus on what is known as 'High Level Waste': the spent, or 'burned' fuel rods after they have been taken out of a nuclear reactor. The nuclear industry began fifty years ago in a desperate race for nuclear weapons. A nuclear power industry was developed to support this genocidal endeavour, and today there are hundreds of research and military reactors and around 430 commercial power reactors on earth. Each one of them generates high level waste from the spent fuel. Unfortunately for the industry, humanity, and the biosphere, this orgy of construction was undertaken without any clear idea of what to do with the waste. Fifty years down the track, the industry still isn't sure what to do with it. The safe isolation of nuclear waste is one of the most important challenges to be undertaken by this generation, and for all subsequent generations. http://www.anawa.org.au/waste/index.html -------- Pangea and the International Nuke dump rears it's head again - September 2005: As a result of the Uranium mining industry desperately trying to get its grubby hands on Australia’s uranium deposits a Federal Representatives standing committee on energy and resources has been carrying out a nation wide inquiry into the benefits of an expanded uranium mining industry. It was at one of these hearings in Perth Western Australia that Arafura Resources chief Alistair Stephens, one of the uranium mining companies supporting an expansion of uranium mining, told the Federal Parliamentary committee that, “Australia could be the best place for waste storage given our ideal geological locations, political stability and responsible attitudes.” This claim has subsequently picked up and supported by a number of people, most notable being the former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke who said Australia should become the dumping ground for the world's nuclear waste. He has been supported by the federal Science Minister, Brendan Nelson, who says there is some merit in former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke's call for Australia to store the world's nuclear waste. WA Federal MP Dennis Jensen has also joined calls for storing nuclear waste in Australia after former Prime Minister Bob Hawke put the issue back on the agenda. He was backed by State Liberal shadow lands minister Ken Baston who said his party could not sit on the fence on the issue. He said if Australia was going to export uranium it should be looking at making it a nuclear dump. Federal member for O'Connor Wilson Tuckey also said he was not frightened of storing nuclear waste in Australia. On Thursday 29 September 2005, in the ‘West Australian’ newspaper Charles McCombie, who was General Manager, Science, Technology & Engineering of Pangea Australia, said he was still a “fan” of Australia as a nuclear waste dump. The Pangea group had formally abandoned plans for a commercial high level waste dump as a result of pressure from the public, ANAWA and political pressure. Charles McCombie one of the key players from Pangea who is now representing the new group known as ARIUS, the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage, said Australia would be doing the world and itself a real service by taking on the job. “ Australia could benefit enormously in many ways — not just financially — and all this by implementing a high-tech geological disposal facility that could be so remote that it would never be even seen by more than a handful of Australian members of the public. “ Australia has the right geology, the right societal values and the technical expertise to do this job.” The Arius association was formed in February 2002 to facilitate progress towards multinational solutions. Whereas other recent projects (such as NPT and Pangea) have advocated rapid development of commercial stores or repositories in specific regions of the world, Arius is noncommercial, and considers all siting and design options. It has initiated a long-term, low-profile promotion strategy whose initial goal is to ensure that multinational storage and disposal options remain a topic for discussions on the world stage and are recognized as a feasible future choice for countries which opt for this strategy. Next year in October 2006 Arius will be in attendance or presenting at the "Waste management and repositories" session of the Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference, Sydney, Australia. ______________________ The Traditional Owners Pangea have indicated two potential sites of interest. Neither one appeals much to the people who would have to live with the dump in their backyard. One, 100km east of Newman in the shire of East Pilbara, is close to a number of Aboriginal communities, among them Jigalong, Pangurr and Cotton Creek. This region is the traditional homeland of the Martu (Western Desert) people, and there are still significant numbers of people living in this area. Pangea's other area of interest lies further south, in the Eastern Goldfields region not far from the Cosmo Newberry Aboriginal reserve. This is the home of the Bidjandjadjara people, who were very angry when Pangea flew a media crew onto their reserve without first seeking a permit. That the nuclear industry has chosen Aboriginal lands to dump its toxic wastes will come as no surprise to those familiar with the industry's operations elsewhere in the world. On visiting these communities, we found there was a high level of awareness and opposition to the Pangea proposal. http://www.anawa.org.au/waste/pangea.html ----- "To call this stuff "waste" is a misnomer, it is hardly an accurate term, because the strange and almost mythic character of the poison fire -- uranium -- and our processing of it has been that at every stage of the fuel cycle, everything that we have employed, every glove, every boot, every truck, every reactor, every facility, every mine, every heap of mill tailings, everything becomes not only contaminated, but contaminating. And governments and industry and scientists themselves don't know what on earth to do with it." ~ Joanna Macy ~

The National Radioactive Waste Dump scale pictures
Link here Add multimedia to story Add links to story

DEBATE: A Global Network of Nuclear Storage Facilities - not in my backyard
by ana	2005-11-01 4:17 PM +0800
Nuke Waste Dump Debate - Friday the 11th 12:15 PM DEBATE: A Global Network of Nuclear Storage Facilities - not in my backyard! Join us for an interesting and revealing debate on this important environmental and ethical issue. Hear from ECU's Dr Vincent Cusack (Centre for Social Research), and Robin Chapple from the Greens WA - spokesman for the Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA. Dr Cusack will explore the benefits of underground storage options, drawing from his doctoral thesis: "The Search for an Effective International Regime for the Long-Term Safety and Security of High Level Radioactive Waste: Pangea and Beyond." Robin Chapple will explore above ground/onsite storage options and current contamination problems. 12.15pm, Friday, 11 November 2005 Rm 1.2107, Chancellery Building (east wing next to Art Gallery), ECU Joondalup Campus Email Tanyia at t.maxted@ecu.edu.au Link here Add multimedia to story Add links to story
Heres a couple of popular ideas......
by Solution 8	2005-11-01 4:21 PM +0800
1) Ignore it and the problem will go away Widely adopted by the majority of Australians who are more interested in the Melbourne Cup then the survival of the planet. 2) Complain and write stories for Indymedia but provide no solution as to what to do with the stuff. This method has been adopted by Yella in the story above. Or address the issue. As Charles McCombie in the above post said..... “ Australia has the right geology, the right societal values and the technical expertise to do this job.” So we can leave this shit floating around throughout the world in control of people who many would consider second rate leaders in charge of coruptable regimes. Or alternatively Australia could with it's political stability and general adherance to accountabilty and best process manage it. The waste exists. It has to be dealt with. Link here
International Nuclear Waste Disposal Concepts
by dataKid	2005-11-01 4:36 PM +0800
International Nuclear Waste Disposal Concepts - Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 49 - October 2005 http://www.uic.com.au/nip49.htm # There have been several proposal for regional and international repositories for disposal of high-level nuclear wastes and in 2003 the concept received strong endorsement from the head of IAEA. # Russia has passed legislation to allow the import of high-level wastes. #Pangea Resources earlier identified a large area of outback Australia as having appropriate characteristics for deep geological disposal, and hence for such a repository..." The Pangea proposal: A major research program in the 1990s by Pangea Resources has identified Australia, southern Africa, Argentina and western China as having the appropriate geological credentials for a deep geologic repository, with Australia being favoured on economic and political grounds. It would be located where the geology has been stable for several hundred million years, so that there need not be total reliance on a robust engineered barrier system to keep the waste securely isolated for thousands of years. "...to create a facility for deep geological disposal capable of accepting spent fuel, vitrified high-level waste, long-lived intermediate-level waste, and appropriately conditioned long-lived nuclear materials, such as immobilised plutonium..." Outline of proposed Pangea project The Pangea concept envisaged a dedicated port and rail link to an inland repository site covering perhaps 5 sq km on the surface and 20 sq km underground (500 metres down). There would be a fleet of 35 dedicated and purpose-built ships at any one time. Pangea's business plan was based on taking 75,000 tonnes of spent fuel and high-level waste from reprocessing spent fuel, plus some intermediate-level wastes from decommissioning nuclear facilities, over some 40 years. Spent fuel would be shipped to the facility at a rate of about 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes per year once it was fully operational. This rate is about 20% of the spent fuel generated annually by commercial reactors around the world, or to put it another way, the repository is designed to take 25% of the world's civil waste inventory at the time it opens. The projected size of the repository is thus similar to that proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The capital cost was estimated at US$ 6 billion, with some US$ 400 million per year operating cost. An Access Economics study projected total export revenues over 40 years of about US$ 100 billion, with payments to governments of about $50 billion (1998 dollars) before considering multiplier effects. This would have added about one percent to the Australian GNP. The project envisaged establishment of a shipyard and foundry for the manufacture of 70 specialised ships and some 3000 large stainless steel transport casks as well as port and fleet maintenance facilities. Direct employment would be about 2000, indirect about 6000 people. While the concept is aimed at nuclear waste generated by countries other than the USA, though that country would need to be closely involved because through Non-Proliferation Treaty provisions it controls some 60% of the nuclear fuel worldwide and would have to authorise any international movement of it. The commercial scheme would also provide the repository which can be used to dispose of unwanted nuclear materials from disarmament, which was seen as a major spin-off. These would include excess plutonium from nuclear weapons either in spent mixed oxide fuel or in the Synroc-based ceramic developed by ANSTO and chosen in 1998 by the US Department of Energy as the wasteform to immobilise some of its excess weapons plutonium. == This info from: Uranium Information Centre - funded by companies involved in uranium exploration, mining and export in Australia. http://www.uic.com.au/about.htm ----------- More info about Yucca... Yucca Mountain, Nevada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain%2C_Nevada Sierra Club factsheet - Yucca Mountain project http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/yucca_factsheet.asp The US Department of Energy http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/ Link here Add multimedia to story Add links to story
Nuclear Waste: Keep it in America Send it to Antarctica...
by idea factory	2005-11-01 4:41 PM +0800
"If the nuclear waste dump is without risk you would build several of them in your cities and save the cost of transport to a remote area." Kevin Buzzacott and the Arabunna People Link here
Nuclear Waste Isolation
by Xolution 9	2005-11-01 4:44 PM +0800
“Disposal” in its normal use cannot be applied to radioactive wastes from the nuclear fuel chain and nuclear weapons production. Disposal implies that you put something somewhere and walk away. We do not have a proven method to insure that radioactivity will stay where we put it. Experience over the last 50 years shows that every type of nuclear waste “disposal” to date, has leaked and done so faster and at higher rates than were projected by either dumpers or regulators. It is time to update our views of radioactive waste and reject the concept of disposal. Our goal is nuclear waste isolation from the biosphere for this generation and all to come, over the duration of hazard posed by the waste. Isolation is defined as zero incremental dose and zero release. The only way to achieve this goal is by adopting a zero release policy and zero incremental dose and risk standards. Zero release must apply to all types of radioactive waste, all practices, and all releases. This policy precludes the deregulation and release of radioactive contaminated materials in so-called “recycling “ or reprocessing. Zero release requires the end of the nuclear fuel chain. Some, on hearing this statement will dismiss the idea. This is either because of a loss of hope for the world, or alternately, a deep investment (financial, ideological or otherwise) in activities which depend upon irradiation of others and contamination of the environment. This conflict of interest is the source of nuclear policy which has, over the last half century resulted in tens of millions of people, as well as other species being exposed, involuntarily, to ionizing radiation over and above Earth’s ambient radiation levels. We must respect the rights of other species and future human generations to continue the isolation of our wastes, so we must not do anything that precludes the possibility of their accomplishing this. Link here Add multimedia to story Add links to story
Great lets end Nuclear proliferation
by Solution 8	2005-11-01 5:38 PM +0800
But still we have to do somthing about the waste that currently exists. You seem intent on proving that you belong to category two. Link here
We gotta stop making the waste first mate
by xol9	2005-11-01 7:05 PM +0800
Can we keep the nuclear waste at your mums house? But what is a "category two"? Link here

by Macca	2005-11-01 11:40 PM +0800
They should do what they did in the superman movie, and put it in a rocket and send it into the sun. Seriously, our country shouldnt be a dumping ground for everyone else's shit. I know it has to be dealt with, but not by us and definitely not here. The whole thing looks like an attention seeking campaign by some has-beens and crap makers. Link here
More than attention seeking
by xol9	2005-11-02 1:35 AM +0800
Its a dedicated and well implemented campaign to force a debate. The debate is being funded and enabled by the Uranium Industry. This is a grasping by the uranium mining industry and by the Australian government itself. More later about this... Link here Add multimedia to story Add links to story
Category 3
by Neo	2005-11-02 2:30 AM +0800
Underground dumping as scientifically suspect and politically impossible. So-called "disposal" in underground dumps is an out-of-sight, out-of-mind con job. The least problematic of a bad bunch of options is engineered, above-ground storage at the point of production/use. On-site storage beats centralised stores or dumps because it avoids the risks associated with transportation. On-site storage also forces producers/users to deal with their own mess and this encourages the minimisation of waste production. Above-ground storage beats underground dumps because: it is easier to monitor above-ground stores; there is a better chance of effective remedial action if problems are discovered; and a greater number of future management options will be available. Above-ground storage is the better option, but NOT a good or permanent one. There are security risks, and greater exposure to weather conditions and other hazards. The useful life of dry stores is measured in decades, not millennia. As Jean McSorley says, "There's no environmentally proven way for disposal - nuclear waste means eternal vigilance." Pangea Resources, and other supporters of the project, have adopted a moralistic tone. Nuclear waste is a "world problem", they say. Rubbish. The nuclear industries of just three countries - the US, France and Japan - account for almost 60% of all nuclear power plants. For every country with nuclear power plants, there are five without. Another line of argument is that Australia chooses to sell uranium so "we" should accept the waste. But according to various polls, over two thirds of the Australian population oppose Uranium mines. Another aspect of the guilt tripping is the argument that the dump would be a safe resting place for plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons. There's no doubt that the world inventory of plutonium - hundreds of tonnes and increasing steadily - represents a major risk in relation to weapons proliferation. But only a portion of the stockpile is from dismantled weapons. Japan, for example, has amassed a huge stockpile of plutonium, ostensibly for its nuclear power program. The next step is immobilisation of fissile material using solid matrices such as concrete or glass. The dump proposal is not being driven by concerns about weapons proliferation. It is an attempt by the nuclear power industry to dump its waste problems on isolated and politically vulnerable communities in order to increase its chances of survival. This is the logic of the nuclear industry. Got a problem - shift it somewhere else and onto someone else, stall for time, make it look like something's happening. Another criterion for the honour of hosting an international nuclear waste dump is a stable, democratic political system. The nuclear waste will be radioactive for 200,000 years. That outcome is most likely in mountainous areas with high rainfall, complicated geology, and permeable rock. Earthquakes, climate change, glaciation, and mountain formation are long-term processes that could affect a underground dump. Another essential step towards nonproliferation is to discontinue the civil uses of nuclear energy, in particular nuclear power but also the use of nuclear research reactors. The technologies used for civil purposes are one and the same as military nuclear facilities. Info: http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/pangea.html Link here
Imagine if we adopted this principle with everything
by Solution 8	2005-11-02 3:49 AM +0800
"We gotta stop making the waste first mate" You could close down Hospital casualties because were not going to treat any injuries until we deal with all the issues that cause them in the first place. Compassionate & Intelligent thinking. Not! So xol9's thinking... until we stop making nuclear waste were going to close our eyes, put our hands over our ears and pretend that a large amount of nuclear waste doesn't already exist and that it doesn't have to be dealt with. As for keeping it at my mum's house? Grow up. No one is suggesting that we store in people's houses. Link here
Well if it is so safe...
by Jerome	2005-11-02 8:30 AM +0800
"If the nuclear waste dump is without risk you would build several of them in your cities and save the cost of transport to a remote area." Kevin Buzzacott and the Arabunna People I'm going to remember THAT one! ;) I think it's a problem that none of us chose; we're all just doing the best we can and "should" put our energy where we want to put it. Some may wish to work with the existing mess and others might prefer to stop mining of the crap. Link here
Dumping Grounds - Blair's attempt to be a leader in Nuke Proliferation
by Kriz	2005-11-02 10:06 AM +0800
If we simply allow the greedy uneducated governments around the world a global solution of dumping it in the NT or in the kalgoolie electorate as Matt Birney has been suggesting with the latest liberal stance, there would be no questioning of whether this ineffectualy, subsidy sucking energy industry should really exist......and they will as they have done in the past continue. I want them to know that we don't by their complacency they have with the most enduring poison know to man. Check out this video of all these fools standing around the nuclear bomb blast.....thinking that its all ok. The Mighty Atom Bomb.... Cant find that Vid but check out this site for heaps of archive nuclear progagander....A souless selfish industry from start to finish. Just because you cant see germs doesn't mean they don't exist....Nuclear fallout, burnt depleted uranium, low ionising radiation and radeon daughters can all take time (decades) to really establish themselves, but effect children 10 times more than adults ! If the nuclear industry packed up there bags but i still think that each country should look after there waste....as a significant reminder that Forefatheres 100,000 years ago were complete fools, and lets not go down that road ourselves.... BTW Blair wants to update his nuke stockpile with the latest of equipment.....Those mini nukes that the yankees are creating should keep those harmful enemies at bay. Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion? By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent Independent - London,England,UK Published: 31 October 2005 Tony Blair's determination to ensure that Britain's independent nuclear deterrent will be retained well into the middle of this century is set to provoke the most ferocious row yet in his increasingly fraught third term. The Government will today be accused by rebellious Labour MPs of preparing to squander up to £20bn of taxpayers' money by replacing Trident with a new generation of nuclear weaponry. The cost is equivalent to 800 new city academy schools, 60 medium-sized hospitals or the employment of 20,000 new NHS consultants. A coalition of independent military analysts, dissident Labour MPs and groups such as Greenpeace and CND argue that replacing Trident will contribute very little to Britain's security in a world that has been transformed since the days of the Cold War. Britain's nuclear deterrent was last modernised in 1980. In a growing insurrection that threatens to split the Labour Party, MPs will argue that any decision to upgrade Britain's nuclear defences would be a disastrous own goal. Party chiefs have gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent a vote on the divisive issue at this evening's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) which will be addressed by John Reid, the Defence Secretary. But rebel MPs, spurred on by the belief that they have the private backing of several cabinet ministers, are planning to embarrass the Government by collecting a House of Commons motion underlining the strength of opposition to the move. One hope is that a final decision could be put off until Mr Blair, who has made clear he favours replacing Trident, steps down as Prime Minister. The current Trident fleet consists of four submarines carrying up to 48 nuclear warheads - each eight times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb - mounted on Trident II D5 missiles. As the vessels are due for replacement between 2020 and 2025 and there can be a lead-in time of up to 14 years to develop new weaponry, a decision is due shortly on whether to replace them. The Government says it has to be taken this parliament. Labour MPs fear the decision has already been taken in Downing Street and worry the "listening exercise" promised by Mr Blair on the subject is cosmetic. They point to a comment by the Prime Minister two weeks ago that he believed the "independent nuclear deterrent" was "an important part of our defence". There is also anger that ministers have sidestepped demands to give Parliament the chance to vote on the issue. Backbenchers had hoped to force a vote at tonight's meeting on a motion questioning the "wisdom of spending billions on Trident replacement" . But internal PLP papers seen by The Independent disclose that the Labour Parliamentary Committee, senior backbenchers who meet the Prime Minister each week, believed it "would be unhelpful to have a vote on the future of Trident" at tonight's PLP meeting. The strong feelings in PLP ranks are, from the Government's point of view, an ominous precursor to other looming rebellions on such issues as education and welfare reforms. One of the Trident motion's proposers, Gordon Prentice, MP for Pendle, dismissed Mr Blair's call for a debate on Trident as "completely vacuous ". He added: "John Reid will no doubt say that no decision has been taken yet, that the various options haven't been worked through yet." MPs will argue that no decision needs to be taken for several years and should not be reached until the issues have been fully aired. Paul Flynn, the Newport West MP, said: "The Cold War has ended and it's possible to discuss these things openly. There's no reason why we should not have a debate and a vote in the Commons on it. Having a new Trident would make the world a more dangerous place. We campaign against nuclear proliferation among other nations and we should lead by example." He said possession of a nuclear arsenal was irrelevant to British forces' main tasks of peacekeeping and humanitarian relief. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has launched a nationwide petition against the replacement of Trident. It has also circulated among Labour MPs an article by Robin Cook, the late foreign secretary, written weeks before his death, arguing that updating Trident was "against Britain's national interests" and "against our international obligations" . Kate Hudson, the chair of CND said: "We are opposed to any replacement of Trident - no matter what that may be. We need to move towards multi-lateral disarmament." Possibilities being mooted for a new generation of Trident include the development of multi-role submarines, which can fire both nuclear and conventional missiles, or that new Astute submarines being designed for the Royal Navy could be adapted for nuclear weapons. A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "There are no official costs or even a list of replacement options for Trident at this time. Any decision on the future of Trident is needed in this parliament and ministers realise the importance of retaining the current Trident provision." What else could you buy? * 4 Channel tunnels * 60 medium-sized hospitals * 400 new trains for the London Underground * 715 miles of motorway * 800 city academies * 1p cut in basic-rate income tax for five and a half years (or 5.6p cut in basic-rate tax for one year) * Run the Metropolitan Police for 10 years * Stage the 2012 Olympic Games 10 times over Link here
Keeping it at your Mums
by X101	2005-11-02 9:41 AM +0800
Its a metaphor for not wanting to deal with the issue. If you think its so safe, then we should be able to store it anywhere. Its the Not-In-My-Backyard syndrome. Deal with it sure. But lets really look at the cause. Dealing with the problem - the radical root of the issue: is the key here. STOP making the waste. Then deal with the situation. Fix the cause before the effect. Its like taking a bit of dirt out of your eye when your heads on fire. Link here
Half Asleep
by Kriz	2005-11-02 9:51 AM +0800
Here's a bunch of links to awesome archival videos http://www.open-video.org/results.php?genre=Ephemeral Very interesting lecture http://www.ourmedia.org/node/61361 http://pasifikost.ca/ http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/mp3audio.htm there is so much material out there its daunting trying to absorb it all Peaceout, Kriz Link here
Reaction to Solution 8
by xol9	2005-11-03 12:49 AM +0800
"until we stop making nuclear waste were going to close our eyes, put our hands over our ears and pretend that a large amount of nuclear waste doesn't already exist and that it doesn't have to be dealt with." Step 1. Stop making the waste. Step 2. Deal with the waste somehow. The 2 steps are not mutually exclusive, but they are dependant upon each other. Of course we need to deal with nuclear waste. I am not that stupid. But we need to take the proliferation of waste into consideration when mining and processing yellowcake in the first place. So first up close the mines... Uranium mining is the problem. Demand for energy itself is another. We need to focus on renewable technology, rather than waste time on nuclear power. I digress. The waste in another issue altogether. There is NO PLACE ON EARTH safe enough to dispose of radioactive waste. Indeed it is WRONG to think of nuclear waste as being disposable in the first place. The shit is poisonous for 200,000 YEARS. Above or below ground. Which brings me to your other points: "So we can leave this shit floating around throughout the world in control of people who many would consider second rate leaders in charge of coruptable regimes..." Like australia? The Australian government is considered by many as a corrupt regime run by a second rate leader. "...Or alternatively Australia could with it's political stability and general adherance to accountabilty and best process manage it." Tell me this, just what kind of "political stability" will be around in the next 500 years, 10,000 years? Well we just don't know do we. We should consider this. Will Australia as a nation even exist in 50 or 500 or 2000 years? There is life after life - it is your children - and their children and their families. The political stabilty of the future is a complete unknown. Furthermore, 200,000 years is a long time geologically too, consider the fact that Ice Ages and climate change can occur over centuries or millenia - but who really knows how the earth's tectonic plates are going to behave in the next few hundred centuries? This really has to be thought about and discussed. And not just dumped in central australia. Instead of Uranium industry driven solutions to the problem THEY have created. Nuclear waste should be stored at UIC boss, Ian Hoare Lacey's house! ___________ "As for keeping it at my mum's house? Grow up. No one is suggesting that we store in people's houses." I'm grown. I'm a fully grown man with children. Why can't we store it in people's houses? Answer me that? do some research before sprouting corporate welfare propaganda at me. If its okay to store this hideous stuff on Aboriginal lands why is it not okay to store it in Como. Or Ramsey St - if only! Link here Add multimedia to story Add links to story
If its okay to store this hideous stuff on Aboriginal lands why is it not okay to store it in Como.
by Solution 8	2005-11-03 4:29 PM +0800
It is not being stored on Aboriginal lands according to 'X'. In this thread, http://www.perth.indymedia.org/index.php?action=newswire&parentview=13639 'X' claims that it is being stored on "DEFENCE departmnet (sic) sites". 'X' is also against paying compensation to the traditional owners of the land if the region is used as a waste storage area. Lets ignore 'X', they are obviously a heartless bastard. As for your question / abuse: "Why can't we store it in people's houses? Answer me that? do some research before sprouting corporate welfare propaganda at me." Well it could be stored at peoples houses. It wouldn't be appropriate but it could be done. Just in the same way we don't store Cargo ships at people's houses or have dog boarding kennels in penthouse appartments in the city. It isn't appropriate. Also storing nuclear waste at a person's home might not be the securest method of storing DEADLY NUCLEAR WASTE. Admit it, your question was stupid. I for one am not a massive advocate of storing nuclear waste in the desert. I think it could be better managed in purpose built buildings in any Capital cities industrial precint. Link here
What X actually said and more...
by xol9	2005-11-03 5:05 PM +0800
Solution 8 says: 1. - "X' claims that it is being stored on "DEFENCE departmnet (sic) sites"." No. Read it again. X said: "Its actually earmarked for DEFENCE departmnet sites." Not that it is being stored anywhere already. Then asked you if you had read the article. And it seems you haven't if you twist and distort the discussion as you have. All you're doing is stalking and then attempting to illicit a negative response. In other words trolling. Unless of course I'm mistaken and you don't realise the distiction between the Pangea proposal and the Commonwealth gov push for a national (ie not International) dump on Aboriginal lands. also, 2. - "'X' is also against paying compensation to the traditional owners of the land if the region is used as a waste storage area." Once again. Distortion. Where does X say that? Your question to X was: "Would you give up your spiritual lands for half a million? I would." X responded: "...no, no amount of money would convince me to put spent uranium in my spiritual lands." You can't "give up" spritual lands. Should we throw money at people to make them go away. Its not up to anyone besides who's land it is to decide whether to recieve any money. At this stage the Land Councils are all saying NO!! By the way, I have it on good authority that X is not a "bastard" nor heartless. And I am not X. I am xol9. ... My question to you about storage was a legitimate one, and not intended as abuse. But thanks for answering it. My point is that this stuff is UNSAFE and INDISPOSABLE and really shouldnt be stored anywhere. And if you think its somehow safe enough to store anywhere then why not in the bathroom of suburban houses. But the question remains. What the fuck do we do with it, and the millions more tonnes of global nuclear waste to come...? I just don't know. I certainly don't trust Governments to deal with it. And I definitely don't want corporations looking after it either. Its a shocker. Link here Add multimedia to story Add links to story
And if you think its somehow safe enough to store anywhere then why not in the bathroom of suburban houses.
by Solution 8	2005-11-03 6:04 PM +0800
Stop twisting, distorting, stalking and trolling me!!! Where did I say "...think its somehow safe enough to store anywhere..." I didn't. Your the idiot who raised this shit about it being stored in peoples houses. Nuclear waste is a deadly posionous material. You seem to agree with me on that but keep suggesting that I somehow am saying it is safe and can be stored anywhere. The last comment I made was "I think it could be better managed in purpose built buildings in any Capital cities industrial precint." It is obvious your just a troll looking to start a flame war. Link here
Woops
by xol9	2005-11-03 7:16 PM +0800
Calm down mate. I am sorry if you have misunderstood me in any way. Apologies for attempting a bit of dialogue. I'm not stalking or trolling - just responding to your questions. Link here
Waste - no different to any other
by Jerome	2005-11-04 8:29 AM +0800
"I for one am not a massive advocate of storing nuclear waste in the desert. I think it could be better managed in purpose built buildings in any Capital cities industrial precint." I'm with you Sol 8 Link here
Jerome.
by ian	2005-11-05 4:12 PM +0800
WRONG! Nuclear waste is VERY different to any other. And thats the whole point. Most human created waste will compost or re-enter the biosphere over a relatively short time compared to the noxious legacy of nuclear waste. Think 200,000 YEARS mate! Link here
Ian
by Jerome	2005-11-19 8:11 PM +0800
I was being feciscious (sarcastic ;) Link here
ALLOWED:13782 Post a comment Please review our editorial policy before posting. Your name/pseudonym: Story Title: Summary or comment: Passcode to attach multimedia to post You do not need to put a password on your comment, doing so only means that you can come back later and add photos etc to it.