nuclear-news

Australia’s radioactive migraine – On Line Opinion – 26/9/2008

Australia’s radioactive migraine

ON LINE opinion By Scott Ludlam 26 September 2008 When the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 was forced through the Senate, Labor accurately described it as, “extreme, arrogant, heavy-handed, draconian, sorry, sordid, extraordinary and profoundly shameful”.

Why? Because it wiped out Northern Territory laws prohibiting transport and storage of nuclear waste. The legislation also squashed Aboriginal heritage laws and the Native Title Act, overriding procedural fairness.

Amendments passed in 2006 explicitly stated that site nominations from Land Councils are valid even in the absence of consultation with Traditional Owners. These amendments were also opposed by the Greens and Labor opposition………………………………..Most importantly, we must ask why we are producing this waste at all. Yesterday we saw public acknowledgement that the research reactor in Sydney is still leaking, despite having been shutdown for 11 of the 14 months since it first opened. The first step in dealing with our 60-year radioactive migraine is to stop producing this waste in the first place, and divert the substantial resources consumed by this substandard facility into the many alternative technologies for producing radioisotopes.

…………………………Repealing this legislation will pave the way for a new approach to the management of Australia’s radioactive waste. The Territory Government, the Traditional Owners and the broader community across the NT were never asked if they wanted to host a dump for Australia’s most intractable waste. The Prime Minister must now be called to account: this was a very clear election promise, and it is time it was honoured.

Australia’s radioactive migraine – On Line Opinion – 26/9/2008

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

September 26, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment

Reid, Ensign say nuclear waste rail plan unsafe – San Jose Mercury News

Reid, Ensign say nuclear waste rail plan unsafeBy MercuryNews,com ERICA WERNER Associated Press 24 Sept 08 “………..

Testifying at a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee, Reid, D-Nev., called the Energy Department’s plans for shipping spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain “grossly incomplete.”

“Their draft transportation plan is barely a crude sketch of the comprehensive planning that should actually be done for a massive nuclear waste shipping campaign,” Reid said.

Ensign said: “I have bad news for those of you with working nuclear reactors in your states who think that the opening of Yucca will rid your state of nuclear waste—you’re wrong.”

Instead the result would be dangerously transporting waste through states around the country to Nevada, said Ensign, R-Nev………………

The period for shipping waste to the repository could span up to 50 years, with 190 to 317 rail casks shipped each year on trains carrying three to five casks, according to the Energy Department Web site.

Commercial power reactors have about 64,000 tons of used reactor fuel at power plants in 33 states awaiting shipment to Yucca Mountain, with the amount growing at the rate of 2,000 tons a year, according to the industry.

Reid, Ensign say nuclear waste rail plan unsafe – San Jose Mercury News

Tags: Nuclear, antinuclear, uranium, radioactive

September 25, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment

The Post

Green with envy: Waste-disposal problem cannot simply be buried thepost September 22, 2008 Cathy Wilson
When it comes to waste, the United States has a history of literally burying its problems — a practice that is a shortcut rather than a solution………………………..

The process of nuclear fission results in the creation of low-level and high-level radioactive waste. Equipment or clothing that has been contaminated is classified as low-level, while used nuclear reactor fuel is labeled as high-level.

Low-level waste takes hundreds of years to reach safe levels of radiation, while high-level radioactive waste won’t reach safe levels for tens of thousands of years. After being monitored and cooled for several years, it is transported and placed in concrete structures.  

Nuclear waste disposal is a concrete (no pun intended) and current topic that needs to be discussed by the people who are so adamant about its promise. Some propose burying the radioactive waste deep underground in places like Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the problem is that Nevada residents aren’t clamoring to have such waste in their backyards or seeping into their groundwater……………………………….Renewable energy is within reach, composting already exists and simply reducing waste and energy use individually doesn’t hurt either. It’s irresponsible to rely on burying our problems today knowing that future generations will be haunted by them and forced to fix them tomorrow.

The Post

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

September 24, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment

For Nevadans, the Presidential Election Is Life or Death in a Much More Literal Way | Environment | AlterNet

For Nevadans, the Presidential Election Is Life or Death in a Much More Literal Way
By Peggy Maze Johnson, AlterNet. Posted September 18, 2008.
This election could be a make-or-break moment in history for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

Will the November 4, 2008, election doom the future of Nevada? That
sounds ominous, I know, but this election could be a make-or-break
moment in history for the Yucca Mountain Project. This is the
ill-conceived plan to bury nuclear waste in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.
Everyone in this state knows the problems inherent in this project and
should be on alert. But also this should serve as a “heads-up” to
everyone in the country.

People are in a panic about how to solve
the nation’s energy deficit problems and it’s easy to talk about
building nuclear power plants as a solution. In the meantime, the Yucca
Mountain Project controversy is never — never — mentioned. The fact
is the only site ever seriously considered for storage of the
inevitable deadly waste generated by nuclear power plants was Yucca
Mountain. Study after study has shown it is a hazardous location for
storing nuclear waste for the millions of years the waste continues to
emit deadly radioactive ions. Of the many drawbacks cited, one of the
most frightening is that Yucca Mountain sits in an active earthquake
zone.

Nevadans voted for George W. Bush in 2000 because he said he would not
approve Yucca Mountain as the nation’s nuclear dump unless the “science
was sound.” Now we know he didn’t mean it. Making Yucca Mountain
scientifically sound would be like putting lipstick on a pig!…………………………….he upcoming election is about many important issues — not the least
being the prospect of tons and tons of more deadly nuclear waste to be
stored if we go ahead and mindlessly build nuclear power plants in a
misguided attempt to solve our future energy needs.

For Nevadans, the Presidential Election Is Life or Death in a Much More Literal Way | Environment | AlterNet

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, uranium, raduioactive

September 23, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment

Fight continues against nuclear dump plan – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Fight continues against nuclear dump plan

ABC News 23 Sept 08 There are renewed calls for the Federal Government to scrap its plans to build a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.

A new storage facility for radioactive waste could be built at the Lucas Heights research reactor in Sydney.

The Federal Government is also considering three sites in the Northern Territory for a long-term waste dump.

Natalie Wasley from the Beyond Nuclear Initiative says there is no need to bring the waste to the NT.

“This is welcome news for the targeted communities because it means that there are other options that the Federal Government can be looking at for the waste, the majority of which is produced at the Lucas Heights reactor,” she said.

Fight continues against nuclear dump plan – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, uranium, raduioactive

September 23, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment

New nuclear waste site for Sydney – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

New nuclear waste site for Sydney

ABC News 22 Sept 08 Australia’s only nuclear research reactor is planning to build a new radioactive waste site in southern Sydney, blaming the move on delays in building a federal nuclear dump.

Its operator, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), says a long-term waste depository is needed for Australia’s spent or unwanted radioactive material.

Spokesman Andrew Humpherson says ANSTO has applied for an interim site on its own Lucas Heights premises to consolidate existing waste currently housed in two older buildings……………..

The application for the interim site is before federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett.

The Federal Government is expected to identify potential sites for a new nuclear dump later this year.

New nuclear waste site for Sydney – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, uranium, radioactive

September 22, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear Denial

September 18, 2008Nuclear Denial RENEWABLE ENERGY WORLD by Michael MellishNuclear power plants have a productive life of at least forty years. Unfortunately unlike other power plants, after forty years they cannot simply be decommissioned, razed and the site redeveloped into other uses.Fuel rods used in nuclear power plants are actively exothermic (generating heat) for up to seventy-five years after removal from the reactor…………………………Today, the fuel rods have to stay in the ponds on the site because there is no other place for them to go. The U.S. doesn’t operate a fuel rod processing plant (like BNFL does for the United Kingdom) and has no current plans for such a vitrification facility (imbedding the active radio active waste within glass). Even then the glass-encased radioactive material must be actively cooled for 75 years, so it must be kept somewhere with human management of the site.
Who is going to pay for this? Consider the cost of staffing for 75 additional years when there is no revenue stream from electrical generation to cover this, and there is no easy way to pass the cost onto the electrical customers. This problem is only starting to be recognized since so few reactors have actually reached the end of life in the U.S. If you check the balance sheets of the major electrical utilities that own and operate nuclear power plants, you will not see any allowances for this future cost. It would be simpler to spin off the plant, let it go bankrupt and leave it to the taxpayers to deal with the mess……………………………The operation of existing nuclear power plants, labs and facilities has been fraught with accidents, incidents and discharges throughout the 50-year history of nuclear power. Full and open disclosure of the accidents and risks taken by operators (including the U.S. government) remains dubious at best…………………………Uranium mining and processing of uranium ore to fuel grade is hardly a “clean” activity. Vast quantities of overburden must be removed to mine the ore (with all the attendant pollution problems). The ore itself is quite difficult to process, separating the useful material U235 from its counterparts clearly produces significant quantities of radioactive waste products, dust and chemical wastes from the separation process, all of which are quite nasty.

Nuclear Denial

September 19, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment

Still no safe place to store nuclear waste | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

Still no safe place to store nuclear waste
Indt Star.com Jim O’Neill 8 sept 08 With all the talk about renewable energy, there is resurgence in the nuclear debate. However, one fact remains hidden in all the pro nuclear talk. That is the storage of nuclear waste. So far no one has come up with a satisfactory plan to store this extremely hazardous material………………..Think of it. Our best scientists have not come up with a safe way to dispose or hide from this horrible danger. Yet, as Will says, it is being stored temporarily within 75 miles of where more than 161 million Americans live.

This is outrageous. Where is the popular outrage?

Indianapolis

Still no safe place to store nuclear waste | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

September 15, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment

Uranium explorer’s dumping plan blocked – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Uranium explorer’s dumping plan blocked

ABC News 10 Sept 08 A council has now decided to ban uranium explorer Marathon Resources from dumping any waste at the Hawker dump in the northern Flinders Ranges of South Australia.

The company wants to dump waste including industrial clothing, calico and plastic bags and cardboard from its uranium exploration site in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) said it would ensure that none of the waste was radioactive before it was dumped.

Flinders Ranges Council CEO Lee Connors says a meeting last night decided to ban any use of Hawker dump, because residents wanted that.

“The advice from the EPA and their radiation group was available to the council but at the end of the day it really meant nothing,” he said…………………………………..

Marathon had its drilling licence suspended last February after buried waste in calico and plastic bags was found in the wilderness sanctuary late last year.

Marg Sprigg, from Arkaroola sanctuary, says Marathon should have known how people would feel about its waste dumping plan.

“When it leaves here it’s supposed to be, you know, of no threat at all to the community but the fact that the Leigh Creek dump – the dump of a mining town – wouldn’t take it and then it was to go to Hawker, I do find surprising that they thought a local community would be willing to accept it if a mining town doesn’t,” she said.

Uranium explorer’s dumping plan blocked – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Tags: nuclear antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

September 10, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment