Potential nuke dump site flooded (Australia)

By Karen Michelmore
12apr06
ONE of the proposed sites for Australia's nuclear waste dump, near Katherine in the Northern Territory, has been inundated with flooding, residents say. <snip>

Mrs Utley said the area experienced serious inundation last week, when brown floodwaters swamped nearby Katherine.

"Everything is very waterlogged," Mrs Utley said.

"The run off from Fisher's Ridge has been absolutely massive. <snip>

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18793095%5E1702,00.html

Oops ...

Any idea?

Do you have any idea of the risk associated with this flooding? How many people would die from flooding this "dump?"

Do you know how many people are injured each year from attempts to contain billions of tons of coal waste? Do you believe it is possible to contain coal waste? How about the big one, carbon dioxide?

Is your calculation that the concerns of one woman mentioned in a popular press article in Australia outweighs the concerns of the entire population of Bangladesh?

used for research & medical isotopes. They are, of course, the second worst polluters after the US since they also like coal and big SUVs.

Like Yucca mountain, I can only conclude that this might not be the best place for a geologic depository - there are other places in Oz, I'm sure. There are also other methods.

If you can't find a parking space at the local KFC at lunchtime, do you starve? No, you either go somewhere else or find a different solution to your food problem.

.. save Bangladesh.

I have met other people who wanted to put waste dumps of various sorts (including munipal waste, hazardous waste, and nuclear waste) in flood zones. They have succeeded rather too frequently for my tastes.

If the Bengalis themselves are clamoring for this particular site, do please provide a link. Otherwise, I am afraid that I might suspect that you want only to use those good folk as props and have not their interests at heart so much as you would claim ...

You obviously incapable of getting it and have fallen into ever more tortured nonsense.

You aren't related to Scotty McClellan, are you big boy?

Do you have a place to put coal waste? Carbon dioxide? Is it lower risk than this nuclear facility? Is there some special reason that this discussion of a putative flood plan on a proposed nuclear facility is more important the carbon dioxide? Why did you link it? Why do you link the word "nuclear" with every operational difficulty but never say anything about coal?

You don't. You insist that nuclear energy must be risk free, and in so doing promote coal endlessly, coal boy. And yes, that has everything to do with Bangladesh.

I have seen you arguing here that the only problem with coal is that mountain top removal laws are not enforced. You are clueless.

.. to anyone who has actually organized around dumping issues.

Can't see how noting opposition to this site harms Bengalis or translates into support for fossil fuel ...

Here a map of Bangladesh now, and Bangladesh in 100 years time:



Notice anything?

The sooner we get off fossil fuels, the better for the cities that aren't on the second map. That means "now" rather than "in 50 years time when we've invented something to make renewables reliable". Alternativley, start rounding up either the $200,000,000,000,000 to scrub CO2 from the air, or the $15,000,000,000,000 for VR batteries.

"Can't see how noting opposition to this site harms Bengalis"
Open your eyes. Just a little will do.

I have expressed considerable sympathy, of various sorts, for coalminers --including arguing that other forms of economic development were needed, arguing that increased emphasis on mine health and safety should be something a number of people across the political spectrum could and should support, etc.

Apparently, in your eyes, such support for workers justifies some sort of name-calling. Too bad. You should learn about Matewan, say, and a number of like cases before you sneer at those people and their culture. I'd rather aim at corporate power ...

...and you're a step up on the evolutionary ladder for it. But there are are 6,500,000,000 people on this planet who all want electricity: rather than tell them where you think they shouldn't get it from, can you suggest where they can?

On your second point, I do actually support the guys on the floor wherever they they are. I've done enough shitty jobs in my life to appreciate unions: But that doesn't negate the needs of the people not in the union.

How about this flooded waste site: Is this germaine? This site isn't proposed, and it may not fail. On the contrary, it has failed, on a scale of hundreds of millions of gallons, forcing the shut down of the water supply for towns along a 75 mile stretch of river.

http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/martincs.pdf

Again, are you related to Scotty McClellan, coal boy? Because there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you insist that you can carry on hysterically about every nuclear storage issue, you better damn well expect a discussion of the alternative. Energy doesn't tunnel in by prayers to God. It comes from somewhere. You insist on discussing nuclear issues in isolation and I insist on making comparisions. Don't like that? Tough shit. I'm never going to stop pointing that out, OK?

Bangladesh. Coal.

... what political changes can you imagine, what political coalitions can you envision, that will end such practices? If we don't have the political strength to end such practices now, just what exactly about building nuclear plants will lead to political coalitions that end such practices in the future?

Beyond the waste disposal issues (upon which we seem to disagree, since I oppose putting waste in floodzones, whereas such opposition causes you to accuse me of not caring about Bangladesh), providing more energy sources (such as building more nuclear plants) will simply contribute to the belief that energy can be wasted endlessly, leading to some end result like nuclear-powered coal gasification plants ...

How about this idea?

We exclude all people from political power who can't think. I believe that this practice would not only exclude the neocons, but also the entire similar anti-nuclear movement - a group that actually manages to think as poorly as neocons think. In fact, the anti-nuclear industry of circle jerkers has been excluded from political power. Once we get rid of the neocons - also nuclear scare mongerers by the way - we'll have a remote chance of facing the immediate crisis.

You will claim that any place nuclear materials is stored is a flood zone. I don't follow all of your nonsense, but I have heard Yucca Mountain represented by anti-nuclear activists as a flood zone. The fact is, that flood zones are not the issue.

Here's a fact: The Oklo natural nuclear reactors were located in a rain forest and in two billion years, the majority of fission products and actinides moved less than 100 meters.

http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm

It is, of course, wholly unsurprising that you continue to ignore this science. You are mostly notable not for what you see, but for what you don't see.

Thus your fear mongering is based on a complete ignorance of the geology of nuclear materials. In fact, on a scale of 0 to 10 on issues of actual importance of issues facing humanity this entire thread is a zero, much like the entire anti-nuclear argument.

You write thread after thread after thread with the same 50 year old anti-nuclear nonsense, "bolt loose," "pipe leaking," blah, blah, blah. And again, for the 50,000th time (not that you will get it) you ignore global climate change. As many threads as you offer like this, I can offer the same response: There is no such thing as risk free energy. There is only risk minimized energy. That energy is nuclear energy.

The matter is not some vague nonsense about blathering slogans like "political coalitions." You have no political coalition and are politically and morally useless, on the grounds that you continue to appeal to irrational fear at the expense of what we should fear. The time has already arrived that you are irrelevant. Internationally the world is talking nuclear power, nuclear power, nuclear power because the world is terrified by reality. The wolf is at the door, bub. People all over the world are concerned about a wholly different set of floods than you are.

That would include people in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh.