Politics Should Australia go nuclear?

[Lebbo73]

Have you ever noticed that the term "evidence" is used totally differently in Law than it is in Science?
Any idiot can give evidence, which in essence is nothing but opinion in Law.
Tony Abbott could give "evidence" about the good character of a pedophile for instance with no actual empirical evidence to support his "evidence" whatsoever. Even totally in the face of the actual evidence.

You do know that this alleged pedophile was found Not Guilty on appeal? Nice try though!

 

[Rotayjay]

If it means big bucks for South Australia, the world can put their nuclear waste in our desert. It's a desert - that means deserted. The Australian outback is geologically stable and almost uninhabited.

The US conducted extensive research on how to create symbols and signs warning the people of 10,000 years' time (who won't speak any language we do) not to interfere with the waste. How many geologically stable deserts exist on Earth? I say, cash in on the fact that we have one.

 

[CbayT]

Most people who are incredibly pro nuclear tend to have some vested interest in nuclear, be it financial, or career.

What? UNSW has stopped its nuclear courses, ansto employs about an afl teams worth of people and no Australian firm other than miners is involved In the nuclear industry

 

[Power Raid]

China to Build 6-8 New Nuclear Power Plants Every Year

According to China Times, China has set construction of nuclear power plants as one of its key economic policy. During the 13th Five Year Plan period (2016-2020), China will build 6 to 8 new nuclear power plants every year. This will increase nuclear power generation capacity by 6 trillion MW. Based on capex of RMB20,000 per kilowatt capacity, it means the nuclear power sector will bring in total investment of RMB1.2 trillion in the next five years.

 

[Power Raid]

Most people who are incredibly pro nuclear tend to have some vested interest in nuclear, be it financial, or career.

What? UNSW has stopped its nuclear courses, ansto employs about an afl teams worth of people and no Australian firm other than miners is involved In the nuclear industry

at a guess, the biggest employment group involved in nuclear would be the medical industry

 

[Power Raid]

Subject: Political Alert - Nuclear cooperation agreements good news for CME (FED)

Please find attached:

NUCLEAR COOPERATION AGREEMENTS GOOD NEWS FOR CME (FED)

Australia's finalisation of two nuclear cooperation agreements has been welcomed by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CME). The agreements, between Australia and India and Australia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), will allow the expansion of global exports of uranium. CME Chief Executive Reg Howard-Smith said the bilateral agreements could reap benefits for WA companies by broadening their business opportunities. "As the third largest uranium producer in the world, Australia is well placed to enjoy long-term benefits from the additional royalties and employment opportunities these agreements will open up," Mr Howard-Smith said.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Subject: Political Alert - Nuclear cooperation agreements good news for CME (FED)

Please find attached:

NUCLEAR COOPERATION AGREEMENTS GOOD NEWS FOR CME (FED)

Australia's finalisation of two nuclear cooperation agreements has been welcomed by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CME). The agreements, between Australia and India and Australia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), will allow the expansion of global exports of uranium. CME Chief Executive Reg Howard-Smith said the bilateral agreements could reap benefits for WA companies by broadening their business opportunities. "As the third largest uranium producer in the world, Australia is well placed to enjoy long-term benefits from the additional royalties and employment opportunities these agreements will open up," Mr Howard-Smith said.

Its a catch 22. We should, but we can't, or we shouldn't, but we will.
If it means a huge money making industry then the business' will want it, the government will reap benefit, the Australians getting work out of it may be minimal though?

Everyone else is using it, but some are stopping it, maybe Japan is gearing up again ,we've had accidents before???

Waste is a massive issue, whether its used to make energy or weapons you cannot guarantee.

And well, look at the human being and tell me there won't be weapons made of this export.

And if we don't mine it to a larger degree , then maybe someone may want to come and get it , so perhaps we should be nuclear armed!??

I mean who knows the answer.

There is no answer that will satisfy everyone, and its already here, so yes the medical industry will be well into the study of curing Cancer I bet, and we'll have waste here til the Sun implodes.

 

[Power Raid]

Its a catch 22. We should, but we can't, or we shouldn't, but we will.
If it means a huge money making industry then the business' will want it, the government will reap benefit, the Australians getting work out of it may be minimal though?

Everyone else is using it, but some are stopping it, maybe Japan is gearing up again ,we've had accidents before???

Waste is a massive issue, whether its used to make energy or weapons you cannot guarantee.

And well, look at the human being and tell me there won't be weapons made of this export.

And if we don't mine it to a larger degree , then maybe someone may want to come and get it , so perhaps we should be nuclear armed!??

I mean who knows the answer.

There is no answer that will satisfy everyone, and its already here, so yes the medical industry will be well into the study of curing Cancer I bet, and we'll have waste here til the Sun implodes.

I think if you did some research into the industry, you would find the answers to the questions and problems you raise

 

[JoondalupJ]

I think if you did some research into the industry, you would find the answers to the questions and problems you raise

Yeah I know, I just think about what I've heard or read. It seems that nuclear power is a brilliant clean way to make energy , and its better than anything that we dig out of the ground.
But it does have waste. And we do have a planet that does strange and terrible things like tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes , so nuclear is magnificent it is also a terrible risk, but life is full of risks, and if global warming is caused by us , then nuclear could clean us up, but can we clean up nuclear waste if we have a problem with an "incident" We've had Three Mile Island , Chernobyl, Fukushima, they were frightening, but it is a big place we live on there might be somewhere it can be safe, the waste that is, like the middle of Australia.

Do we want that?

And are we really causing global warming , we humans , or does nature do that forever anyway?

 

[Power Raid]

Yeah I know, I just think about what I've heard or read. It seems that nuclear power is a brilliant clean way to make energy , and its better than anything that we dig out of the ground.
But it does have waste. And we do have a planet that does strange and terrible things like tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes , so nuclear is magnificent it is also a terrible risk, but life is full of risks, and if global warming is caused by us , then nuclear could clean us up, but can we clean up nuclear waste if we have a problem with an "incident" We've had Three Mile Island , Chernobyl, Fukushima, they were frightening, but it is a big place we live on there might be somewhere it can be safe, the waste that is, like the middle of Australia.

Do we want that?

And are we really causing global warming , we humans , or does nature do that forever anyway?

Without sounding like a smart arse, do a little research on "nuclear waste". I'm not suggesting it's not an issue but it is not a big deal.

I will add more later.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Without sounding like a smart arse, do a little research on "nuclear waste". I'm not suggesting it's not an issue but it is not a big deal.

I will add more later.

As was posted earlier, imo, Australia should be the world's nuclear waste disposal facility. Geologically stable, vast tracks of very isolated land, looking for a new industry.

 

[Power Raid]

As was posted earlier, imo, Australia should be the world's nuclear waste disposal facility. Geologically stable, vast tracks of very isolated land, looking for a new industry.

there is no need for a "disposal" facility but there is a need for a storage and reprocessing facility.

a simplified explanation http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/nuclear-waste-is-it.html

Recycling exhausted power plant reactor fuel after 50 years of closely-monitored storage would make these resources available to the world. Burying un-recycled fuel cells would be throwing these valuable materials away, which would be a true waste.

In fact, only 8 of the nuclear waste elements have isotopes which are of radioactive concern after 50 years.Of those, only 3 of the 15 Rare Earths in nuclear waste are detectably radioactive after 50 years (Promethium, Gadolinium, and Terbium). Recycling would remove these long-lived radioactive elements from the non-radioactive matrix and have them placed back into storage. But, should we just throw these remaining long-lived radioactive residuals away? Of course not, because of the 3 valuable Rare Earths and a bit of Silver in there (which has the longest isotopic half life of about 100 years), plus four other valuable active and semi-precious metals. Eventually, these useful materials can be recovered and become a valuable resource to our future descendants. Patience is, after all, a virtue.

Although almost never mentioned, some of the radioactive elements in exhausted fuel cells with half lives a bit greater than a few weeks are very useful in medical healing practices. These include specific isotopes (atomic varieties) of Cesium, Strontium, Yttrium, Iodine, and Xenon. By recycling exhausted fuel within a few months after removal from a reactor, these valuable medical tools could be available. This does not mean exhausted reactor fuel ought to be recycled such a short time after reactor removal. However, even calling freshly made exhausted fuel a "waste" is far from correct.

In actuality, by making "nuclear waste atoms" we're literally realizing the old alchemist's dream of turning crude base metal into something precious. Split U-235 and Pu-239, recycle the spent fuel after 50 years, and we get lots of valuable stuff. As it turns out, by removing all of the so-called waste atoms from the exhausted fuel, and we do nothing other than bury the stripped fuel cells, the remaining fuel cells becomes less toxic than natural Uranium in less than 500 years!

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/nuclear-waste-is-it.html

 

[Power Raid]

the fear about nuclear waste will be hard to overcome but lets use common sense here

1) if nuclear waste is so bad, so bad there is no solution........then why do we keep nuclear waste scattered around our cities under children's hospitals, in car parks, shipping container, on the ground under corrugated iron and in 44 gallon drums. http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/nuke-waste-in-hospital-car-park/2007/06/03/1180809314043.html

I'm not saying keeping the stuff in a car park is a good idea but it does highlight it isn't really that hard to store safely.

2) you don't want to bury this stuff forever as it is extremely valuable for the renewable energy industry, the medical industry and can be reused for power generation post processing.

keeping it in stable rock, below the oxidation zone, next to a nuclear power station and a enrichment plant would make sense.geraldton, pilbara and SA make loads of sense.


its a bit long but chapter 23

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...nepage&q=nuclear waste disposal myths&f=false

and a bullet point one

http://www.nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/talking-nuclear/top-10-myths-about-nuclear-energy

 

[FPPF]

If it means big bucks for South Australia, the world can put their nuclear waste in our desert. It's a desert - that means deserted. The Australian outback is geologically stable and almost uninhabited.

The US conducted extensive research on how to create symbols and signs warning the people of 10,000 years' time (who won't speak any language we do) not to interfere with the waste. How many geologically stable deserts exist on Earth? I say, cash in on the fact that we have one.

There's underground fresh water reservoirs that outback communities rely on.
That's why there's opposition to certain mining projects.

Stable? Maybe take a look at how many earthquakes and tremors occur.



Seems heaps stable.


Having said that though I'm of the opinion that we should have gone nuclear, the full shebang nuclear power and weapons, when the British were out here at Maralinga conducting tests.

Undeclared secret program like Israel.
Who would do anything about it? Our allies the UK who'd have helped? Or our other allies who supplied Israel and Saddam with similar and worse tech?

Who'd complain Indonesia? Just turn another blind eye to their human rights abuses and they'll get over it.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

there is no need for a "disposal" facility but there is a need for a storage and reprocessing facility.

a simplified explanation http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/nuclear-waste-is-it.html

Recycling exhausted power plant reactor fuel after 50 years of closely-monitored storage would make these resources available to the world. Burying un-recycled fuel cells would be throwing these valuable materials away, which would be a true waste.

In fact, only 8 of the nuclear waste elements have isotopes which are of radioactive concern after 50 years.Of those, only 3 of the 15 Rare Earths in nuclear waste are detectably radioactive after 50 years (Promethium, Gadolinium, and Terbium). Recycling would remove these long-lived radioactive elements from the non-radioactive matrix and have them placed back into storage. But, should we just throw these remaining long-lived radioactive residuals away? Of course not, because of the 3 valuable Rare Earths and a bit of Silver in there (which has the longest isotopic half life of about 100 years), plus four other valuable active and semi-precious metals. Eventually, these useful materials can be recovered and become a valuable resource to our future descendants. Patience is, after all, a virtue.

Although almost never mentioned, some of the radioactive elements in exhausted fuel cells with half lives a bit greater than a few weeks are very useful in medical healing practices. These include specific isotopes (atomic varieties) of Cesium, Strontium, Yttrium, Iodine, and Xenon. By recycling exhausted fuel within a few months after removal from a reactor, these valuable medical tools could be available. This does not mean exhausted reactor fuel ought to be recycled such a short time after reactor removal. However, even calling freshly made exhausted fuel a "waste" is far from correct.

In actuality, by making "nuclear waste atoms" we're literally realizing the old alchemist's dream of turning crude base metal into something precious. Split U-235 and Pu-239, recycle the spent fuel after 50 years, and we get lots of valuable stuff. As it turns out, by removing all of the so-called waste atoms from the exhausted fuel, and we do nothing other than bury the stripped fuel cells, the remaining fuel cells becomes less toxic than natural Uranium in less than 500 years!

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/nuclear-waste-is-it.html

Yes, poor choice of word on my behalf, I should have said storage.

Only 2 weeks ago, I participated in a phone survey, something I never do but uranium mining was the topic. I currently live, about 180km from Wiluna and work about 80km from Wiluna there is a proposal for a mine at Wiluna.

The survey was being conducted on behalf of Cameco which brought the Yeerlirrie lease from BHP in 2012. I drive past it every time I'm going to and from work. I just googled that, I wasn't aware that's where it actually was, I believe there is also other sites around the area, maybe a bit further north closer to Wiluna itself, that are owned by other companies.

Whether it was purely a fluke, coincidence or calculated, I think the young bloke on the other end of the phone, was a bit surprised when I explained to him where I actually live, I don't think he had any idea himself where Wiluna is. I think he was even more surprised when I shared my thoughts on Australia being the world's nuclear waste storage facility. It threw him completely out of whack with his questioning.

I will say that I'd been receiving quite a few cold calls from various organisations in the months leading up to this call so perhaps it was just my 'turn' again. I particularly love receiving calls from telcos, they just won't believe me when I tell them Telstra is the only company with coverage where I live.

 

[Rotayjay]

There's underground fresh water reservoirs that outback communities rely on.
That's why there's opposition to certain mining projects.

Stable? Maybe take a look at how many earthquakes and tremors occur.

View attachment 196496

Seems heaps stable.


Having said that though I'm of the opinion that we should have gone nuclear, the full shebang nuclear power and weapons, when the British were out here at Maralinga conducting tests.

Undeclared secret program like Israel.
Who would do anything about it? Our allies the UK who'd have helped? Or our other allies who supplied Israel and Saddam with similar and worse tech?

Who'd complain Indonesia? Just turn another blind eye to their human rights abuses and they'll get over it.

There's always a catch. The water reserves and earthquakes have to be considered, but I hope that one day they can carefully identify an area of SA desert which is suitable (a Yucca Mountain type thing which actually goes ahead). The Australian outback is a lot more inert and sparsely populated than the United States' deserts.

If you wanted to go for pure dryness and desertion, you'd want to store waste in the Atacama Desert of Chile - in some parts, it has not rained for millions of years and there is no life, not even bacteria.

 

[Power Raid]

Yes, poor choice of word on my behalf, I should have said storage.

Only 2 weeks ago, I participated in a phone survey, something I never do but uranium mining was the topic. I currently live, about 180km from Wiluna and work about 80km from Wiluna there is a proposal for a mine at Wiluna.

The survey was being conducted on behalf of Cameco which brought the Yeerlirrie lease from BHP in 2012. I drive past it every time I'm going to and from work. I just googled that, I wasn't aware that's where it actually was, I believe there is also other sites around the area, maybe a bit further north closer to Wiluna itself, that are owned by other companies.

Whether it was purely a fluke, coincidence or calculated, I think the young bloke on the other end of the phone, was a bit surprised when I explained to him where I actually live, I don't think he had any idea himself where Wiluna is. I think he was even more surprised when I shared my thoughts on Australia being the world's nuclear waste storage facility. It threw him completely out of whack with his questioning.

I will say that I'd been receiving quite a few cold calls from various organisations in the months leading up to this call so perhaps it was just my 'turn' again. I particularly love receiving calls from telcos, they just won't believe me when I tell them Telstra is the only company with coverage where I live.

I am anti the development of those mines, not because they are uranium but it's calcrete.

It's not impossible to extract uranium from calcrete but the high pressure/ high temperature vessels required for the caustic is undesirable.

If there is an incident there, albeit chemical related not uranium, it would feed the propaganda machine for decades.

 

[JoondalupJ]

there is no need for a "disposal" facility but there is a need for a storage and reprocessing facility.

a simplified explanation http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/nuclear-waste-is-it.html

Recycling exhausted power plant reactor fuel after 50 years of closely-monitored storage would make these resources available to the world. Burying un-recycled fuel cells would be throwing these valuable materials away, which would be a true waste.

In fact, only 8 of the nuclear waste elements have isotopes which are of radioactive concern after 50 years.Of those, only 3 of the 15 Rare Earths in nuclear waste are detectably radioactive after 50 years (Promethium, Gadolinium, and Terbium). Recycling would remove these long-lived radioactive elements from the non-radioactive matrix and have them placed back into storage. But, should we just throw these remaining long-lived radioactive residuals away? Of course not, because of the 3 valuable Rare Earths and a bit of Silver in there (which has the longest isotopic half life of about 100 years), plus four other valuable active and semi-precious metals. Eventually, these useful materials can be recovered and become a valuable resource to our future descendants. Patience is, after all, a virtue.

Although almost never mentioned, some of the radioactive elements in exhausted fuel cells with half lives a bit greater than a few weeks are very useful in medical healing practices. These include specific isotopes (atomic varieties) of Cesium, Strontium, Yttrium, Iodine, and Xenon. By recycling exhausted fuel within a few months after removal from a reactor, these valuable medical tools could be available. This does not mean exhausted reactor fuel ought to be recycled such a short time after reactor removal. However, even calling freshly made exhausted fuel a "waste" is far from correct.

In actuality, by making "nuclear waste atoms" we're literally realizing the old alchemist's dream of turning crude base metal into something precious. Split U-235 and Pu-239, recycle the spent fuel after 50 years, and we get lots of valuable stuff. As it turns out, by removing all of the so-called waste atoms from the exhausted fuel, and we do nothing other than bury the stripped fuel cells, the remaining fuel cells becomes less toxic than natural Uranium in less than 500 years!

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/nuclear-waste-is-it.html

I must confess to not understanding the technology of what happens inside outside and in storage and containment areas , with nuclear atoms and all the other elements and minerals etc.

If waste can be re used , if waste can be handled safely if it is not as impossible to deal with as the public may think , then it is a useful clean energy producer, more than anything else.

As far a weaponry is concerned I suppose that threat is already with us anyway.

I am not an expert about this , I do know that coal power is filthy , I also have been told nothing else for most of my life that uranium is dangerous.

So we end up in a political match amongst the politicians , as to whether its good or bad , and start wasting time all over again.

Like the time wasting in developing the massive potential in renewable energy, perhaps we solve all the problems, by having both. Renewable and Nuclear?

 

[Bollox]

I am anti the development of those mines, not because they are uranium but it's calcrete.

It's not impossible to extract uranium from calcrete but the high pressure/ high temperature vessels required for the caustic is undesirable.

If there is an incident there, albeit chemical related not uranium, it would feed the propaganda machine for decades.

Nothing weird about alkaline instead of acid as the complexing reagent with in situ leaching. It is simply based on % of carbonate present beneath your feet.
Not much is extracted here with in situ leaching compared to elsewhere, and surprised if it would be more than 5-10%, but nothing new overseas and if groundwater is already unusable and localised, and area is remote and/or sparsely populated, what are your concerns based upon ? Recovery of groundwater to original after extraction is about 10-15yrs like many others.
Looks like Herne Hill up there ^^^ should have the best idea re enviro issues in the area. From memory i think Yerillree (??can never remember the spelling of it) is an in situ leach U extraction that is comparable. Most of our resource is as iron breccia type deposits like Olypic Dam, but these surficial type lenses of old channel sediments near surface could become just as massive.
What sort of "incident" do you think is possible ?

 

[Power Raid]

Renewable and Nuclear?

I must confess to not understanding the technology of what happens inside outside and in storage and containment areas , with nuclear atoms and all the other elements and minerals etc.

If waste can be re used , if waste can be handled safely if it is not as impossible to deal with as the public may think , then it is a useful clean energy producer, more than anything else.

As far a weaponry is concerned I suppose that threat is already with us anyway.

I am not an expert about this , I do know that coal power is filthy , I also have been told nothing else for most of my life that uranium is dangerous.

So we end up in a political match amongst the politicians , as to whether its good or bad , and start wasting time all over again.

Like the time wasting in developing the massive potential in renewable energy, perhaps we solve all the problems, by having both. Renewable and Nuclear?

sorry for the cut and paste but absolutely yes.

personally I do not advocate the construction of a gen 3.5+ reactor in Oz (with a qualification) but certainly do for a gen 4. We absolutely should not build plutonium generators (ie Chernobyl was a plutonium weapons plant that produced power as a by-product rather than a power station per se) and we shouldn't build gen 2 or gen 3 reactors like the 1960s possibly 1950s design of Fukushima.

Gen 4 is of particular interest as it........hold on, just some background on uranium. 99.7% of uranium is the crap stuff (u-238) and 0.3% is the good stuff (u-235 - can produce power from). in the enrichment process you turn the uranium into a gas, wizz in around in circles and try to separate isolate "more" of the lighter gas. This increases the 0.3% to around 4% for a nuclear fuel rod, 20% for a submarine fuel rod and 99.9% for a bomb. It is exponentially harder to increase the % meaning running a weapons program is almost impossible to hide from inspectors.

So in a gen 3.5+ you burn at most 0.3% of the uranium and you get the extra "kick" from U-238 which when hit by a neutron and turns into Plutonium before like the U-235 becomes additional fuel. This u-238 to plutonium bit is the same concept of a thorium to U-233 rector which are both "fertile" material.


Gen 4 reactors are far more efficient as they not only burn the U-235 but most of the U-238 as well. These not only burn new feed more efficiently but they can also burn the spent fuel rods from early generation reactors.

 

[Power Raid]

Nothing weird about alkaline instead of acid as the complexing reagent with in situ leaching. It is simply based on % of carbonate present beneath your feet.
Not much is extracted here with in situ leaching compared to elsewhere, and surprised if it would be more than 5-10%, but nothing new overseas and if groundwater is already unusable and localised, and area is remote and/or sparsely populated, what are your concerns based upon ? Recovery of groundwater to original after extraction is about 10-15yrs like many others.
Looks like Herne Hill up there ^^^ should have the best idea re enviro issues in the area. From memory i think Yerillree (??can never remember the spelling of it) is an in situ leach U extraction that is comparable. Most of our resource is as iron breccia type deposits like Olypic Dam, but these surficial type lenses of old channel sediments near surface could become just as massive.
What sort of "incident" do you think is possible ?

yep nothing weird about it but dealing with temperature and pressure can cause some valve to fail or similar. The greens would be all over it and a condition of Toro is any incident must go to parliament. Its over the top but that's what is required under their permit (negotiated by some dodgy premier who spent time in jail).

 

[Bollox]

It wont be as simple as hardware failure coz that wont result in massive enviro issues..just photo opportunities more than anything and, yes, the inevitable bandwagonning by those ideologically opposed to it. The enviro issues with onshore projects like these is more groundwater based, tailings, and most importantly rehab. Uraninium isnt my thing, but i do understand that in situ leaching is not the norm here, but it is similar in some ways in that it is effectively a fluid drive...it isnt an open cut mine such as other copper/gold/uranium projects which are the norm here, plus it is designed only for near surface sedimentary deposits. In a nutshell you simply drill a bunch of injection wells and pump acid/alkali down, then pump back up the dissolved fluid within the grid and process.
In some ways one of these types is good coz it wont contain much of the other nasties such as copper/lead/cobalt you get in more classical mines, but it does pose other risks mainly to do with containment of groundwater/tailings. Uses a lot of water and how/where you propose to get that water and dispose of it forms the centrepiece of all these types of projects. Without a massive amount of water you dont have a project at all. I dont know about this Wiluna project but i would assume that if it has been signed off then the co has proven both sufficient supply and established the groundwaters are already hypersaline or naturally contaminated enough to be of absolutely no purpose to anyone including the indigenous peoples in the area. Plus it will contain natural permeability barriers in the strata. The actual hardware/method of mining isnt a great enviro risk...it is the clean up of the area afterwards that the green groups will concentrate their efforts on. Everything comes to an end some day so who will clean up and what guarantees are in place for the associated monies. If the arse falls out of the U rpice further and the company folds who cleans it up ? That is always the big ticket consideration. Toro is a relatively small company for this type of project and hence needs to be guarantees which can also come from state govts borrowed against their royalty cheques...still needs to be in writing though to be approved and i assume it has been.

The press always love to hear about some endangered desert skink or scrub rat because it is easier to convey why something might be struggling toi get approval, but that ususally isnt the main game. It is always a given that when objections are made someone will undoubtedly identify a weird/endangered frog or microbe that simply must be preserved at the expense of the nation...done more to put a face onto an objection and used to add considerable time and expense to any process of approval.

At some point though deposits like these (relatively common from what i understand) need to be tested and if its an easy area with relatively low environmental risks then its probably a damn good place to begin with low risk. Potential is terrific for more...so whynot start a small one as a test operation.

Its not like a Rum Jungle situation where they literally didnt care they were dumping other heavy metals and nasties like like cobalt whilst not even monitoring atmospheric dust levels etc 50yrs ago...all they cared about in those days was giving the poms some processed U asap. That very first U mine and processing facility was literally built where a feeder creek for a local major river ran right thru the middle of it, and tailings/fluids/water deliberately fed down the creek into the river. Noone to this day wants to take responisibility and clean it up, but when the average greenie first learns about it they treat it like the holy grail of shitstorms they can fall back on forever. I went past it to go for a swim at the bewley water holes 2 yrs ago and from what i gather its still closed with nothing being done. It sits like a relic from a bygone era where safety wasnt even part of the equation. Miners and families would even swim in the tailings dams 50-60 yrs ago coz they knew it was croc free.
Somewhere like Wiluna doesnt even have the massive wetseason rainfall and runoff to worry about...it would be a relatively easy site to gain approval compared to Ranger at Kakadu...try to imagine that...Uranium mining within our most prized national and world listed heritage sites. Happily coexisting...so i wouldnt be too concerned about somenthing like Wiluna which aint exactly gods country to begin with...its all about water management and rehab rather than hardware.
Sorry, late night rambling a tad.

 

[little graham]

.try to imagine that...Uranium mining within our most prized national and world listed heritage sites. Happily coexisting....

Almost impossible, you would need good drugs.

Why haven't you mentioned the toxic spill 2 years ago that has seen ranger shut down? or the traditional owners won't agree anymore? Have you got something to hide?



This is happily coexisting lol

The tank collapse which sent over a million litres of radioactive acid spilling across the mine site was yet another example of the poor management and failed systems at Ranger. For Traditional Owners to gain have any confidence in the capacity of the Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) and the regulators to manage this mine the recommendations of this report must be acted on swiftly and completely

http://antinuclear.net/2014/10/23/toxic-spill-report-critical-for-ranger-uranium-mine/

 

[Lebbo73]

Next time try and post something rational factual and mature. Did you miss the news about the pinery fire? 87 homes destroyed in a few hours from a stubble fire, fifty thousand chickens, five hunderd pigs. Your water bombers were useless and a waste of money. but you think you can control nuclear?

lol

The latest Nuclear Power Generators are safer then houses. It is the waste that is a problem. Burying it doesn't seem a logical solution to me.

 

[Power Raid]

You're the first pig.



The latest reactors are massively over budget and years behind schedule. Some of them still have achieved nothing fifteen years after they started building them.

You may be right but the comment was they are safe.

It seems you are getting emotional, irrational and your racist comments will define you