Short-lived medical nuclear wastes not the same problem as long-lived reprocessed wastes
This excellent article does not, however, explore the difference between the (generally short-lived) radioactive wastes from nuclear medicine, and the highly toxic and long-lived radioactive wastes that must be accepted from UK, France and Argentina. Australia is bound to take back those wastes, which originated from Lucas Heights, and then went overseas for processing.
As the medical radioactive wastes have relatively short half-lives, it makes sense to dispose of them close to the point of origin. (It also makes sense to (a) reduce the overuse of nuclear medicine, and (b) obtain the necessary radionuclides from other sources, rather than from a nuclear reactor, and (c) shut down the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor.)
What the government is rightly concerned about, is the disposal of the high level wastes due to return very soon from overseas. And there’s an argument for storing these near the point of origin – Lucas Heights, along with shutting down Lucas Heights.
Adding to the confusion is the greedy and irrational push of some people in Australia to set our country up as the world’s nuclear waste dump – and import wastes from other countries – not just the wastes that we are already contracted to have returned from the processing of Lucas Heights’ wastes.
2 Comments »
Leave a comment
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Hi,
I came to your site because I got a message saying you were reblogging some of my postings.
I have a question for you about nuclear energy. First a little information:
During the course of the nuclear age. About 500 nuclear reactors have come on line.
Those nuclear reactors have logged roughly 17,000 hours, in total.
Over the course of those reactor-hours, There have been the following meltdowns of commercial reactors supplying power to an electric grid (in no particular order):
1. Chernobyl
2. Three Mile Island (US – in Pennsylvania)
3. Fermi 1 (US – near Detroit)
4. SRE (US – near Los Angeles)
5. Fukushima Daiichi, Unit 1
6. Fukushima Daiichi, Unit 2
7. Fukushima Daiichi, Unit 3
8. Chapelcross, Scotland
9. Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia
10. Saint-Laurent, France, 1969
11. Saint-Laurent, France, 1980
This means that historically, there have been meltdowns about ever 1545 reactor-years.
Put another way, historically, there was a 0.0647% chance of any given reactor melting down in any given year.
If a reactor can be expected to last 40 years, then the likelihood of its melting down during its lifetime is 0.0647% times 40, or 2.588%, or a little more likely than one in 40.
Now, my question is, what sort of person would want a nuclear reactor put into his or her town, given an approximately 2.6% chance that it would melt down during its lifetime?
LikeLike
An ignorant South Australian – confused by problems of unemployment since that State lost the automobile industry, fed pro nuclear spin by the Murdoch monopoly media, impressed by even more ignorant men in suits who want to make #squillions out of importing the world’s radioactive trash and who don’t care about the children of the future. THAT’s the sort of person who would want a nuclear reactor, reprocessing facility, waste disposal. But even then, he (and I say “he” advisedly) – would prefer to profit from the business – while placing the nuclear facilities further away – on Aboriginal land.
LikeLike