Antinuclear

Commenting on the opinion piece: Kimba nuke decision dumps on Indigenous rights  In Daily 21 Feb 20, Once again, Sam Chard (Your views, February 19) glosses over some of the less flattering details of the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.

A lot of focus is given to the permanent disposal of the so-called ‘gloves and gown’ low-level waste.

However, the proposal also includes the temporary above-ground storage of long-lived intermediate level waste.

This waste will not be be safe after a half-life of 30 years (as with the low level waste). In fact, it will not be safe after 100 years when the facility is projected to close.

This long-lived intermediate level waste is not currently ‘spread across 100 sites’. It is housed in one location in a purpose-built facility at Lucas Heights.

This long-lived intermediate level waste is not currently ‘spread across 100 sites’. It is housed in one location in a purpose-built facility at Lucas Heights.

There is no future plan, nor funding, to manage this waste in 100 years when the facility closes.

The question that South Australians have to ask is; how our grandchildren are going to manage this waste long after the ‘community development’ fund is gone? – Megan Johnson

The head of the federal government’s radioactive waste task force stated (Your views, February 19) that the planned national waste facility at Kimba is ‘critical to Australian nuclear medicine’, and went on to assert that ‘radioactive waste from nuclear medicine is currently spread over more than 100 locations across the country, at science facilities, universities and hospitals. It needs to be consolidated into a purpose-built facility, where it can be safely managed’.

Sounds reasonable, but is it accurate?

With minor exceptions, Australia’s waste from nuclear medicine is managed on a ‘store and decay’ basis. This means it is secured and stored at the site of use until it has decayed to a point where it can be disposed to local landfill.

This material does not need any federal facility, and continuing access to nuclear medicine is not dependant on the planned national facility.

The facility is related to nuclear medicine in as much as it is planned to house spent nuclear fuel from the Lucas Heights reactor, but not in relation to any need from clinics, Uni’s, hospitals or medical centres that use nuclear medicine.

Perhaps the federal department could step up and list the one hundred sites that currently store radioactive material that will no longer need to do so should a national facility ever be built.

No doubt they will claim they can’t do so because of security considerations, an explanation that sounds better than because there are few or no sites that need this.

Radioactive waste lasts longer than any politician’s promise.

Matt Canavan, who signed off on the contested Kimba plan at the start of this month, is now no longer a Minister – but the waste has up to another 10,000 years to go.

We need to do better than to try and manage half-lives with half-truths. – Dave Sweeney, Australian Conservation Foundation  https://indaily.com.au/opinion/reader-contributions/2020/02/21/your-views-on-nuclear-waste-le-cornu-site-and-holden-demise/