Are you OK for you & your family to be living with-in 5 km of a Nuclear plant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter connieguy
  • Start date Start date

Are you OK for you & your family to be living with-in 5 km of a Nuclear plant?

  • Yes as Nuclear plants are safe

    Votes: 33 84.6%

  • No way as there will be more Nuclear accidents

    Votes: 6 15.4%
  • Total voters
    39
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

connieguy

Guest
Yes, why not as Nuclear plants are safe

No way as we will never know when, where or now bad the next Nuclear accident will be
 
I don't live far from Lucas Heights, so I don't have a problem.
 
Last edited:
No problem for me. :)

I wonder how many people in Sydney realise they live about 30 KM from a nuclear plant?

edit BAM1748 beat me to it!!!
 
TonyHancock said:
No problem for me. :)

I wonder how many people in Sydney realise they live about 30 KM from a nuclear plant?

edit BAM1748 beat me to it!!!
Click to expand...

Lucas Heights is not a Nuclear power plant. It is an Nuclear irradiation facility. Anyone know what is the fate of the spent fuel rods and the 2 mothballed older reactors (Moata and HIFAR)?
 
There are many dangers in the world, radiation is not one I worry about on a daily basis. We have equipment in my work place which have radioactive isotopes inside for measuring concrete density and my office shares a common wall with with our Sydney asbestos testing laboratory. Wonder how many people who live near my harbour side office know we do asbestos testing? :mrgreen:


Plenty of dangers out there, just need to manage them.

Matt
 
gowatson said:
Lucas Heights is not a Nuclear power plant. It is an irradiation facility. Anyone know what is the fate of the spent fuel rods and the 2 mothballed older reactors (Moata and HIFAR)?
Click to expand...

It's not power, but it is a nuclear plant for the purposes of this thread.
 
gowatson said:
Lucas Heights is not a Nuclear power plant. It is an Nuclear irradiation facility. Anyone know what is the fate of the spent fuel rods and the 2 mothballed older reactors (Moata and HIFAR)?
Click to expand...

It has a nuclear reactor. Check out www.ANSTO.gov.au to find out what is happening with moata and hifar.
 
gowatson said:
Lucas Heights is not a Nuclear power plant. It is an Nuclear irradiation facility. Anyone know what is the fate of the spent fuel rods and the 2 mothballed older reactors (Moata and HIFAR)?
Click to expand...

You will note I chose my words carefully "Nuclear Plant". It is a 20 Megawatt reactor used for scientific purposes. It has a lovely particle accelerator next door.

According to ANSTO

"Any radioactive materials from HIFAR and Moata will eventually be removed to a proposed Commonwealth nuclear waste store. The anticipated volumes are:

  • Low level radioactive waste. Moata 61 cubic metres (about three 10 foot shipping containers); mostly graphite and concrete, and smaller volumes of activated steelwork; HIFAR up to 460 cubic metres (about six 40 foot shipping containers).
  • Intermediate level waste. Moata 0.15 cubic metres (about a bucketful); mainly lead shielding; HIFAR up to 492 cubic metres (just over six 40 foot shipping containers)."
Maybe the poll should be changed to include living within 5 KM of the "proposed Commonwealth nuclear waste store". :shock:

edit: bloody hell, why does everyone beat me to it with the answers.
 
No need to confuse our repositories and our stores. But if we want to do semantics, they store waste at Lucas heights but it is not a waste store. Yes, there is a subtle difference.
 
medhead said:
No need to confuse our repositories and our stores. But if we want to do semantics, they store waste at Lucas heights but it is not a waste store. Yes, there is a subtle difference.
Click to expand...

Sure looks like a lot of red drums of Nuclear waste in storage:
ANSTO | Managing radioactive waste

Interesting the spent fuel waste from OPAL is not considered as waste:
"Used fuel from OPAL, which is not categorised as waste in Australia, will be stored at ANSTO until it is ready for shipment overseas for permanent storage, or for reprocessing to remove the valuable uranium and plutonium."
 
Unlock 20,000 Bonus Points on just $10K in Business Expenses
Turn business expenses into Business Class! Process $10,000 through pay.com.au to score 20,000 bonus PayRewards Points and join 30k+ savvy business owners enjoying these benefits:

- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

drron said:
I've lived near an underground coal mine. Explosions every day at 1600, house shakes, wall cracks. Give me a nuclear facility any day.
Click to expand...

Until the day that Murphy wins and the dedicated Nuclear engineers very best intentions lose.

Tell you what. Ring up Tony and tell him to start selling Nuclear as his Green solution. Then sit back, eat some buttered popcorn and see how long he has his job.
 
gowatson said:
Sure looks like a lot of red drums of Nuclear waste in storage:
ANSTO | Managing radioactive waste

Interesting the spent fuel waste from OPAL is not considered as waste:
"Used fuel from OPAL, which is not categorised as waste in Australia, will be stored at ANSTO until it is ready for shipment overseas for permanent storage, or for reprocessing to remove the valuable uranium and plutonium."
Click to expand...

Yep as I said waste in storage does not always mean a waste store. That is an operating facility not a waste store. Hospitals store waste, does that make them a waste store?

Not that interesting waste is definited, roughly, as something that has no further use and that is unwanted. Spent fuel does have potential further uses and can be wanted

As for Murphy your comments apply to all industry activities. The fact remains that nuclear power has an excellent safety record. Compare that with, say oil production in the gulf of Mexico. We should ask if you would live within 5kms of an oil refinery or drilling platform
 
medhead said:
...Not that interesting waste is defined, roughly, as something that has no further use and that is unwanted. Spent fuel does have potential further uses and can be wanted.
Click to expand...

So the used fuel (25% enriched U235 pre use) from the OPAL reactor is not considered low / intermittent / high level Nuclear waste under Australian laws? :shock:
 
gowatson said:
...
As I said if they are so safe, why is Tony not selling their wide spread use in Australia as his Green solution and additionally to show how Australia can earn lots of money by storing spent fuel rods and other low, intermittent and high level radioactive material from all over the world?
Click to expand...
The actual policy I believe is that it does not explicitly oppose nuclear-generated electricity. The Coalition will not be advocating nuclear power as it recognises that its introduction would only be possible with bipartisan political support and widespread community support.

i.e. Trying to build a nuclear power plant in Oz would make the "No Dams" campaign seem like kindergarten in comparison.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

Total: 108 (members: 6, guests: 102)
Back
Top