An Inconvenient Truth

[Burgs]

If there was to be a waste facility for Australian nuclear waste, it should be in the center of Australia where geographically it is the most stable and secure. It should be government run and it should accept all Australian and only Australian nuclear waste.

There was talk a few weeks ago that they should establish any proposed facility on the junction between WA-SA and NT so that four Governments have the duty to ensure its effectiveness.
Sounds like a management nightmare to me but may have some merit.

[Happy]

as long as private enterprise has nothing to do with it!!

[shasta]

There was talk a few weeks ago that they should establish any proposed facility on the junction between WA-SA and NT so that four Governments have the duty to ensure its effectiveness.
Sounds like a management nightmare to me but may have some merit.

Don't see the problem myself. After all managing water resources hasn't proved a problem among state governments.

[frontrow]

Why is it that a drum full of nuclear waste buried in a storage facility is so scary to people, yet the same people will quite happily live in a city surrounded by poisonous exhausts from vehicles and factories?

Better the devil you know i guess, but seriously can we compare radioactive material to common air pollution, even though the radioactive material may well be secure underground, it will still be unstable for well into the future and whats to say events in the future don't lead to instability or terrorism,etc... as it is we all seem to be able to survive with current pollution so i will leave this there even though i agree that it is slightly hypocritical...

You're not qualified (and neither am I) to make a statement on the potential risks of the storage of nuclear waste and you need to trust the information given by others as do I and everyone else.

I wouldn't trust the government or Nuclear advocates as far as i could throw them even though i am not and have never claimed to be an expert. What i am basing my beliefs(opinion) on is common sense

But I still find it interesting when people say it (nuclear energy) isn't and should not be a solution. It is cleaner than using other dirty fossil fuels in that all its waste can be contained, unlike coal/gas or oil where the waste products are discarded into the air we breathe!

I agree with you here, although we should really be looking at cleaner greener solutions such as solar and tidal power, wind or hydrogen cars, etc...Nuclear should be option of last resort only...

If there was to be a waste facility for Australian nuclear waste, it should be in the center of Australia where geographically it is the most stable and secure. It should be government run and it should accept all Australian and only Australian nuclear waste.

Once again i agree with your thoughts, but i don't agree with the concept of Nuclear power so cannot actually agree with you at all...Sorry mate...

I would just like to remind you that these are opinions only, of a person who has no experience with nuclear waste or the like, just have a view and will stick with it till proven otherwise by someone with irrefutable evidence explaining the pros and cons of why we should go down the Nuclear road at the expense of free energy sources like solar and wind...Call me cynical, but is it because there are profits to be made and taxes to be claimed from nuclear energy, or am i too cynical...
If i recall correctly i once read an article regarding a competition back before federation relating to a competition between steam power and oil(fuel) power, of which the automotiveindustry based the Car on...I am not too sure but i think the steam vehicle won, but the oil company spin dr's helped persuade the government and manufacturers to go with fuel as it could be taxed and their was profits to be made, whereas steam power couldn't really be taxed effectively to maximise profits, and hence the production of the fuel combustion engine got the nod....
If the same amount of money spent on engine technology relating to fuel, was spent on Hydrogen or steam engines, well we would probably have a different situation today regarding fuel emmisions and pollution...
Now is the time to re address the issue...

[Happy]

I don't think your cynical at all FR, there is money to be made by certain people when the green light for Australia to become nuclear is given, without a doubt. I also agree that nuclear has its problems, I too would much rather walk through a smoggy city than walk past or live next to a reactor - radiation is scary stuff!!

BUT - it isn't all doom and gloom, out side of 3rd mile island and chernobyl and without looking up google can anyone mention more nuclear accidents? To me they are like flying, when one flight goes wrong it is, understandably, a big issue but people quickly forget the previous 1 million flights which have occured safely. And there are thousands of well run and well maintained reactors around the globe.

The main reason for me pushing nuclear energy is because it is cheap and clean! I will push a polution free solution such as tidal and solar when they are a viable alternative, right now they are not. They consume more energy to develop and build than what they give back!

Free energy seems to be at least 50+ years away, I believe the planet will be much better off if we use nuclear energy for the next 50 years instead of oil, coal and gas!

[frontrow]

As long as there is money to be made from energy, someone will exploit it, which is unfortunate for the green energy brigade because if we want govt support they need to profiteer form the exercise...Hence nuclear power has a greater chance of being successful due to its taxability...
I am going round in circles with this i know, but i believe we probably do have the technology out there to accomplish lesser emmisions right now, only it isn't available due to govt or big business sanctions...i know, conspiracy theory, but more than likely true...

[Goldmember]

I guess our great/grandchilden will have to wait until 2100 to use renewable energy, after the oil, uranium and coal reserves have all been deleted. At least they will have a nice nuclear waste dump to remember us all by.

[Burgs]

Wouldn't "Reality 101" teach that Progress=Technology (Research + Investment)
Research=Training + Facilities, Investment=Benefactors + Shareholders?
Therefore it is a given that someone is going to profit from it?
Bigger mining entities are already investing in agricultural land to offset their carbon credits, even though that land would have been there munching carbon even if the investment hadn't been made.
Is it so wrong that profits are made from "turning around" the situation?
Should ideologies be mixed with realities?
Do we even have a "duty" to do anything?
Perhaps destiny has it that the Earth wobbles off into the Sun now that Sparko has changed his Rugby allegiance?
My understanding is that the Earth has a finite life time as a lump of dung orbiting a dung hungry star with its own finite life time, are we fooling ourselves attempting to change that lifespan by +/-0.01%?
Perhaps time would be better spent trying to design the perfect Prop jersey….

[frontrow]

Don't open that can of worms Burgs, not the props rugby jersey...nooooooo

[Happy]

[Skiza]

Finally got the doco out so hoping to watch it in the next few days, so i can see what all the fuss is out about Mate of my Dad's brought up an interesting point, that by taking so much oil from beneath the Earth's surface has this had an impact on our "current predicament" and also earthquakes / volcanic eruptions.

[shasta]

Do we even have a "duty" to do anything?

My understanding is that the Earth has a finite life time as a lump of dung

Yes I reckon we do. Would a man on the land have a duty to farm sustainably so he can pass the land to his kid/s who also want to farm?
Or should he just kill the pig himself and sell off when he's ready for the good life?

Everything in the universe is finite, but if there is a chance that we can help sustain the future we should. It's really no different from spoiling ourselves in mountains of debt that our decendants will have to bear. Crikey, even Peter Costello has a concience about that.

[Burgs]

Or should he just kill the pig himself and sell off when he's ready for the good life?

Plenty have and plenty (of others) continue to do just that

[shasta]

Well TEF has got quite a few more people thinking and thats all good. But we seem to be going over old ground a bit and we're here to talk Rugby after all.

Found this when Googling (sp?). Thought this much was worth posting then I'm done here.

The link to the full paper is at.............

http://www.psychology.org.au/publica...ts/12.5_21.asp

Common reactions to learning about environmental problems

It is common for people to experience a range of emotions and psychological symptoms when faced with information about environmental threats and predictions of an uncertain future. People may feel anxious, scared, sad, depressed, numb, helpless and hopeless, frustrated or angry.

Sometimes, if the information is too unsettling, and the solutions seem too difficult, people can cope by minimising or denying that there is a problem, or avoiding thinking about the problems.

Another common reaction is to become desensitized to information about environmental problems. Stories and images relating to climate change flood our daily news. People can become desensitized to the stories, and mentally switch off when the next one comes. The fact that these problems are not easily fixed, and seem to go on and on without resolution, increases the chances that we will tune out, thus minimizing our stress, and continuing with business as usual.

Once people believe that they cannot do anything to change a situation, they tend to react in all sorts of unhelpful ways. They may become dependent on others (i.e., by believing that the government or corporations will fix things, or that technology has all the answers), resigned (‘if it happens, it happens’), cynical (‘there’s no way you can stop people from driving their cars everywhere – convenience is more important to most people than looking after the environment’), or fed up with the topic ‘yeah – whatever’.


Keeping cool and staying involved

Although environmental threats are real and can be frightening, remaining in a state of heightened distress is not helpful for ourselves or for others. We generally cope better, and are more effective at making changes, when we are calm and rational.

Be optimistic about the future

It can help to remind ourselves that the future is not all bleak. There are millions of people all over the world who share our concerns and are working on protecting the environment, helping others to change their behaviour, and finding other solutions. We already have a lot of information about what we need to do (such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions), and what we need to stop doing (such as wasting water), and there are tremendous advances in technology being developed every day to help us live sustainably and well.

The power of the individual – taking action

The other good news is that a lot of desirable goals are easily achievable by people simply making changes to their personal life. These changes don’t need to be difficult, nor do they need to mean involve giving up a lifestyle that we enjoy. When everyone makes a commitment to purchasing green energy from renewable sources, reducing petrol use, and making ethical choices as consumers, then whole communities and nations can drastically reduce their emissions, reduce the pollution of air and water, and develop sustainable ways of living.

Reminding ourselves that there is a lot that we can personally do, and starting to take action to manage the environment better, can help us move from despair and hopelessness to a sense of empowerment.

[The EnForcer]

Good article Shasta.

It is a pain when the subject keeps cropping up but I'm afraid it's unavoidable and if discussion continues then it is all good in my opinion. You just don't come here if you don't want to.

Just a quick one on Carbon Credits, which is rightly a contentious issue in my opinion………I was driving behind a Western Power company car yesterday when my wife pointed out that they were proudly stating on a rear mounted sticker that they had bought carbon credits to offset the carbon emissions of their company cars.

Fantastic, great, super a major company joining the bandwagon...…….but maybe not, if you look at it more closely should it not be Western Power who should be cutting it's own production emissions rather than doing some light weight public relations exercise and buying credits from other dubious sources?