Quantcast
Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
RSS












Welcome to Australian Property Forum. Please register here or log in below.

Username:   Password:
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Leith van Onselen wants Australia to be nuclear waste dump for the world; MacroBusiness says bury all global radioactive waste material in central Australia...
Topic Started: 22 Mar 2012, 09:33 AM (3,708 Views)
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Quote:
 
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/03/the-exponential-end-game-leith-van-onselen/#comment-135791

Unconventional Economist (Leith van Onselen)

March 22, 2012 at 10:07 am


My personal view is that central Australia should become the nuclear ‘waste station’ for the world. We are geographically stable (i.e. few if any earth quakes, etc), have loads of deserted space, and could earn significant export dollars. It would also free us up to sell uranium on the proviso that the spent rods are sent back to us for storage

Of course, he's not the first person to advocate this approach... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/store-nuclear-waste-in-australia-gareth-evans/story-e6frg6nf-1225783120360

Quote:
 
Store nuclear waste in Australia: Gareth Evans

by: Amanda Hodge, South Asia correspondent
From: The Australian
October 06, 2009 12:00AM

KEVIN Rudd's troubleshooter on nuclear non-proliferation, Gareth Evans, says Australia could make a big contribution by entering the atomic energy fuel trade and taking back all waste derived from the uranium it sells.

The call by the former Labor foreign minister follows that from former ALP prime minister Bob Hawke last month that Australia had to assess a nuclear waste industry as a moral, financial and environmental response to climate change.

It defies the Rudd government insistence it will not take nuclear fuel waste, although Labor has yet to repeal Howard government legislation allowing a nuclear dump to be imposed on the Northern Territory.

In India at the weekend to chair a regional meeting of the Kevin Rudd-initiated International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, Mr Evans criticised last year's nuclear supply deal between the US and India for being "too soft" on India and weakening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. His comments are sure to ruffle feathers on both sides of the Indian Ocean.

The Indian government is sensitive to the international community's refusal to admit it to the NPT club, and to the Australian government's persistent refusal to sell it uranium as a non-NPT signatory.

While Australia is one of the world's largest suppliers of uranium for nuclear power, the prospect of storing radioactive waste from other countries remains unpalatable to most Australians.

But Mr Evans said it was "difficult to argue with the principle that uranium producers should be responsible for the ultimate disposal of waste products that flow from them".

Thoughts on Leith's proposal? I'd be worried about the shipping process. There have been a lot of shipping disasters around the world recently. How much worse would it be (politically as well as environmentally) if nuclear waste was involved rather than oil? What if a ship goes down off the coast of Australia?
Edited by Shadow, 22 Mar 2012, 09:47 AM.
1 - Debunking Demographia. Demographia Survey Debunked. Australian housing is not particularly unaffordable by global standards.
2 - USA, Ireland, UK, Spain and Japan Property Bubbles versus Australia. All property bubbles had one thing in common...
3 - Banks can't margin call on residential property unless borrower defaults, because residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act 2009.
4 - Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by high taxes incurred by homeowners.
5 - Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
6 - Australian household formation rate faster than population growth rate since 1960s = ongoing improvement in housing affordability.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Strindberg
Member Avatar


Nice example in that Leith blog of how he instantly reacts with abuse to people who disagree with him:
Quote:
 
Unconventional Economist
March 22, 2012 at 9:26 am

It must be great to walk through life with your head burried in the sand.

It appears that the no abuse or ad hominem attacks rule on macrobusiness doesn't apply to the resident bloggers.




Housing costs to Income broadly unchanged since 1994 - re-ratified here
The People of Australia have the highest median wealth in the World
2002-2012 10 year house price growth the SLOWEST since 1952-1962
1990-2010 20 year house price growth the SLOWEST since 1950-1970
CHRIS BECKER NOW NEUTERED
"There are two kinds of people in this world: ones that fiddle around wondering whether a thing's right or wrong and guys like us." (Hugo to Gagin in Ride the Pink Horse)
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
The Punisher
Default APF Avatar

I guess you could argue along the lines of those who produce it and export it...

But I have no strong opinions on the matter, I can't see myself living in Central Australia anytime soon.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

The Punisher
22 Mar 2012, 09:47 AM
I guess you could argue along the lines of those who produce it and export it...

But I have no strong opinions on the matter, I can't see myself living in Central Australia anytime soon.
Where do we put it though. Is there a part of central Australia that isn't the traditional home of indigenous Australians? I wonder how they would feel about their land becoming a global nuclear waste dumping ground? Personally think whoever uses the nuclear material should be responsible for its disposal in their own country... that way they are likely to do it right (self preservation).

What to do with nuclear waste... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/apr/14/nuclear.greenpolitics

Quote:
 
Shoot it at the sun. Send it to Earth's core. What to do with nuclear waste?

Firing nuclear waste into the sun, placing it in Antarctic ice sheets so it sinks by its own heat to the bedrock, or putting it under Earth's crust so it is sucked to the molten core. These are three of the 14 options the government's advisers are considering to get rid of the UK's troublesome nuclear waste legacy.

All options are technically possible and many are potentially hazardous - either to current generations or those yet unborn. Most also have political drawbacks and are expensive, around £50bn and counting, yet it is a problem the government has decided it must solve.

Last year it appointed a committee on radioactive waste management to re-examine all possibilities to find a publicly acceptable solution to the nuclear waste problem - something that successive governments have failed to do for 50 years.

The committee's options, seen by the Guardian, range from the exotic to the well established. And most have their difficulties. For example, firing waste into the sun or into outer space may permanently rid Earth of the problem but the possibility of rocket failure may make this seem too much of a gamble.

The Antarctica solution, allowing heat producing waste to bury itself in the ice, runs into the difficulty that the interna tionally agreed Antarctic Treaty bans such activity. The last pristine continent is supposed to be untouched by nuclear material.

Sub-seabed disposal, where waste is placed in a pre-dug hole or dropped in specially built penetrators to bury itself in the soft seabed, may be the best technical option. Even if the packages eventually rot and the radioactivity escapes it will be diluted by the sea water. But sea dumping is banned.

Some of the other ideas, such as placing it deep in the ground either to lose it in the Earth's mantle or in deep stratas where it would remain, have been tried by Russians and Americans. The Swedes are successfully using a deep depository but so far the UK has proved short of suitable geological formations. Exporting nuclear waste is also against government policy and likely to draw international protests.

All of the ideas remain on the table and none is yet a frontrunner. The present policy, by default, is storage but with a government committed to safeguarding the environment for future generations this may be ruled out as an option too. Nuclear waste stays dangerous for 250,000 years and even the best constructed concrete bunker is likely to need upgrading every 100 years or so.

A report to the committee says: "Fifty years of experience has proved the pursuit of 'the best' in the long term management of radioactive waste to be an illusory concept. The UK is currently engaged in a process, the success of which would be the identification of 'the acceptable', at a level which would allow the government to proceed with confidence."

Martin Forwood, of Cumbrians Opposed to Radioactive Environment, who is due to meet members of the government committee this week, was dismissive of the 14 ideas: "We thought all these madcap schemes had been junked donkey's years ago. The only sensible solution is to store it where it rightfully belongs - in above ground custom built concrete stores at the site of origin."

The government's estimates it will soon have 500,000 tonnes of higher level nuclear waste it has no home for, even if it never builds another nuclear power station. The even higher volume of low level waste is sent to a waste dump at Drigg, near Sellafield, in Cumbria, for disposal in especially engineered trenches. Meanwhile the more pressing problem is the more dangerous wastes. These are stored all over the country in naval dockyards, at a dozen nuclear power stations, former experimental sites like Harwell, Oxfordshire, or Dounreay, Highlands. But by far the largest stores and the most dangerous high level heat producing liquid wastes are at Sellafield, Cumbria, where Britain's major nuclear facilities were developed.

And it was Sellafield that was the scene of the previous government's last big failed attempt to solve the nuclear waste problem on the eve of the election in 1997.

John Gummer, in his last act as John Major's environment secretary, refused planning permission for a laboratory to test the suitability of the area for disposal of nuclear waste in granite. Mr Gummer ruled that the science on which the planning application was based was flawed.

It was this decision that left the Blair government with a vacuum where its nuclear waste disposal policy was concerned. The committee was originally charged with finding a way forward for nuclear waste disposal by the end of next year, but the committee has pleaded for an extension to the middle of 2006 before it can produce a final report.
1 - Debunking Demographia. Demographia Survey Debunked. Australian housing is not particularly unaffordable by global standards.
2 - USA, Ireland, UK, Spain and Japan Property Bubbles versus Australia. All property bubbles had one thing in common...
3 - Banks can't margin call on residential property unless borrower defaults, because residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act 2009.
4 - Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by high taxes incurred by homeowners.
5 - Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
6 - Australian household formation rate faster than population growth rate since 1960s = ongoing improvement in housing affordability.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Yossarian
Default APF Avatar

Shadow
22 Mar 2012, 09:57 AM
Where do we put it though. Is there a part of central Australia that isn't the traditional home of indigenous Australians? I wonder how they would feel about their land becoming a global nuclear waste dumping ground? Personally think whoever uses the nuclear material should be responsible for its disposal in their own country... that way they are likely to do it right (self preservation).

What to do with nuclear waste... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/apr/14/nuclear.greenpolitics



We make money by digging it up and selling it. I don't think we can wipe our hands of who uses it, for what purpose, and how they dispose of it.

If we're already part of the supply chain, are objectively the safest place for waste to be stored, and can profit from the arrangement, why not? Better a geologically and poltically stable environment like our own than stored in a bunch 44 gallon drums in Lagos.

People who want to stay well away from radioactive waste are going to find themselves ingorant and sick given they'll need to avoid stepping foot in pretty well any hospital or universtity in the country.

Edited by Yossarian, 22 Mar 2012, 10:50 AM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Yossarian
22 Mar 2012, 10:35 AM
We make money by digging it up and selling it. I don't think we can wipe our hands of who uses it, for what purpose, and how they dispose of it.
We don't ship our unwanted scrap cars and televisions back to China or Japan or wherever they were made.

They are dumped here in Australia, where they were used...
1 - Debunking Demographia. Demographia Survey Debunked. Australian housing is not particularly unaffordable by global standards.
2 - USA, Ireland, UK, Spain and Japan Property Bubbles versus Australia. All property bubbles had one thing in common...
3 - Banks can't margin call on residential property unless borrower defaults, because residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act 2009.
4 - Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by high taxes incurred by homeowners.
5 - Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
6 - Australian household formation rate faster than population growth rate since 1960s = ongoing improvement in housing affordability.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Catweasel
Member Avatar


Catweasel say what up with mouzealot two-prong attack against anti-guru blogger? It seem like great opportunity to start is Anti-Macrobusiness blog site. Alternatively, why it not express itself directly to naughty blogger? Now it like two the bitchy suburban housewife with oversize clothes bitching about pretty young foreign women move into neighborhood.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Catweasel
22 Mar 2012, 11:00 AM
Catweasel say what up with mouzealot two-prong attack against anti-guru blogger? It seem like great opportunity to start is Anti-Macrobusiness blog site. Alternatively, why it not express itself directly to naughty blogger?
Did you post this in the wrong thread? I haven't attacked any blogger, or attacked Macrobusiness in this thread.

Which of my comments did you construe as an attack on Macrobusiness?
1 - Debunking Demographia. Demographia Survey Debunked. Australian housing is not particularly unaffordable by global standards.
2 - USA, Ireland, UK, Spain and Japan Property Bubbles versus Australia. All property bubbles had one thing in common...
3 - Banks can't margin call on residential property unless borrower defaults, because residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act 2009.
4 - Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by high taxes incurred by homeowners.
5 - Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
6 - Australian household formation rate faster than population growth rate since 1960s = ongoing improvement in housing affordability.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
The Prince
Member Avatar
The Prince
Strindberg
22 Mar 2012, 09:42 AM
Nice example in that Leith blog of how he instantly reacts with abuse to people who disagree with him:

It appears that the no abuse or ad hominem attacks rule on macrobusiness doesn't apply to the resident bloggers.




'Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain.'

-- Niccolo Machiavelli
"A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise" -- Niccolo Machiavelli

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Catweasel
Member Avatar


Shadow
22 Mar 2012, 11:13 AM
Did you post this in the wrong thread? I haven't attacked any blogger, or attacked Macrobusiness in this thread.

Which of my comments did you construe as an attack on Macrobusiness?
Catweasel laugh. Yes only be the the twin prongs of a Strindbag fangs.

But anti-blog sure push a few triggers in a mouzelaots.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3




Find us on Google+

Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter


Australian Property Forum Housing Market Snapshot


Australian Property Forum focuses on Australian and global real estate markets, economics, and finance, including house prices, housing affordability, macroeconomics, and the likelihood of an Australian property crash. Does Australia have a housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is it a good time to buy property using a home loan, or better to rent and save the difference? Is rent money dead money? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can property values rise keep rising forever? These are the types of question we address on Australia's premier real estate chat site for property bears, bulls, investors and speculators. Whether you're a property investor, first home buyer (FHB) or a happily renting tenant, this site has content for everyone. Additional topics debated on APF include politics, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, precious metals, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental, human rights and social justice issues, whether or not Australia has a critical housing shortage, versus a glut (oversupply) of dwellings, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax, macro prudential regulation, reverse mortgages, debt consolidation, debt management, home insurance, landlord insurance, auction results, auction clearance rates, and all the latest house price news. Forum members also regularly review and and analyse the latest blogs and trending topics from sites like Business Spectator, Property Observer, Macrobusiness, Somersoft, Demographia, Steve Keen's Debtwatch, as well as MSM (mainstream media) articles from well known economists, reporters and commentators such as Ross Gittins, Neil Jenman, Michael Pascoe, Alan Kohler, Shane Oliver, Catherine Cashmore, Philip Soos, Louis Christopher (SQM Research), Mike (Mish) Shedlock, Leith van Onselen, Chris Becker, David Llewellyn-Smith, Chris Vedelago and more. APF is the first forum to report and debate the latest auction results and house price data releases from APM (Australian Property Monitors), Residex, RP Data Rismark, REIV (Real Estate Institute of Victoria), REINSW (Real Estate Institute of NSW), REIA (Real Estate Institute of Australia), HIA (Housing Industry Association), RBA (Reserve Bank of Australia), API (Australian Property Institute), and the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics).

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. Posts on Australian Property Forum may contain links to other websites operated by third parties. These websites are not under the control of Australian Property Forum and APF management is not responsible for their content.

It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. Australian Property Forum members are solely responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of their posts, including any alterations made to posts. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy