BF2S Forums ANZUS: Opinion wanted.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

You know, it's really fucking easy for people like you to say that you would gladly continue to support the storage of the waste because you know that ultimately you won't be the one that has to keep it, and if there is a problem down the road with containment, you're 2000 miles away.

So what that it's been stored onsite for a couple of decades.  These spent fuel rods will be lethal for 25,000 years, and will take 250,000 years to become inert.  Gambling on the fact that Yucca, or anywhere else for that matter, will remain completely stable for that period of time is one big gamble.

whitsend had just said that he would be comfortable with living nearby a containment site.  In fact, as he admits, he already does.  Yucca was DESIGNED to be a permanant storage facility for nuclear waste.  You are afraid of geologic activity disrupting that sometime in the next several thousand years?

Currently, nuclear waste is being stored on site in the dozens of power plants producing the material.  They are being stored in areas that were designed as temporary storage areas, and being held longer than it was ever planned that they might.

First question is; what is more dangerous, having a lot of waste in one area that was designed to hold it for very long periods of time, or have it stored in bunches of little areas that were not designed to hold it for very long?  Doesn't having it more spread out actually INCREASE the chances that a disaster will cause some of it to be leaked somehow?  And now, with the waste stored in the plants, the nuclear waste is actually closer to more population centers than it would be in Yucca. 

Also, all of recorded history goes back less than 5000 years.  Look at the advancements made in the last 500 years.  You are worried about materials being lethal in 25,000 years?  There are a few more immediate concerns, don't you think?  Do you think that there will EVER in the next few thousand years of advancement come a technology or method to get rid of the waste more effectively?  Like say... throwing it into the Sun?  An effective, sound disposal method, less than 100 years away, the way things are going. 

Your reasoning seems to sound like a justification of the NIMBY syndrome.

imortal wrote:

I mentioned DDT to give an example of how a narrow idea of a few loud voices can have a major impact across the globe.

Oh, a question about disposal:  The stuff was already radioactive when we took it out of the ground.  Well, the main stuff was, anyway.  So radiation will not HURT the ground.  The point should just be to find or dig a hole deep enough that it is beyond the distance we would need to worry about it.

You do know that dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane is a persistant organic pollutant with a half life of 15 years?

While it is not very soluble in water, it is very soluble in organic tissue, fat and cellulose. This leads to a high amount of bioaccumulation in the food chain, causing long term effects. DDT is highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. This bioaccumulation causes apex predators to have high levels of DDT in their tissue. It has been responsible for the deaths of many american bald-eagles and other birds (a la Silent Spring). While it is a pesticide, the long term effects can not justify its continnual use.



As for disposal of nuclear waste:

When uranium is mined as Uranium Oxide (U3O8, or UO2) (can you do subscript on the forums?) it is relativly non-readioactive (compared to purified Uranium for reaction). Its only after purification that it becomes highly radioactive.

Think about it, the Uranium Oxide exists in the ground for millions of years, but it is spent (in the reacter) in months/years.

ANZUS is redundant. By 2000, it is no longer an important political treaty. It was made during the Cold War, for the Cold War.

Horseman 77 wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Jesus,  Here we go with israel again wtf enuf already

Your announced hatred of Israel was made clear in your other posts.  Do not bring it in here.  k thanks.

how is this hatred ? I just don't see how it  applies to the guys post ?

The poster said America is dictating who should and who shouldn't use nuclear energy.  Iran is one country striving for nuclear energy.  Iran's leader said he wants Israel to no longer exist.  And now, you do the math.

^ I've read a bit more on various plant types and have to admit I'm changing my opinion a little.  With the coming oil shortages we could see a larger number of nuclear-powered ships.  I think my government would re-evaluate its position on power should nuclear-powered freighters become a real possibility, I know legalising power would certainly be more palatable than weapons.

Pubic wrote:

And its not like it hasn't had its benefits to us, theres no risk of a NZ Chernobyl

A nuclear reactor for medical research and power would probably be ok.  I think australia has one (at least) for medical research.  I think when they tried to introduce another, there was a bit of a whoha (or bruhaha, or even just uproar) about it.

I'm a Kiwi and naturalised Australian living in Brisbane.  I've done the UK thing that alot of young antipodean end up doing for 3 and a half years.  I've been to the US and Canada a few times too.  And when I travel to NZ (as I did over new years to walk the Milford Track), one thing is really apparent about NZ.  Its really small.

And given its geography (slap bang on a fault line running right up the south island), it would be quite bad if the shakey isles did their thing and the reactor went kablooey.  Thats just one reason why some kiwis arent keen on the nuclear power.

The other is the waste.  That depleted uranium and other waste products have to go somewhere.  I'm sure there's a market for the stuff in the US.  I've heard it gets used in ammo shells, armour and the like.  Given the gun laws in NZ, I dont think there would be a market for it.  And I'm sure US, China and Russia have various markets cornered for selling of their waste, and wouldnt want little NZ trying to break into the picture.  And for the rest of the waste that has to be buried deep under the earth... is there really a sit large enough that you would gladly see become a nuclear waste dump.  And the waste site facility would have to be tip top.  Alot of NZ water is drawn from artesian wells.  Wouldnt it suck if the NZ water supply was contaminated by nuclear waste that seeped through a small crack in the shell of the waste facility.

Anyway, what have any of these reasons got to do with ANZUS? Not much.

But as an analogy, Blue, Neal and Joe are having a bit of fun, playing with fireworks.. its mostly tom thumbs, nothing too bad.  Then one day, Joe turns up with a stick of TNT.  Neal freaks because he knows how unstable that stuff can be.  Joe tries to reassure that its all cool and he knows what he's doing.  Blue knows its pretty dangerous too, and doesnt mind if Joe visits with the TNT, but just as long as he doesnt start waving it around.  Blue also has a great big deposit of the stuff in the backyard under his mums favourite part of the garden, so he starts digging that stuff up and selling it to Joe and anyone else that wants it (as long as Joe says its ok, because if someone gets there hands on a bigger stick of TNT and they're not down with Joe, there'll be trouble).  Anyway, Neal is still pretty freaked out about the TNT.  He'll only let Joe visit if he leaves the TNT at home. 

Bleh, I could go on and on with that analogy, but its getting past my bedtime.  As you might have guessed, Blue is Australia, Neal is New Zealand and Joe is the USA.

Personally, I'm with Neal.  TNT is freaky stuff and if I can get away with it, and borrow someone elses facilities, I'd keep the TNT out of my house.  Especially when Francios keeps blowing that stuff up over the back fence.