×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Dump World's Nuclear Waste In Australia, Says Ex-PM Hawke

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the just-wants-mutant-kangaroos dept.

Australia 213

mdsolar writes: "[Former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke said] Australia bore a responsibility to assist with the safe disposal of radioactive waste, given the ample space the country possesses. 'If Australia has – as we do – the safest remote locations for storing the world's nuclear waste, we have a responsibility to make those sites available for this purpose,' he said. Hawke based this conclusion on a 25-year-old report made by Ralph Slayter, whom the former prime minister appointed as Australia's first chief scientist back in 1989. According to Slayter's report, some of the remote reaches of the Northern Territory and Western Australia could provide apt dumping grounds for radioactive waste."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mutants! (5, Funny)

burisch_research (1095299) | about 6 months ago | (#47074055)

Radioactive waste + the majority of the world's most dangerous species = ... ? Godzilla? Hundred metre diameter spiders? Snakes the size of the great wall of China?

Mutants! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074115)

Worse, another Mad Max movie!

Re:Mutants! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074179)

Rippers! ala Tank Girl!

Re:Mutants! (5, Interesting)

kylemonger (686302) | about 6 months ago | (#47074155)

In the face of hard radiation life gets smaller, not larger. Expect really hardy bacteria, not giant reptiles.

Re:Mutants! (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#47074455)

It ain't so bad if you're the one who gets to run Bartertown.

Re: Mutants! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074477)

Who's in charge of barter town?

Re: Mutants! (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 6 months ago | (#47074655)

Master Blaster runs Bartertown.

Re:Mutants! (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 6 months ago | (#47075059)

In the face of hard radiation life gets smaller, not larger. Expect really hardy bacteria, not giant reptiles.

We have both of those now; watch CSPAN.

Re:Mutants! (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47074177)

yawn, let me know when mothera shows up

Re:Mutants! (4, Funny)

stewsters (1406737) | about 6 months ago | (#47074189)

Do you want Mothra? Because that's how you get Mothra.

Re:Mutants! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074357)

Danger Zone....

Re:Mutants! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074307)

Well, if Hollywood is an authoritative source, first you get CHUDs.

Re:Mutants! (1)

vawarayer (1035638) | about 6 months ago | (#47074405)

Kagaroos with back pockets for their cell phones !

Re:Mutants! (2)

r_jensen11 (598210) | about 6 months ago | (#47074441)

Radioactive waste + the majority of the world's most dangerous species = ... ? Godzilla? Hundred metre diameter spiders? Snakes the size of the great wall of China?

Kangaroos which can hop between Australia & Papau New Guinea? How will we ever contain them from spreading to Indonesia and beyond? Help us Godzilla, you're our only hope!

Re:Mutants! (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 6 months ago | (#47075287)

Australian animals aren't dangerous, just scary. More Australians are killed in horseback riding accidents per year (~30) than are killed by wild animals (~10).

Mutants! (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 6 months ago | (#47075637)

Good gods, Australia would be overrun with deadly monsters. ...

oh wait

Not Australia. Anywhere, but not Australia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074067)

Australia already has ten-foot-long giant spiders, venomous snakes, and giant mosquitoes. It's what the writers for Warhammer 40k based Catachan (a death world) off of. I don't even want to think about what exposing these things to radiation might do.

Re:Not Australia. Anywhere, but not Australia. (2)

Talderas (1212466) | about 6 months ago | (#47074099)

Kill them.

Commodity of the future (5, Insightful)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 6 months ago | (#47074073)

Australia sees that the 'waste' is actually >95% fertile material, i.e. fissionable FUEL.

"Yes, yes, we will take all of your...waste...all your energy are belong to us!"

Re:Commodity of the future (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#47074397)

This ain't the first kind of waste they've taken on, either. A lot of the plastic people think is getting recycled is getting landfilled in Australia. It's stable for long periods and eventually we'll figure out how to recycle it in a profitable fashion, and they can get paid to sit on it. Win-win.

Re:Commodity of the future (1)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 6 months ago | (#47074583)

Scientists have already found several microbes (fungi mostly) that can break down plastics and other petrochemicals. Concentrating them into one place seems like a good breeding grounds for more efficient strains. Their by-products are then just normal organic shiz (scientifically speaking) that can be used as fertilizer or compost or whatnot.

Re:Commodity of the future (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 6 months ago | (#47075125)

Scientists have already found several microbes (fungi mostly) that can break down plastics and other petrochemicals.

And what could go wrong [amazon.com] with that?

Re:Commodity of the future (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 6 months ago | (#47075055)

This ain't the first kind of waste they've taken on, either. A lot of the plastic people think is getting recycled is getting landfilled in Australia.

Nor was that the first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Commodity of the future (1)

netsavior (627338) | about 6 months ago | (#47074407)

that is exactly what I was thinking.

"After you take the Sirloin from that cow, I would gladly take that useless ground beef off your hands"

Re:Commodity of the future (1)

idji (984038) | about 6 months ago | (#47074419)

exactly, burn it all in the Thorium reactors to come.

Re:Commodity of the future (1)

Rei (128717) | about 6 months ago | (#47074691)

I think your periodic table has termites.

Re:Commodity of the future (0)

ne0n (884282) | about 6 months ago | (#47074445)

Give it to Africa. Huge desert land, they could use some fertile material.

Re:Commodity of the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47075099)

Yeah, pretty much. I don't feel like paying them to take our fuel off our hands.

Re:Commodity of the future (1)

sjames (1099) | about 6 months ago | (#47075677)

Not shit...ENERGY!

Heh. (5, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | about 6 months ago | (#47074093)

I don't think I want to leave the world's nuclear problem On The Beach...

Re:Heh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074341)

I applaud your reference, and sadly have no mod points.

As an aussie (1)

philmarcracken (1412453) | about 6 months ago | (#47074101)

I agree with him. Those areas he mentioned are north of bumfuck egypt and have absolutely no value whatsoever.

Even if you were to build a bigass tower for collected solar power the distances are so great the transmission losses, even with stepping down the amps/increasing volts wouldnt be worth doing.

I would think not. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074103)

With the global warming melting Antarctica I will expect the interior of Austraila to become a breadbasket...

Like it was several hundred thousand years ago.

Re:I would think not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074143)

The interior of Australia is already a DESERT. How exactly is global WARMING going to make this BETTER?
Unless you are expecting all the coastal regions to flood leaving only the interior above water in which case
nuclear waste is probably the least of our worries.

Re:I would think not. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074225)

Global Warming != Drier Climate

The fundamental lack of thought from some people....

Re:I would think not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074257)

They should never have called it "Global Warming" from the beginning. It's really more like "Global Climate Dynamics Increase" or something.

Re:I would think not. (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | about 6 months ago | (#47074415)

True. But it is still a fact that Australia is predicted to get drier in the interior [typepad.com] . And a hotter, too. It's already undergone a statistically significant measurable shift in its climate.

Anyway, I think Australia would really benefit from this concept. They need to get it approved just once (scale won't influence the rate of NIMBYism, those opposed to the repository would oppose it at any scale), they'll get a HUGE amount of income for little work, and they'll pretty much have nuclear power suppliers held hostage thereafter, as none are going to want to go back to having to try to get local permission to build a repository after their public has been told that it wouldn't happen. And they'll have a tremendous resource for any sort of future isotope or fuel refining that might prove economically viable. I mean, imagine that... picture having all of the world's spent fuel, and then having a technical solution or geopolitical situation that makes it cheaper to get fuel from the waste than to mine new uranium. You're suddenly the near-exclusive nuclear fuel supplier to the entire world. Or supplier of medical isotopes, or isotopes for goods irradiation, or whatever else the future may demand.

Re:I would think not. (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 6 months ago | (#47074805)

just hope that whatever storage/containment tech is used doesn't render the material unusable for fuel later on.

Bad idea! (1)

sootman (158191) | about 6 months ago | (#47074105)

And spawn a bunch of giant mutant kangaroos? DON'T THINK SO!

Re:Bad idea! (3, Funny)

afidel (530433) | about 6 months ago | (#47074255)

Worse, ninja dropbears, as if the normal ones aren't bad enough.

Re:Bad idea! (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 6 months ago | (#47074379)

We are going to need bigger corks...

Re:Bad idea! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074475)

When I first glanced at your message I saw the "b" as an "n" and the "r" in corks as a "c." Probably says more about my mentality than I care to admit.

Plan : Put nuke waste on ships headed South (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074111)

... and pray for good weather.

Re:Plan : Put nuke waste on ships headed South (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074299)

this.

remote doesn't equal secure (5, Interesting)

spineboy (22918) | about 6 months ago | (#47074139)

While having a remote storage location is iseal for minimizing fallout risks, having an area that is sparsely seen y people can have security risks. It may be prone to terrorist type invasions, looking for dirty bomb material. I'm still not sure why a Nevada military type storage facility at Yucca mountain was blocked. - Guess NIMBY applies, even if your nearest neighbor is 200 miles away.

Re:remote doesn't equal secure (1)

novium (1680776) | about 6 months ago | (#47074215)

Nevada's got a fair number of fault lines. I know there was a lot of politics involved in Yucca mountain, but I do know that there are a number of real concerns in regards to fault lines and similar.

Re:remote doesn't equal secure (5, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#47074289)

Nevada's got a fair number of fault lines. I know there was a lot of politics involved in Yucca mountain, but I do know that there are a number of real concerns in regards to fault lines and similar.

Real concerns? No...

There was a fault line discovered after the site was built. But it did not run under the storage facility. It an under a nearby area where waste was supposed to cool before storage. They moved this cooling area to avoid the fault line. There are earthquakes in the area, there are everywhere... Also keep in mind, the size of the seismic activity needed to harm the facility in any way would have to be so large that any hazardous waste leak that resulted from it would be more of an afterthought compared to the destruction from the quake itself.

Re:remote doesn't equal secure (3, Insightful)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 6 months ago | (#47074399)

Also keep in mind, the size of the seismic activity needed to harm the facility in any way would have to be so large that any hazardous waste leak that resulted from it would be more of an afterthought compared to the destruction from the quake itself.

Destruction of what? The whole idea is to site a nuclear waste dump in the middle of nowhere. What would a local earthquake damage? Some mountains in the middle of a remote desert?

Possible leakage of stored waste would seem to be far more of a potential problem than toppling cactus and shifting rocks around.

Re:remote doesn't equal secure (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 6 months ago | (#47075641)

He's saying a quake big enough to damage 10's of feet of re-enforced concrete would probably be big enough to be felt well outside the local area.

Re:remote doesn't equal secure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074337)

almost all terrorism is created by intelligence agencies, if they want it they'll have access anyway.

Re:remote doesn't equal secure (1)

imunfair (877689) | about 6 months ago | (#47074371)

If I remember correctly the NIMBY complaints at Yucca mountain were from the towns along the route that the spent fuel would have to be transported through. It was stupid that they terminated it due to that pressure after so many studies showed it was the perfect location.

Re:remote doesn't equal secure (4, Insightful)

physicsphairy (720718) | about 6 months ago | (#47074637)

I would call sparsely populated a significant security advantage. Post proper signage and you don't have to supply much doubt than any unauthorized person in the vicinity is up to no good. None of the fake delivery guy nonsense that works in the movies. You stand a good chance of intercepting the hostiles before they even are close enough to see the facility.

As any bank robber can tell you, the most important part of the operation is the getaway. Walking in and taking what you want at gunpoint is comparatively easy. The next step is to get out of there and lose the authorities by getting to where you can hide and blend in. When the getaway involves hundreds of miles of empty single access road? You're screwed. No criminal or terrorist force is going to come close to matching what the government can dish out for firepower. Their only hope is to get away before the government can mobilize, which, in this case, they have plenty of time to do.

Also, I believe these contaminants are buried deep underground. That's foolproof security. A lock can be picked to bypass having to use the official key. When the security mechanism is a million tonnes of rock there is no shortcut, the terrorists are stuck using the exact same equipment and accessways as everyone else to extract the waste.

The final step is to get the radioactive waste to the target, which is a population area. Terrorists might not care what population area it is, which means by storing it near *any* population area you have saved them the trouble of doing any work to get it to its target. Having access to it for just a few minutes could be enough to do all the damage they want to do. Not so with a remote site.

Re:remote doesn't equal secure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47075053)

I'm still not sure why a Nevada military type storage facility at Yucca mountain was blocked. - Guess NIMBY applies, even if your nearest neighbor is 200 miles away.

Because Harry Reid, an anti-nuclear activist, uses his political position to block the storage facility, so that he can continue to use the lack of storage facility as a talking point against expanding nuclear power.

Mh370 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074167)

We should put all nuclear waste on flight mh370. That way it will vanish and cease to be a problem...

Transportation Hazards (4, Informative)

Baby Duck (176251) | about 6 months ago | (#47074173)

The problem is getting it safely to central Australia in the first place. Lots of disasters can happen en route. The same resistance is found in the USA. People near railroads and interstates that will transport waste to American deserts are nervous.

Re:Transportation Hazards (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 6 months ago | (#47074217)

Australia exports large amounts of uranium. If they managed to get it out, getting it in should pose no greater problem.

Re:Transportation Hazards (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 6 months ago | (#47074291)

Nuclear waste in much much more dangerous than natural uranium.

Re:Transportation Hazards (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 6 months ago | (#47075139)

What mdsolar said. Just putting it back where it came from doesn't work -- unless you put certain protons and neutrons back where they came from.

Re:Transportation Hazards (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 6 months ago | (#47074287)

There is the London Dumping Convention as well which prohibits dumping nuclear waste at sea. Have to make sure the stuff does not sink.

Re:Transportation Hazards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074785)

And that is a great thing. If we could legally dump the waste into a place where it would never be a problem for humanity again, then that would encourage the development of more nuclear power. That is why it is great that most of the safe storage places, like Yucca mountain, cannot be used.

Re:Transportation Hazards (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 6 months ago | (#47075251)

Since data were deliberately misreported, we can't really ever know if Yucca could be used safely or not. What was being covered up seems to indicate not, but scientific malfeasance pretty much blows the whole project no matter what.

You mean we didn't already do this? (5, Funny)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 6 months ago | (#47074175)

I thought that was the explanation for all the crazy animals, half of which can kill you.

geological stability (3, Informative)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 6 months ago | (#47074209)

There is some evidence of geological stability there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]

1999 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074229)

We're already 15 years late for establishing the dump on the Moon. And then: kaboom! Off it goes out of orbit, taking the waste with it.

OZ1999? (1)

gameres (1050972) | about 6 months ago | (#47074333)

Like OZ1999? I can't wait for the movie.

Aboriginal People (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074245)

I wonder what they think about this, I'm guessing they were not even asked.

Re:Aboriginal People (1)

magarity (164372) | about 6 months ago | (#47074673)

The great victoria desert is just a bunch of sand interrupted by the occasional salt lake. Not even the natives live in the interior of it. Besides, it was already made radioactive by nuke tests back in the 60's. Would make a great place for radioactive waste without bothering anyone.

Tweaking the Greentards (1)

otis wildflower (4889) | about 6 months ago | (#47074247)

He's doing it for the lulz, to tweak the particularly strident greentards that infect Australia.

That said, if Australia went full-bore into PRISM and LFTR development (by, perhaps, providing some funding but mostly just expediting red tape and silencing greenies/NIMBYs) they could very well build a 11- or 12-figure industry around it instead of leaving it to China or India.

Appropriate (1)

SebNukem (188921) | about 6 months ago | (#47074271)

It is an appropriate move in the same direction Australia took when they elected officials that put American conservatives to shame to become the Mordor of the world.

Just walk away (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | about 6 months ago | (#47074377)

There has been too much violence. Too much pain. But I have an honorable compromise. Just walk away. Give me your nukes, the isotopes, the radioactive wastes, and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives. Just walk away and we'll give you a safe passageway in the wastelands. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.

I await your answer. You have a full day to decide.

Re:Just walk away (1)

tekrat (242117) | about 6 months ago | (#47074919)

2 days ago I saw a vehicle that'll haul that tanker. You wanna get out of here.... talk to me.

Smart Move (2)

imunfair (877689) | about 6 months ago | (#47074409)

This is a smart move on Australia's part - they can let the world dump all the nuclear waste in their vast desert, and then when it's financially viable they can start reprocessing it for their own fuel (or to sell back to the people who dumped it). They also have a ton of coastline or open land where a special port or airport could be built to bring deliveries directly to the remote area, rather than passing it through normal channels - so NIMBY complaints shouldn't be a big issue.

Re:Smart Move (2)

dimeglio (456244) | about 6 months ago | (#47074469)

Besides the risk of a nuclear accident, dealing with nuclear waste is the other main reason why some countries abandoned nuclear power. If Australia wants to take it (for a fee I expect) all, I expect a new revival of nuclear power until we have efficient fusion.

Might be a good place to dump convicts too (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 6 months ago | (#47074433)

It costs something to feed prisoners. Maybe transporting them to Australia and leaving them there would save some money. Oh, wait...

Why this over the ocean (1)

Eloking (877834) | about 6 months ago | (#47074485)

Why is this idea better than simply dumping everything in the ocean floor where's there's no water flow and where the clay will absord the radiation?

Deep sea (1)

magarity (164372) | about 6 months ago | (#47074627)

The Marianas is a subduction zone; other than the obvious Godzilla jokes, why not encase radioactive waste in ceramic disks and send it back into the interior of the planet to be recycled over the next few hundred million years?

Re:Deep sea (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 6 months ago | (#47074733)

Because it's incredibly useful as fuel. The more dangerous it is, the more useful it is. The waste from a decent reactor design would be no more radioactive than background radiation, but they don't exist yet. That's the key word - yet.

Re:Deep sea (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 6 months ago | (#47075699)

". The more dangerous it is, the more useful it is."
Not really. The really dangerous high level waste is not good for fuel or even hard to deal with. The hotter the material the shorter the half life.
The medium level stuff is where the fuel elements are the issue with the waste is the complex decay and absorption events in the spent fuel rods.

Re:Deep sea (1)

Rei (128717) | about 6 months ago | (#47074743)

The subduction rate is negligible. The rate of earthquakes and difficulty of working there are not. Subduction zones are among the worst places you could dispose of waste. If you want to get it deep in a plausible amount of time, pick an easy spot to drill a super-deep borehole into stable crust and dispose of it there.

Re:Deep sea (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 6 months ago | (#47074859)

because the 'spent' fuel has significant potential to be reused in a thorium reactor. Ideally wherever we decide to store/contain 'waste' currently, we want it to be accessible in the future.

Please correct the layman's understanding, but it's not dissimilar *in concept* to refining crude oil into gasoline and disposing of the diesel, kerosene, and all the other non gasoline parts of the stack?

Re:Deep sea (1)

magarity (164372) | about 6 months ago | (#47075157)

Except they aren't offering to re-refine it for use as fuel again, they're offering longer term dump storage to get rid of it.

Re:Deep sea (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 6 months ago | (#47075709)

if something has significant future economic value, your storage should be reversible. how is this not common sense?

That's terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47074759)

Obama showed a great wisdom in closing Yucca mountain. Because we have nowhere safe to store the waste, there is no pressure to build those horrific things. Sometimes you have to sacrifice some to win in the long run. If AU becomes a safe place to dump waste, then that will encourage Republicans to enslave us with even more dirty power.

Only safe place... (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | about 6 months ago | (#47074803)

Use space and send it to the sun. The entire earth could be radioactive and enter the sun with little to no effect. Sending off a rocket loaded with nuclear waste to the sun every year or so would certainly be safer.

And before you start saying "well, the rocket could explode" - you use a safe rocket design - payload on top and design to minimize. You could even launch from aircraft or do other means to get it into space where it is then attached to the doomed delivery vehicle.

Reason we don't? No one thought of it when everyone was signing the agreements not to do weapons stuff in space.

Re:Only safe place... (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 6 months ago | (#47075041)

Reason we don't? No one thought of it when everyone was signing the agreements not to do weapons stuff in space.

... and it's really difficult (takes an awful lot of energy) to fly something into the sun. And it's wasting what will in the future be a valuable resource. Not to mention that no matter how safe your rocket design is, strapping your nuclear waste on top of hundreds of tons of explosives is inherently more risky than putting it into a hole in the ground.

The idea is nothing new; I'm sure people have been bandying it about since the first nuclear power plants came online. But it's really not a good idea.

Re:Only safe place... (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 6 months ago | (#47075179)

you use a safe rocket design

You mean one that won't fall in the ocean?

Re:Only safe place... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#47075491)

It would be better off on mars or in orbit or a salt dome or a facility in a salt lake in the middle of nowhere, like say, oh, Australia. Keeping it on earth means once the fossil fuel scaremongering leveraging of Fukushima dies down and we build better reactors we can just extract its energy. Hell, China might actually buy it, Isn't Billy G. building a traveling wave reactor or a molten salt reactor there? [vice.com] If anyone knows how to handle hazardous products it's Microsoft CEOs...

On Mars it could eliminate costly mining operations and be used in a power plant as well, or for use in RTGs on rovers, etc. We don't make it to Mars, then it's no different than sending it to the sun, aside from the expense of soft landing it. Blasting it into the sun is just as expense as parking it at a Lagrange point, which is expensive, but at least it wouldn't be lost and is outside the gravity well already. Nuclear material isn't outlawed in space, lots of things run on it up there. You don't really have to get that far away from radioactive waste before its emanations become indistinguishable from standard background radiation. It's radioactive waste, but it's not "Red Matter" or some sci-fi shit.

My prime concern would just be keeping it out of the hands of thugs. Some armed guards posted along a perimeter far enough from a concrete bunker to be safe, maybe some cameras and security guards and motion detection AI to keep an eye on everyone. Hell, they could see anyone coming from miles away out on the salt flats, no other life to speak of on the flats either, except for the odd race car enthusiast, but they're fairly harmless if kept at a safe distance.

Re:Only safe place... (1)

KrackerJax (83403) | about 6 months ago | (#47075541)

To throw something into the sun, you have to essentially deorbit it from Earth's orbit. Given that the Earth's orbital velocity is about 30 km/sec, that's an awful lot of delta-v to muster.

It makes much more sense to park such waste in a different Sun orbit, or perhaps even an escape trajectory from the solar system. Both of these options would be possible with a MUCH smaller rocket.

Space: 2099 (3, Funny)

tekrat (242117) | about 6 months ago | (#47075003)

All radioactive waste is stored in Australia, commanded by John Koenig. But after a huge explosion, Australia is hurled into space on it's own, and the inhabitants of the country are forced to survive by their wits and with their Eagle spacecraft.

Starring Martin Landau and Barbara Bain.
Produced by Gerry Anderson.

They've already got THIRD WORLD waste... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47075039)

... Australia is one of the many white countries that is being used as dumping ground for all the THIRD WORLDERS who can't make their own countries work...

Apparently, white people make 'superior' countries, and these 'white supremacist' THIRD WORLDERS think they will 'have better lives' if they live among white people... How 'racist' of them... Oh, wait...

Nope (1)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#47075065)

Australia is already home to some of the strangest and most dangerous animals. Cane toads, poisonous snakes and spiders, drop bears, to name a few. We don't need any radioactivity speeding up the mutation process.

Re:Nope (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 6 months ago | (#47075715)

Don't forget the Box Jellyfish.

You keep using that word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47075111)

I don't think it means what you appear to be implying it means. But then, you're a politician, so you can't be too clear on the meaning of mere words, now can you?

The word? "Responsibility."

Waste is Fuel Soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47075121)

What he's really saying is: "please send me all the fuel material that you can. Once reactor tech improves to the point that this material is again viable fuel I'll be sitting on a gold mine."

Obligatory Archer Reference... (3, Insightful)

RockClimbingFool (692426) | about 6 months ago | (#47075197)

Do you want Mad Max? Because THAT'S how you get Mad Max.

Going to hell. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47075213)

The rest of the world seems to be going to hell, overpopulation and pollution. If it's Australia's responsibility is to 'help the world' because they can, well that same argument could one day be used to let in a few hundred million people who will eventually be displaced from overcrowding/environmental(sealevel) disasters.

I'd give a kidney to be able to immigrate to Australia, I would advice not spoiling it, close(tourists only) and secure your borders and try riding out the mess overpopulation will create in the rest of the world.

---

Australians themselves 'believe' their nation cannot support a population such as the united states; this might be their saving grace(fighting to slow immigration); but with proper water management(storage; based on their seemingly 7 year drought/flood cycle) it could easily support as many people as Texas/Florida per square mile.

At least this my opinion from traveling some 16000km of it in a van.

So let me get this straight... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 6 months ago | (#47075697)

As long as it's "far away", it's safe. Right? And you got put in charge of seeing to my safety how, exactly?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?