Bernardi backs nuclear waste dump in SA

[Black Orchid]

The Australian Conservatives leader Cory Bernardi has backed a high-level nuclear waste dump as a core party policy ahead of the SA election.

South Australia could become the "Saudi Arabia of the south" by tapping into a huge revenue stream from building a high-level nuclear waste dump in the state's north, the Australian Conservatives say.

Launching the party's campaign for the state election, founder and federal leader Cory Bernardi said it was time to take the "ideological blinkers" off and revive the conversation over the construction of a dump and the development of a nuclear power plant.

Acknowledging the party's proposals were a "long burn" given the revenue from a dump would take years to flow, Senator Bernardi said it would allow for $3 billion in annual taxes to be scrapped, including payroll tax and the emergency services levy.

It would also allow for $550 million to spent on the state's hospitals, $250 million more on education and $250 million more on roads.

Senator Bernardi said the dump would generate about $6.7 billion in annual revenue which could retire all state debt and build a wealth fund that would climb to $445 billion over the 100-year lifespan of the dump.

"We would be an economic powerhouse. We would be the strongest state in the commonwealth," he told about 100 party members at the launch on Sunday.

South Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle was the subject of a royal commission which recommended in 2016 that the state government pursue the idea of a dump because of the revenue potential at the same time finding a nuclear power plant would be unviable.

However, the idea of a dump was dropped by the government after a citizens' jury, made up of 300 randomly selected people, came out strongly against the proposal.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/saudi-arabi ... dump-in-sa

Glad he does not represent NSW

[Rorschach]

Not a very Conservative policy now is it.....

Hawke was the last major politician to back Australia becoming a N-dump for the world.

[Super Nova]

I am pro Nuke but not in my back yard to be a dump for the waste.

The long term problem could be so damaging they have not including that in their forecast. Short term... i say no way.

I don't care for SA but it will be a disaster. Imagine it leaking into the water table... that covers 1/3 of Australia. No way.

[Black Orchid]

I think it is a bizarre stance for a supposed conservative to have. I think it is a bizarre stance for anyone to have.

[The Mechanic]

well they could fill up all of those holes at Coober Pedy

and lets face it.. we don't have any manufacturing industry in australia anymore as its been destroyed by Unions and Governments...

so.. I guess we could become a dumping ground...

the Development of Nuclear Power is a sensible idea...

[Black Orchid]

Yes the development of nuclear power is a very sensible idea but as for Australia being a nuclear waste dump? It was an absolutely shocking idea when Hawke touted it and deplorable that Bernardi is going down the same path.

We sell everything off to Asian interests, decimate industry and now we should try to make something back by becoming a waste dump? YAY!! What a great idea ... NOT!!

[LEFTWINGER supreme]

If I knew how to , not that I've tried to hard I would post up a pretty cool spent nuclear fuel video , the extremes they go to to contain and dispose of it is actually a really interesting process to watch .

[IQS.RLOW]

It's not as if SA is good for anything else but a dump ... plus the retards greenish glow-in-the-dark hue will provide a cheaper and more reliable source of light than anything Weatherdill ruinous policies could produce.

[Super Nova]

It's not as if SA is good for anything else but a dump ... plus the retards greenish glow-in-the-dark hue will provide a cheaper and more reliable source of light than anything Weatherdill ruinous policies could produce.

So i guess they will have an excuse for genetic defects going forward rather than blaming they are marrying their cousins....

[Super Nova]

$445 billion over the 100-year lifespan of the dump.

Stupid.

As if 100 years is enough. What happens when the money runs out and there is none to maintain the dump after that. 100 years is just enough time for dump to determinate, the dump to leak and then the shit hits the fan. This is a very bad thing to do. Short term economics ... pass the problem to future generations.... destroying our land is just a stupid decision.

Extracts from a quick search below.

The half-life of a nuclide is a measure of how long it will take for half of the atoms in the sample to undergo radioactive decay. For example, uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, so if I were to give you a kilogram of U-238, you'd only have 500 grams that hadn't decayed after 4.5 billion years passed.

The radioactivity of all radioactive waste weakens with time. All radionuclides contained in the waste have a half-life—the time it takes for half of the atoms to decay into another nuclide—and eventually, all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements (i.e., stable nuclides). Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radionuclides remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia.[2] Since radioactive decay follows the half-life rule, the rate of decay is inversely proportional to the duration of decay. In other words, the radiation from a long-lived isotope like iodine-129 will be much less intense than that of a short-lived isotope like iodine-131.[3] The two tables show some of the major radioisotopes, their half-lives, and their radiation yield as a proportion of the yield of fission of uranium-235.
The energy and the type of the ionizing radiation emitted by a radioactive substance are also important factors in determining its threat to humans.[4] The chemical properties of the radioactive element will determine how mobile the substance is and how likely it is to spread into the environment and contaminate humans.[5] This is further complicated by the fact that many radioisotopes do not decay immediately to a stable state but rather to radioactive decay products within a decay chain before ultimately reaching a stable state.