This never really came out right on the page. The satirical piece was originally written in the late ‘90s, with the opening paragraph rewritten later when I attempted to update it from its original reference to waste shipments from the Lucas Heights reactor (the quote is from a episode that aired in early 2000, so I guess around then). The more serious piece was written afterwards, but it too was a rewriting and expansion of an earlier attempt. Yet it never quite felt right. Still, why not? So here they are anyway.
Nuclear waste. It’s a problem that’s going to be around for a long time. Disposing of it safely is important regardless of whether you think it should exist in the first place.
At the outset I’ll say I’m not a huge fan of nuclear power (or nuclear weapons for that matter…the whole “If we’re gonna lose we’re taking everyone else to hell with us” approach- fairly selfish that a dispute between countries A and B (and possibly C through W) should mean higher cancer rates or even nuclear winter for everyone else). There are better alternatives that produce far less waste with far less danger, yet there still remains a place for research reactors; for pure research, the creation of isotopes for nuclear medicine, and industrial applications.
Understanding the dangers is important. Nuclear waste is highly dangerous, and needs to be stored properly to minimise the danger. Above all storage means keeping the material in one safe place, where it cannot escape into the general environment. Nuclear waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years, well beyond the ability of any agency or government to guarantee nothing will go wrong. This is where the attitude of many environmentalists comes into question.
Fine. You don’t like nuclear power. You want all reactors shut down. There still exists thousands of tons of nuclear waste, and any decommissioned reactors will need to be dismantled and the building waste stored. Protesting any movement of nuclear waste will not help this. Trying to stop shipments from reaching reprocessing plants will not make the waste less dangerous. The worst place to store nuclear material is near water- and ready water access is the most important factor when it comes to building nuclear reactors. Some might think that making it difficult to store the waste will encourage the facility to shut down- but safe storage is more important than preventing fresh waste from being created. When it comes to the environment, minimising harm is the most important factor.
Mine shafts, concrete bunkers, metal barrels, chemical bonding processes, all of these are used in the storage of nuclear waste. But how seriously can you take all these safeguards when dealing with material that will be around and dangerous for longer than human civilization has even existed? The simple answer is, you can’t. So taking precautions for when something does go wrong is vital. The simplest precaution to take is to store the waste in a place where, even when things do go wrong, the impact on the environment is minimised. Consider the storage of nuclear waste in Japan; earthquake prone, volcanic, typhoon lashed, wet, biodiverse, no place further than 130km from the ocean Japan. Britain; even wetter, green as can be, just as close to the Atlantic from the most remote points. Or Europe; river crossed, large water table, green, populated Europe – especially France, one of the larger users of nuclear energy. Or, say, Russia, where along with the above, we also start to see another concern- where those watching the dumps are irregularly paid, with little incentive to devote themselves to the work.
Along with geographical safety, there’s also the concern that materials could be stolen (or sold under the table) by those who would intentionally contaminate the planet. ‘Dirty’ bombs, where conventional explosives are used to scatter radioactive material, are a major concern when talking of terrorism. Even if few lives are lost initially, the impact on an area could be devastating in terms of the cleanup, the economic loss, the fear inflicted on the populace and the long term health concerns. This is where waste storage in countries that are…ethically challenged…or that do not spend enough on waste storage security could become an issue.
So where is the best place for waste for nuclear waste to be stored? Somewhere politically stable, geologically stable, and with as little biodiversity as possible. The ideal place? Australia for one. Ideal conditions exist in north-west South Australia and inner Western Australia. Desert areas well above sea level, with no (or extremely little) groundwater, and very few plant and animal species, geologically stable, climate change resistant (even the most dire climate change predictions don’t see this area changing much…More desertier? It’s not going to get much greener), and far from the oceans or artesian aquifers. The point is, even if something does go wrong, will anyone even notice? The damage will remain extremely localised, and will affect very few animals or plants. Compare what will happen if a barrel leaks or a bunker cracks there to storage in other parts of the world. Only the mountainous desert areas of the American west have a similar appeal (and are probably a better solution for north and south American waste). In some places the results could be catastrophic, wiping out thousands of species and contaminating water supplies or even oceans. Would you rather contaminate a desert, or a lush, life sustaining part of the planet?
The biggest problem by far with storage in Australia is transportation. To get here, it needs to cross oceans, and despite our best efforts ships still sink. Any shipments would need to be carried in new (less than ten years), certified safe ships. Inspectors on board might be required as well, and precautions against piracy taken. Waste would need to be kept in containers that could survive a sinking and be equipped with devices to make deep ocean salvage possible.
No-one wants nuclear waste in their backyard. But it has to go somewhere, and that somewhere should be where it’s best for the planet as a whole.
I was watching South Park the other day and it got me thinking. Eric Cartman had just said “I hate hippies, and the way they always talk about protecting the earth and then drive around in cars that get poor gas mileage and wear those stupid bracelets.” Bracelets aside, he’s got a point. Hypocrisy goes hand in hand with the modern day environmentalism or activism. I started looking at the world around me, and sure enough there were the hippies, driving from protest to protest in their thirty year old combies belching black smoke out the back to complain about the poisoning of mother earth. I saw the anti-logging group handing out fliers, pamphlets and magazines to any passer by.
I contemplated the international anti-globalisation effort coordinated over the internet, and the anti-corporate riots organised via Microsoft Explorer on IBM computers, and the way they walked from their picket of McDonalds in their Nike shoes to eat lunch at Pizza Hut. Then I thought “I’ve got to help them save the world”. But what can Australians do better than anyone else to stop the poisoning of the planet? As I watched the residents walk back to their surprisingly affordable, newly built houses in Lucas Heights after campaigning for the closure of the decades old reactor, it hit me.
Nuclear waste. By far the greatest danger with nuclear energy is the storage of the waste. Greenies are panic stricken that containers might rupture, or rust, and spew forth their contents into the eco-system. They’ll poison the water table, they’ll kill off flora and fauna, they’ll give everyone cancer. Then I looked at Australia, and what did I see? Desert. Thousands of square kilometres of unpopulated, barren, geologically stable desert. I then started to wonder why Greenpeace wasn’t lobbying for all nuclear waste to be sent here. Do we want Japanese nuclear refuse stored on the earthquake prone Pacific Rim of Fire, among fertile land and oceans teeming with life? Do we want European waste stored in forests, and farmland, and next to rivers among large population centres? Or do we want to store it in the middle of the driest, least hospitable continent on earth (after Antarctica, of course)?
I can hear the NIMBYists in full cry already, but if you truly care for the environment of the World, not just your own corner, isn’t this the best solution? Even taking global warming into account it’s desert, and will be desert for thousands of years. It’s stable, so we don’t have to worry about the concrete bunkers cracking. If something does go wrong, a whole three species might be wiped out, compared to hundreds or thousands in most existing nuclear dumps. It’s far from the oceans and any waterways. It’s easily the best place for a storage facility on the face of the Earth.
Now comes the argument against it – if there’s a convenient place to dump the waste, won’t they keep on producing it? If we open heroin injecting rooms, won’t they keep shooting up? It’s all about harm minimisation. Picket the suppliers if you want to get rid of nuclear power, but don’t spite the earth by refusing to clean up the waste. Besides, even if every nuclear reactor were to shut down today, there’d still be barrel after barrel of waste to get rid of.
Is it fair that Australia should be the worlds dumping ground? Is it just that we clean up others mess? No, of course not. But it is what’s best for the earth. And if this just so happens to create jobs and generate a few billion dollars revenue, I can live with that. So protesters, get out there, spread the word. Let’s drive our gas-guzzling cars to the pickets at parliament, let’s hand out millions of pieces of paper in support of the cause, let’s burn a few tonnes of coal to power our computers and send a few e-mails to the Green party. Let’s fly in green celebrities in their private jets. Saving the planet’s a worthy cause.
We already have Clean Up Australia day. Let’s clean up the Earth.
Copyright © Scott Wagland 2007. Do not reproduce without permission. All rights reserved.