Should Nuclear Waste Be Stored In South Australia

That accident was at urban centre in 1986. consistent with the report two-handed down in 2000 by the global organisation X c. Committee on the consequences of Atomic Radiation, twenty eight employees died within the initial 3 months when the incident, nineteen died between 1987 and 2004 of varied causes not essentially related to radiation

Since its discovery in the late 19th century, nuclear energy has been used in a diversity of areas such as atomic bombs, medicine, reducing pollution and food irradiation (Gupta, 2012). However, one of the biggest outcomes since this discovery is nuclear energy generation. This subject is largely controversial as it has many pros and cons. It is considered to be a more eco-friendly alternative source of electricity, as it emits less carbon emissions than coal-fired power stations, for example. Yet there still an environmental risk provided by the radio-active waste and its inability to be disposed of for 100,000 years (Phillips, 2012). Today in Australia there are no active nuclear power plants but that is predicted to change in the

Disposal of the high level nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power plants continues to be a big problem. It has been challenging and costly to find safe ways to store this waste. According to a report from the U.S National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the U.S. as of 1983 to decay to background levels (thinkquest.org). Who wants this amount of waste stored in the environment where they live? Currently in the U.S. nuclear power plants produce 3,000 tons of this high level waste each year (thinkquest.org). If nuclear power continues to be produced, this amount of waste will only continue to increase, causing a bigger dilemma as to what to do with the waste. As the waste is removed from the plant it still contains a high level of radiation. Exposure to radiation whether it occurs in the moving process or leakage from storage not only has a negative impact on the environment but also can pose a major health threat to humans. Based on the level of exposure, symptoms to humans can range from nausea and headaches to damage of nerve cells, loss of white blood cells and even death (think .org). The potential risk of exposure is not worth human life.

The South Australian Government is looking for ways to decrease the unemployment rate within SA and some propose that this could be the answer. Are the jobs opportunities worth the sacrifice of land needed to have a nuclear waste dump? I don’t think so. Increasing the employment rate is good in the short term but, when you take into consideration the health risks, such as cancer, that a nuclear waste site holds for not only the workers but the locals it suddenly becomes unappealing. There’s no point giving them jobs when they’re all going to become terminally ill.

Today, a considerable amount of energy is provided by nuclear energy. The technology is well organized and developing every passing day and as a result the cost of operation is falling. Using radioactive resources to produce energy generates waste. Waste that contains radioactive materials is called nuclear waste. The secure and environmentally-friendly disposal of nuclear waste is a crucial aspect of nuclear power programs. [1]

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction (fission, fusion). In nuclear energy, the water is turned into steam, which in turn drives turbine generators to produce electricity. This can be dangerous! Some of the major disadvantages include radiations, radioactive waste that would be produced and accidents that can occur in nuclear reactors.

Nuclear Waste The essay “Nuclear Waste” by Ricard A. Muller talks about the controversial matter of the disposure of radioactive waste. Despite the overwhelming concerns of citizens, Richard Muller believes the dangers associated with the transportation and deposit of nuclear waste is not as paramount as the issue may seem. The concepts that seems most alarming to the public are the number of year it takes for the radioactivity of the waste to subside and where it will be stored in the mean time that will not affect their safety. As Muller explains, ”Even after 100,000 years the radiation will still be above 10% of the level it had when it left the reactor.

Some scientists mind people that the South Australia Outback is the best, the safest, the most geologically and environmentally stable place on the planet to store the nuclear waste. (Valente,2016) However, as we know, Nuclear Waste is generally mixture of solids, liquids and gases which are produced during the generation of nuclear energy during fission, mining of uranium, nuclear research and weapons production. It is radioactive and that is the primary cause of the negative effects on human health and bodies. When humans are exposed to moderate radiation for a long time, it can lead to permanent problems and even lead to death. Nuclear waste radiation can damage or kill cells of people. Cancer is the primary health effect from radiation

The primary concern when disposing of nuclear waste and cleaning the facilities that produce it is the duration of half-lives of the elements that make up nuclear waste. One example is Uranium-235, which is used widely by nations that have a nuclear weapons program. U-235 has a half-life of 703,800,000 years. This means that U-235 will take over 700 million years for it to decompose by half. It is estimated that these elements will still be hazardous for ten times their half-lives. At this rate, U-235 will take around 7 billion years for it to become non-threatening to humans. It should be noted that seasons, temperature, or any known solvents will not affect the rate of decay. During the Cold War, very little attention was paid to the high volume of radioactive waste generated and even less to its effects on the environment. U-235 is an extreme example, we still have to contend with low level radioactive waste produced daily by Industry and Medical facilities. Some of the effects on the environment are; groundwater contamination, soil contamination, buried soil and water containing waste, and underground disposal facilities storing large volumes of hazardous, radioactive waste. One such facility was the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, which was designated in 1987 by the NWPA Amendments, and located on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site (NTS) in Nye County, Nevada some 80 miles Northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Congress approved the site in 2002,

While reading Richard A. Muller Nuclear Waste a professor of physics from the University of California. I really enjoyed the reading and learning how nuclear waste “is one of the biggest technical issues that any president is likely to face”. In this chapter he also spoke of Plutonium which is a transuranic radioactive chemical element with symbol Pu and atomic number 94. Richard also went on to say that there is a “safe” nuclear waste disposal located in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In order to keep the waste disposal safe, it is buried in a storage room in which is 1000 feet below the surface.

Its reliable, nuclear energy unlike solar and other energy sources doesn't use the sun or water, it runs 24/7 and can survive rough weather conditions.

Modern concerns about global warming have rekindled ideas about nuclear power in the United States but one concern still remains: what is to be done with the waste? Right now most spent nuclear fuel is stored in large casks at the plants where it was used with plans in the works for a common location to store the waste for long periods of time. Long term storage is not the only option, technology exists to take this spent nuclear fuel and remove the unused plutonium and uranium from the waste products to create more fuel. The remaining waste would be stored in a long term facility as discussed above. This process is highly controversial due to economic and safety concerns, but could increase the capacity of a long term storage facility.

The explosion that occurred on February where gallon drums, if the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant nuclear waste were buried deep in the salt shaft, led to the closure of the facility for months. In addition, the incidence raised questions on the Department of Energy’s ability to keep tabs on the content of nuclear container that were buried at the site. Experts asserted that the risk of an additional eruption is real and had several effects on 21 workers who were exposed to low-level doses of radiation (Lopez 85). Currently, investigators for the energy department have not determined the reason behind the explosion and why radioactive waste products buried more than feet below the ground has a chemical reaction that led to radioactivity. In addition, there are no experts to assert that the accident occur with other drums that were containing the same kind of waste products from nuclear plants. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is located in an ancient salt bed dug out as a conventional salt mine. Apparently, it was designed that once it is filled up and plugged, the salt could gradually breakdown around the waste and seal it for the period of 10,000 years (Rechard and Voegele 61). Thus, the dump is designed to ensure that waste and radioactivity do not escape. During the explosion, the radioactivity was released and traveled up the vent shaft and gave 21 workers who were on the surface a small dose of radiation that was detected in

The problem with nuclear waste is getting worse everyday while we try and find a solution to dispose of the waste properly, however there are some people who think that the nuclear waste project for waste disposal is not that serious and it does not have an affect on the environment, but they are wrong because our lack of care for proper disposal of nuclear waste is having a tole on the environment where the waste is buried and the life forms around these waste sites.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?