🚀 go-pugleaf

It is a pity that there are actually not that many areas where there are
no people withing cooee.

And the places that are, are geologically unstable, or have large
groundwater aquifers underneath.

I am all for a dump for our OWN waste, but people from Overseas can deal
with their own problems themselves!


TJ wrote:
> 
> There is so much land that is totally uninhabitable in Australia. Why cannot
> we allocate these sections to house these nuclear waste for sizeble cost. We
> sell these spaces and ensure that stringent standards are imposed for
> dumping such waste here. There are lots of revenue from overseas to be
> earned here.
> <none (Quarks like a duck)> wrote in message
> news:8f2n6g$61p$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > That is old thinking here in the US. Volunteer communities get
> > educated too quickly on the industry's inabilty to solve the waste
> > problem. I watched many low-level waste communities volunteer and then
> > reject the idea soon after.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Ian Mair" <rimair@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > >The following paper has been added to the web site of the Australian
> Academy
> > >of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It may be viewed by following
> the
> > >links from http://www.atse.org.au/
> >
> > >"Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Society and the Disposal of
> > >Radioactive Waste", Mr Ian Duncan FTSE
> >
> > >Society accepts that its demands for materials, energy and transport all
> > >create wastes, and yet no community will willingly absorb its share of
> > >waste, let alone accept a regional or national share. Community rejection
> of
> > >such a burden is exemplified by the NIMBY ('not in my back-yard')
> > >phenomenon. Recent examination of NIMBY suggests that it could be the
> child
> > >of 'top down' siting decisions usually based upon a 'decide, announce and
> > >defend (DAD)' policy. There are indications now that a counter culture of
> > >'volunteer communities' could mitigate or even overcome this rejection
> > >process.
> >
> >
> >
> >