“No subject is likely to be more controversial than the disposal of Australia's low-level radioactive waste.”
- if it goes ahead, the repository will take short-lived intermediate-level waste in addition to low-level waste
- moreover, according to the Supplement to the EIS the government plans to use the repository for a "very small" but unspecified amount of long-lived intermediate-level waste (LLILW); the government says that LLILW would only be accepted if it meets ‘waste acceptance criteria’ but those criteria have not yet been defined or publicly released (failure to establish WACs was a major problem with Maralinga ‘clean-up’).

“That it has to be deposited somewhere on the continent, secure and safe for at least the next 50 years, is widely admitted.”
- it is debatable whether it is ‘widely admitted’ that a centralised repository is the best (or least-worst) way of dealing with the waste
- then science minister Nick Minchin said in a 24/1/01 media release that the repository would accept waste for 50 years, but the Supplement to the EIS says it will be “at least 50 years” with no justification for this bracket creep.
- the waste will require monitoring for an ‘institutional period’ of approximately 200 years after the repository’s closure, not 50 years.

“But there is an amalgam of ignorance and fear about the potential for danger from both its movement to the proposed Woomera site, and its being there at all.”
- complaining of ignorance is rich given that the Editorial makes a number of basic factual errors.

“When a total of 667 submissions were examined, according to federal Science Minister Peter McGauran, 532 were opposed, but were the result of an orchestrated campaign by the Australian Conservation Foundation.”
- all but two or three of the submissions opposed the repository (the government said a ‘handful’ of submissions supported the repository); there certainly were not 135 (667-532) submissions supporting the repository as implied in the Editorial. Almost all of those 135 submissions were individual submissions opposed to the dump, including a number from local councils (and one from the SA state government).
- not all of the pro-formas were ‘orchestrated’ by the ACF, and quite a number of the pro-formas added further individual comments.

“The origin of the waste is diverse, coming from hundreds of towns and suburbs across the country, including 130 in South Australia itself.”
- but the major single source, by far, is the Lucas Heights nuclear plant in Sydney (81-90% by volume according to my calculations)

“No nuclear waste will come from other countries under any circumstances.”
- surely this needs a qualification along these lines: ‘According to the federal government, no nuclear waste will come from other countries under any circumstances.’ Especially given earlier intrigues, such as the false claim (corrected in federal parliament) that no federal minister had met with Pangea.

“The minister is properly impatient at what he considers a deliberate trawling of misinformation about the dangers of transporting the nuclear waste.”
- the EIS was inaccurate on transport risks (more precisely, it was nonsensical - discussing annual risks for a one-off trucking of the national inventory)
- the government’s current position is that there is a 23% risk of one truck accident shifting the existing inventory to Woomera (and further movements and risks in subsequent years/decades). Moreover, the capacity of emergency services to handle such an accident is open to question and is certainly uneven across the country.

“If evidence of safety is needed, 30,000 packages of radioactive waste are safely moved around the country annually.”
- I can think of several accidents without having systematically investigated the issue, e.g. a package containing radioactive material fell from a van in Sydney in September 1997, e.g. reports of spill/s when moving waste to Woomera in 1994-95. Also at least one significant accident moving spent fuel within the Lucas Heights site. Why does The Australian uncritically endorse questionable figures such as that?
- the government does NOT claim that 30,000 packages of radioactive waste are transported annually; that (questionable, unsubstantiated) figure includes all sorts of radioactive materials e.g. isotopes for scientific and medical institutions.

“The problem arises from the unsatisfactory temporary storage of such materials, in hospitals and universities: in the proposed repository, the waste will be solidified with concrete, and placed in a bunker 12 metres underground.”
- because movement of waste to the repository is planned only every 2-5 years, hospitals and other institutions must have adequate storage, security etc REGARDLESS of the outcome of the debate over the proposed repository.
- the waste will not be “solidified with concrete, and placed in a bunker 12 metres underground” and it is a mystery where The Australian got that ‘information’ from. Only a very small fraction (if any) of the waste will be concreted, and the depth will be “at least 5 metres” not 12 metres.

“There seems a signal failure on the part of objectors ... to offer a real alternative site to the Woomera proposal ...”
- a number of alternatives have been proposed by opponents of the repository proposal, see for example the summary of submissions in Appendix B of the Supplement to the EIS (information which was available to The Australian prior to the Editorial).

“There seems a signal failure on the part of objectors ... to appreciate the role of more than 400,000 nuclear medicine treatments originating from the Lucas Heights reactor each year, and being used in areas such as cancer and coronary disease: nearly every Australian will benefit from such therapies at some time.”
- as Dr. Dennis Matthews noted in a letter in the January 30 Australian: “Continual reference to nuclear medicine is an emotive argument that ignores the very weak connection between nuclear waste and nuclear medicine. Very little of the waste can be attributed to nuclear medicine and much of this waste generation is avoidable. According to the Government's own literature, less than one per cent of the repository waste is stored in hospitals and universities. This waste is less dangerous than the radioactive isotopes from which it originated.”
- further, the generation of waste from medical procedures hardly justifies a repository in South Australia ... there are seven times as many nuclear medicine procedures in NSW, four times as many in Victoria, twice as many in Queensland.

Numerous issues which the Editorial ought to have taken up but didn’t, e..g:
- the government's claim that SA is the "best and safest" site for the repository is flatly contradicted by the government's own literature
- appalling precedent of the Maralinga ‘clean-up’, suggest you do an article on this with nuclear engineer and Maralinga ‘whistle-blower’ Alan Parkinson.

This is the Editorial in full:
No need for hysteria on nuclear waste
The Australian - Editorial - 25-26 January 2003
NO subject is likely to be more controversial than the disposal of Australia's low-level radioactive waste. No one wants it in their backyard, least of all, it appears, South Australia, determined to keep its allegedly pristine, green image. That it has to be deposited somewhere on the continent, secure and safe for at least the next 50 years, is widely admitted. But there is an amalgam of ignorance and fear about the potential for danger from both its movement to the proposed Woomera site, and its being there at all. When a total of 667 submissions were examined, according to federal Science Minister Peter McGauran, 532 were opposed, but were the result of an orchestrated campaign by the Australian Conservation Foundation.
 The origin of the waste is diverse, coming from hundreds of towns and suburbs across the country, including 130 in South Australia itself. No nuclear waste will come from other countries under any circumstances. The minister is properly impatient at what he considers a deliberate trawling of misinformation about the dangers of transporting the nuclear waste. He points out that discussion of such a repository in South Australia began in 1992, under the Keating government, and was agreed to by all the states. If evidence of safety is needed, 30,000 packages of radioactive waste are safely moved around the country annually. The problem arises from the unsatisfactory temporary storage of such materials, in hospitals and universities: in the proposed repository, the waste will be solidified with concrete, and placed in a bunker 12 metres underground.
 There seems a signal failure on the part of objectors either to offer a real alternative site to the Woomera proposal, or to appreciate the role of more than 400,000 nuclear medicine treatments originating from the Lucas Heights reactor each year, and being used in areas such as cancer and coronary disease: nearly every Australian will benefit from such therapies at some time.