When it comes to nuclear manufacturing in South Australia, several concerns have been raised. While the leaders of South Australia favor the idea, expressing their views on how this participation is an excellent opportunity for the state, their position on indigenous peoples’ rights in the areas where nuclear power plants are installed is a question that remains unanswered. Should they consider the people’s wellbeing before deciding on atomic operations? Having an insight on this statements and subject, the paper aims to look at the issues and findings of the manufacturing of nuclear in South Australia, report on the of the problems discovered, provide alternative solutions to the problems, choose the preferred solution and lastly implementation.
The purpose of the study is to understand the way forward that South Australia should take when it comes to the production of nuclear. Mr. Jay Weatherill argues that the state is at a time where the economy is challenged by some of the factors such as a decline in manufacturing industries and thus the state is looking at some of the ways that it can create both employment and economic opportunities. Moreover, according to the Senator (Edwards, S 2015), nuclear power offers some of the benefits that will lower the carbon emission. But these Ideas have not been fully supported by the public where debates have arisen regarding where the industry will be situated and how this will affect the environmental rights, human rights and economy.
From the nuclear tests performed at a site in Marainga, where the site was used for minor trials, this led to contamination of radioactive materials. From a research carried out t Martson in 1950, it was discovered that radiation threats existed for a long time and the tests had increased the rate of the absorption of strontium-90-dramatically. The theory based on the production of this nuclear is that the state will deliver economic and environmental benefits.
After reading the case study, various problems have been presented.
The traditional custodians and neighboring of Maralinga have suffered various ill effects from the seven nuclear testing. Some of the illnesses that the people suffered from by 1980’s included sores, Cancer, and blindness. According to an observation made by Parkison, an aboriginal living a lifestyle which encompasses of the semi-traditional can receive an adequate dose that is five times compared to the public due to the nuclear test.
Rejection of Aboriginal entree to their homeland.
Most of their land was taken to be used as industries for the nuclear power. This denial and resettlement have backed significantly the social fragmentation which spearheads the characteristics of the community up to this day uttering that this has led to juvenile crime, chronic friction, juvenile crime and substance abuse between the South Australian police and the residents which had become a fact of life. Although a portion of the testing site was returned to them, it remained restricted to the defense department, and in less than four months, the topic of nuclear power was brought back to the table.
Individuals and populations across the sphere have been affected by the growth of radioactive resources in the global ecosystems. Genetic damage, congenital disabilities, severe mental retardation, decreased immunity to disease and cancers are some of the possibilities of the things of uranium mining, nuclear testing, and radioactive waste and altogether the stages of nuclear energy and nuclear testing creation.
Having discussed the health problems and the environmental considerations brought by nuclear power, some of the possible solutions that can be used to reduce this problem will be discussed. Although there are many advantages brought by the production of nuclear energy, there are still negative effects that outweigh this advantages since they are a problem to the health and environment in general.
As mentioned above, nuclear energy results to environmental issues due to the radioactive waste and this becomes endangering the life of humans. Also, the radioactive waste from the nuclear energy causes air pollution, and the plant producing this energy emits a negligible quantity of carbon dioxide in the air.
The best solution that can be adapted to solve both the environmental problems and health problems is that there are different kinds of alternative sources that can be used and are much safer than the use of nuclear energy. Although many people support that nuclear energy is a solution to global warming, they still forget that the nuclear radioactive waste produces air pollution and the plants producing this energy emit carbon dioxide into the air. Some of the sources that can be used as an alternative to nuclear energy and stance slight risk to the surroundings as opposed to nuclear energy are, Solar, tidal, bioenergy, geothermal and wind. Solar energy is generated from the rays of the sun, and thus solar cells can be used to capture the rays to generate electricity. Tidal energy, on the other hand, is generated from the fall and rise of the waters and it is a renewable source. Bioenergy originates from breathing things, and this provides fuel, and it is a renewable source of power Wind produces power from the wind turbines which that hitch wind energy to produce current. Geothermal is the energy that is pumped from natural heated areas with water to generate energy.
The limitation of this alternative source of energy is that they are limited in resources and that a large amount of funding is required from the government to support this programs.
As noted from the case study, nuclear energy production in South Australia has mixed feelings. There are many dangerous effects that it has both to the people staying near the production plant and environment. Thus as a result of this, it tends to be controlled with a lot of caution or else it might result in serious injuries. Some of the complications include radiation, the high cost of funding for the production plant and disposing of the nuclear waste.
There are some solutions that can be adopted to solve the listed problems; this includes the use of alternative power sources like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and bioenergy.
In my point from the above alternative sources, I would prefer the use of geothermal energy to solve the problems brought by nuclear energy as opposed to others.
Implementation of geothermal is more efficient, cleaner, and cost-effective and reduces the dependence on foreign oil. Geothermal energy is more cleanly compared to other sources of energy since it can be produced without the burning of the fossil fuels. They create a little of sulfur oxide or nitrous gas because of the fraction of the CO2 gas that is created by the fossil fuel.
It saves a lot of transportation and processing cost since the energy is produced near the plant as compared to other sources of fuel. They are also more reliable than nuclear plants or Cole since they can run continuously 24/7 in an entire year. It is considered to be renewable since the heat is repeatedly replaced. The water that has been used for the whole process is later returned to the ground afterward when the heat is used.
Premier Jay Weatherill should forego the plans and ideas that he has concerning the nuclear storage referendum. Although he has insights on how nuclear power will help in the boosting of lagging economy in South Australia which has suffered the closure of the downtime mining and car industry, he should have an open mind it comes to the use of another source of energy such as geothermal energy. Since the production of the production is still under debate, Premier should support the people arguing against the production and support more environmentally friendly sources of energy.
891 ABC Adelaide 2015, Nuclear waste dump has potential to earn SA billions of dollars, ABC News, February (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/nuclearwaste-has-potential-to-earn-sa-billions-ziggy-switkowski/6115694)
Australia News 2015, South Australia’s Nuclear Inquiry of a Gale of Common-sense, The Guardian News, February (http://www.theguardian.com/australianews/2015/feb/15/south-australias-nuclear-inquiry-is-a-gale-of-commonsense-tonyabbott-says)
Funabashi, Y. and Kitazawa, K., 2012. Fukushima in review: A complex disaster, a disastrous response. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68(2), pp.9-21.
Glamocak, W 2015, Maralinga could be flagged as nuclear dump site, opponent says in wake of SA royal commission, ABC News, February (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-28/maralinga-could-be-flagged-as-nucleardump-site-opponents-say/6270848)
Lewis, H.W., 1986. The Accident at the Chernobyl’Nuclear Power Plant and its Consequences: USSR State Committee on the Utilization of Atomic Energy. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 28(9), pp.25-27
Peterson, P.F., 2001. The pros and cons of nucLear fuel recycling. Science, 294(5549), pp.2093-2094.
Zehner, O., 2012. Nuclear Power’s Unsettled Future. The Futurist, 46, pp.17-21.