Nuclear energy has recently entered the national political debate as an option to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

The range of claims and counterclaims about nuclear energy and its efficacy and safety in climate change scenarios has demonstrated an urgent need for comprehensive studies of Australia's energy futures.

These studies must include a detailed analysis of the economic, environmental and social costs and benefits of all energy sources, including, for instance, the substantial costs of decommissioning nuclear reactors and safely disposing of the waste.

But what chance a sensible and well-informed debate on nuclear energy when dealing with Australia's existing nuclear waste has been so fraught?

Radioactive materials have been routinely used for the last 50 years in Australia for a wide variety of industrial, medical and research purposes.

In that period, about 3700 cubic metres (4,000 ­ 5,000 tonnes) of low and short lived intermediate level waste and 500m³ of long-lived intermediate waste has been accumulated (there is no high level waste in Australia).

The prime responsibility for managing radioactive waste lies with the Commonwealth as about 95% of existing and future waste is generated by Commonwealth agencies, primarily ANSTO at its Lucas Heights facility but also small amounts at CSIRO and the Department of Defence.

While the amount of waste generated under State and Territory licences is small, this waste is currently stored in over 100 locations around the country in metropolitan and regional sites.

Dispersed storage of radioactive waste is not a viable long-term strategy and is potentially hazardous, inefficient and impossible to completely secure. That is why the States and Territories must demonstrate political leadership and join with the Commonwealth to ensure the proposed site is a comprehensive national facility that is state of the art in terms of environmental safety, efficiency and security.

The Commonwealth Government recently announced plans to investigate three possible sites in the Northern Territory for a national storage facility when a proposal for a South Australian site was abandoned last year after a sustained political campaign.

The science, engineering and technology of safely storing, transporting and disposing of low and intermediate level waste is well understood and can be achieved safely and efficiently if done properly.

Much of the political debate has focused on site selection for storing radioactive waste. But storage is only one part of the equation. Australia must aim for safe and efficient disposal.

Given rising concerns over security of radioactive waste and possible 'dirty bomb' scenarios, it is surprising that safe disposal has not received the focus it warrants.

The key object of safe disposal is to sufficiently dilute radioactive materials so that its radioactivity is comparable to naturally occurring background radiation. In the case of long-lived radioactive waste (materials with a half life of more than 30 years), radioactive waste needs proper shielding from the biosphere in a geologically stable site.

Australia has the relevant scientific and engineering expertise to design ,
build and manage disposal of such waste.

Radioactive waste that has been properly disposed of has no value whatsoever for would be terrorists. Stored intermediate level waste represents a greater security risk.

Quite apart from security concerns there is a real intergenerational equity issue at stake ­ it is irresponsible to leave our waste to our children.

There are about 30 radioactive materials routinely used in Australia including a wide variety of industrial applications such as smoke detectors (Americium-246m), sterilisation (Cobalt-60) or equipment to check the integrity of welding (Caesium-137).

Each year more than 500,000 Australians undergo diagnosis or treatment procedures using a variety of nuclear sources. Technecium-99m is used in about 80% of diagnostic procedures and Iodine-131 for thyroid treatments.

Some of the radioactive materials used in Australia are produced at ANSTO's Lucas Heights reactor. Others, including cobalt and caesium are imported.

But these imported radioactive materials no longer add to Australia's long-term waste because for the past decade or so, the industry standard is suppliers of products such as cobalt, must take waste back for reprocessing or recycling after use.

Will Australia adopt a similarly responsible attitude to waste generated from our exports of uranium? If we are to seriously ramp up our participation in the nuclear industry then the option of being a full service provider must be considered including accepting the waste as part of the deal.

Professor Snow Barlow is President of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies