1. Australia should not be seduced by offers of billions of dollars to take the world’s nuclear waste. Although both state & federal governments have said no to the proposal initially, they will be tempted by economic benefits, & Pangea is unlikely to take no for an answer.

2. Client countries would be charged enormous amounts by Pangea to "dispose " of their nuclear waste adding huge costs to the production of nuclear energy, the economic benefits of which have been consistently over-rated.

3. The establishment of such a radioactive waste dump would encourage the nuclear industry to continue its expansion, as they could claim to have "solved" the nuclear waste disposal problem.

4. Countries which produce nuclear waste should deal with it on site. Australia already has a significant problem in managing leftovers from nuclear testing, uranium mining tailings, the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, and nuclear medical waste.

5. Transport of high-level nuclear waste is potentially hazardous at every stage - a fundamental reason for not moving it round the planet.

6. Environmentalists globally recommend above ground storage of nuclear waste in heavy lead castors, clearly labelled and constantly monitored, either for 250,000 years or until a real solution can be found. Joanna Macy suggests "nuclear guardianship" projects.