Community discussion: safety

The Citizens’ Jury identified that topics such as health, geology, seismicity, terrorism, transport and looking at potential impacts on flora and fauna are important for South Australians to discuss. Tell us which areas associated with the safety of a nuclear waste storage and disposal facility are most important to you, and why?

Comments closed

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke

30 Oct 2016

Hi everyone, thank you for all your discussion on this board during the consultation program, we appreciate the time taken to provide your views and feedback. This board has now closed, all feedback submitted will be considered by the Citizens' Jury to help inform their recommendations and also assist the State Government in deciding the next steps.

Malgo Schmidt

30 Oct 2016

What the Royal Commission does not say (or know) is that man-made earthquakes are becoming increasingly common. The one of 5.8 magnitude in Oklahoma on Sept. 3, 2016 was the strongest on record in the state. It involved six other states stretching from Texas to South Dakota. This induced seismic activity is linked to fracking – mainly wastewater disposal. The earthquake prompted the state to shut 37 disposal wells in a 1,878-sq-km area. Oklahoma now has a seismicity rate 600 times greater than before 2008, according to the Oklahoma Geological Survey.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oklahoma-quake-idUSKCN11D2QR

The combination of ignorance and arrogance of ourgov is infuriating.

Noel Wauchope

30 Oct 2016

I trust that the Nuclear Citizens' jury has noted the fact that there are only two situations under which any commercial nuclear reactor could ever be built.

The first is the situation for democracies , such as the United States. They set the pattern by passing the Price Anderson Act, ensuring that the tax-payer would cover the monumental costs of any serious accident.

The second is for totalitarian states such as China and Russia. Here the taxpayer pays for the whole lot, from nuclear construction to waste disposal.

If South Australia is foolish enough to set up a waste import and disposal industry, South Australia will be following the Russian and Chinese examples. Not being a private enterprise job, I guess they won't need a Price Anderson Act. I do hope that the Citizens' Jury members are aware of this.

Malgo Schmidt

29 Oct 2016

Archie Roach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ_pb_48KYU

Malgo Schmidt

29 Oct 2016

Labor readies for tense nuclear showdown amid opposition at state meeting http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/labor-readies-for-tense-nuclear-showdown-amid-opposition-at-state-meeting/news-story/94b465193620d74f489a1f0cd3fc6e40 Political Reporter Sheradyn Holderhead, The Advertiser October 27 2016

..."Three motions have been listed for a vote that essentially call on the Government to abandon the proposed nuclear waste dump while others call for further consultation or a referendum. A joint motion from the Maritime and Rail, Tram and Bus unions demands the State Government “immediately cease and desist any further action or consideration” of any type of nuclear dump.

Among its concerns are a weak economic case, high upfront cost, political damage to Labor, safety risks to workers and the public, and ignoring the rights of Aboriginal people"...

Claudio Pompili

28 Oct 2016

Weatherill's government will decide to proceed (or not) and then, at some point down the track, development risk assessment plans? This has got to be some sort of sick joke. What kind of business case is this?

Oh, that's right, it's a snow job. Weatherill was captured by the nuclear industry early on and, as a good sock puppet, has delivered a sham royal commission based on dodgy economics and no risk assessment. Must be a cosy sinecure waiting for him on retirement. Weatherill will push ahead and treat the people of SA with contempt, but at his political peril. This will be his defining Bannon/State Bank moment and will face the people at the next election. Bring it on!

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Claudio Pompili

29 Oct 2016

Hi Claudio, we appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns. A risk assessment is associated with a specific proposal or project and would only come if the Government made the decision to proceed with next steps - we are not at that point. What we are currently doing is discussing the findings of the Royal Commission's report with the community to gain feedback on it's recommendations. The Government will respond to the NFCRC's report and make a decision at the end of the year. You will find more information about the risk assessment process in Finding 87, Chapter 5 on page 104.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke

28 Oct 2016

Please note that the four current discussion boards will close at 5pm on Sunday, 30 October 2016. All feedback submitted by Sunday, October 30 will be considered by the jury to help inform their recommendations and also assist the State Government in deciding the next steps.

Many thanks,
Brooke
Consultation Team

Jeffrey Frommelt > Consultation Team - Brooke

30 Oct 2016

Paste of searched select extracts of public domain quotes on a recent Royal Commission held in SA costing millions, which in hindsight was a total fiasco based on half truth.

Paste
"The royal commission put on a show of fair judicial process, yet was a sham. Evidence that tended to support some of the women's claims had been lying in archives for decades. The royal commission did not look for it, and therefore did not find it. Evidence the commission did have was overlooked, and in at least one case, buried. Other evidence was interpreted with a shocking spin.

The commission's supposedly independent expert witness, a South Australian Museum anthropologist, was at the same time helping counsel for those opposing the proponent Ngarrindjeri women. He has since been found by a Federal Court judge to have been the originator of the fabrication theory, and to have influenced the course of the royal commission in a way that lacked professional objectivity."

"The royal commission put on a show of fair judicial process, yet was a sham. Evidence that tended to support some of the women's claims had been lying in archives for decades. The royal commission did not look for it, and therefore did not find it. Evidence the commission did have was overlooked, and in at least one case, buried. Other evidence was interpreted with a shocking spin.

The commission's supposedly independent expert witness, a South Australian Museum anthropologist, was at the same time helping counsel for those opposing the proponent Ngarrindjeri women. He has since been found by a Federal Court judge to have been the originator of the fabrication theory, and to have influenced the course of the royal commission in a way that lacked professional objectivity."

What! A Federal Court Judge declared that a white anthropologist "expert witness" made up the story about the "Secret Women's Business" being a fabrication.
What if a select "Expert Witness" misleads the Royal Commission and the Australian public about "Bandioota, The Final Solution"?
Were any expert witnesses from Fukashima, Chernobyl, Hanford, Yucca Mountain, Greenpeace, WWF, FOE, Tahiti Nuclear Waste Dump, Maralinga Security Forces, Kakadu Spillage Cleanup Squad, .........

Expert witnesses!!! The last RC got it wrong and made a decision based on lies or mistruths according to an Australian Federal Judge.

What if the RC get this one wrong?

Tell the public about

1) Vixen B at Maralinga
2) 200 spillages at the Kakadu Uranium mine
3) 2 serious 100 million litre fires at the WMC uranium mine
4) the consequences of "spent fuel" catching fire

The media has failed the public so often, I doubt the truth will ever be printed. The printed and TV media is no longer truthful or unbiased.

Safety seems to be very deficient!
Storing a large volume of hazardous material in one single location violates a simple hazard reduction tactic. Chernobyl proved large facilities are simply bigger hazards and that is why "Small modular reactors" are being pursued. What if we put all our eggs in one basket and tripped over?
Leave the waste in the country of origin. Bury the waste in the country of origin and avoid any terrorism on transporting toxic nuclear waste.

What is the consequences of burning 19 tons of "spent fuel" in the open?

Truth, no BS or insults.

Noel Wauchope

28 Oct 2016

The most worrying section in this Citizens' Jury is the session on SAFETY, dealing with general safety, siting and transport. For this session, there are 6 witnesses, and a facilitator. Of these, only one witness appears to be a neutral expert. This is Professor Sandy Steacy who knows all about earthquakes.

The facilitator, Professor David Giles, of Minerals & Resources Engineering Future Industries Institute has all too strong a background in the mining industry. The remaining witnesses are:

Dr John Loy: his theme is all about medical waste(an almost negligible component of Australia's own Lucas Heights nuclear waste), and over-confidence on the safety of nuclear waste facilities. He has a background in promoting nuclear power to United Arab Emirates.
Frank Boulton, General Manager WMC (Olympic Dam Marketing) Pty Ltd
Dr AndrewHerczeg, formerly of the International Atomic Energy Agency
Ian Hore-Lacy formerly of the Uranium Institute in Australia-he now works for the World Nuclear Association. Mr Hore-Lacy is unusual: he sees support for nuclear power as areligious and moral duty (He is also very critical of Pope Francis' ideas on environment)
These pro nuclear experts have had much to say on storage of nuclear wastes. But none seems to have taken much interest in the issues around transporting highly radioactive wastes over thousands of kilometres across oceans and land. With the increasing volatility of weather events, as climate change progresses, and with the also growing concerns about terrorism, this omission is one of the greatest weaknesses of the case for importing nuclear wastes. The subject just glossed over in a few brief paragraphs in the NFCRC Report.

John George > Noel Wauchope

29 Oct 2016

Hi Noel thank you for your post above.

Noel from reading the rest of your posts it would appear you're motivated by Green fanaticism in an attempt to mislead the participants on anything to do with nuclear energy. So why do you keep making things up?
Noel?
FOR EXAMPLE: On your post their on the Fast Breeder Reactors {please go back and read that one} and,
FOR EXAMPLE: On your post on Molten Salt Reactor - {what do you think the fan-cooled freeze plug is use for}?
Noel?
{Thermal coefficient negative or positive}?
Noel?

]
Noel you're knowledge on anything nuclear from High Level Waste to Molten Salt Reactors is close to zero although you're good at putting a slant on something just to suit your prejudice towards nuclear energy in all its forms -even the nuclear densiometer - so what is this used for for?
Noel how do you think the nuclear densiometer is transported over land? mmmmm....
Noel?

And liquid Uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) transported over land?
Noel?
And gaseous Uranium hexafluoride (UF6) transported?
Noel?
Noel?

I am waiting?
Best wishes.
References: USA Dept. of Energy and all over the internet. PS: Noel
if you knew anything about Radiation - why don't you identify any engineering knowledge to it?
Because radiation can cause cancer eg: Strontium-90 and can also cure cancer eg: Moly-99 and Tech-99m.
{And you're wrong too from your post on how medical isotopes are generated, because both Moly-99 and Tech-99 are derived from Uranium-235 at Australia's Lucas Heights 20MW reactor. Go visit}.

John Collins

28 Oct 2016

You (the government) invite us, the public, to tell you: “which areas associated with the safety of a nuclear waste storage and disposal facility are most important to you, and why?”
It seems to me that the RC Report says it all:
“… used fuel requires isolation and containment from the environment for at least 100 000 years.” (p.81)
“A total of about 50 years of (above ground) storage is required for used fuel to cool sufficiently before it can be permanently disposed of underground.” (p.83)
“… a geological disposal concept requires comprehensive identification, understanding and analysis of the physical and chemical processes that may occur over at least 10 000 years and up to a million years.” (p.85)
Describing (p.210) the “Causes of the (Fukushima) Accident”, the RC Report cites “several unchallenged design assumptions (specifically) that:
a. nuclear technologies … were so safe that an accident of the kind experienced was thought to be impossible
b. there would never be a loss of power to all units at the same time and any power outage would only be for a short time
c. there would not be more than one event to which operators would simultaneously have to respond.”
Rationally, how can the government possibly believe that NO “unchallenged design assumptions” will show-up for “at least 10 000 years and up to a million years”? As the ALP’s Labor Environment Action Network (LEAN) response to the ‘Tentative Findings of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’ states: “it is inconceivable that in 2016 we can manage the risks associated with storing nuclear waste for that period of time. ”
Just this week we have seen the Gold Coast catastrophe in the highly regulated ride industry, the unfolding of the catheter tragedy at the QEH and the inquiry into the census debacle.
Cleaning-up after ‘unchallenged assumptions’ associated with the state-wide power blackout was easy – cleaning-up after a nuclear incident will be anything but!
Even if there were to be some short-term financial gain (an assumption which itself is highly questionable), the longer-term risk is, simply, unacceptable.

Jeffrey Frommelt > John Collins

30 Oct 2016

Is the French Company/Government Areva involved with toxic nuclear waste? Were either involved in the terrorist attack on the Rainbow Warrior? Did the French build the Desal at Port Stanvac? Were the French awarded a $60billion contract to build 12 diesel powered Collins Class Submarines?
Is there a deadline for BMFL ( British toxic nuclear waste producer) and Areva ( French toxic waste producer) to meet an EU deadline for storage of DU or safety of " spent fuel pool storage"?
If the decision is artificially urgent, why is the Federal Legislation on importation of "nuclear waste" not preventing the pursuit of this almost treasonable pursuit hindered?
Do Gen IV reactors produce toxic nuclear waste?
How many GenIV reactors are there in the world?
Do the Chinese already have a method of neutralising "spent fuel"?
Can " spent fuel" be used for mass producing DU Ordinance?
What are the consequences of burning 19 tons or 1m3 of "spent fuel" in an open space?
Truth not BS or insults!

Claire Catt

27 Oct 2016

Becoming the world's nuclear waste dump is very clearly against our NATIONAL INTERESTS. It makes Australia a clear terror target and costs to keep these several proposed dumps safe will be phenomenal long long into the future.

On this arguments alone our Governments, State and Federal, have a grave duty to put Australia's interest front and centre. It would be irresponsible to change very important laws which protect the community from dangerous materials coming into the country.

We have laws prohibiting the importation of weapons, drugs, poisons. High level nuclear waste is thousands of times more dangerous with a potential to kill thousands of people and pollute huge areas of land. Both has happened overseas already.

Malgo Schmidt

26 Oct 2016

TO THE JURY and the Community:

I was made an Observer of the Jury 2 session in the afternoon of Oct 8. These are my observations.

1. Professional organizers, such as Gail Fairlamb, Director, Strategic Development in Dept of Premier & Cabinet, have the Jury on remote control of the gov.
2. Just like the Jury 1 (of 50), the Jury 2 (of 350) is being forced into chewing and re-chewing of the report by Kevin Scarce and his Royal Commission. The Jury is neither required nor expected to analyse public opinion.
3. Unlike the real jury this one is NOT a decision maker; the gov is.
4. The purpose of this staged pseudo-democracy, at $10 mil of taxpayers' money,
IS TO FABRICATE PUBLIC CONSENT, as it cannot be obtained by democratic means. The fabrication is carried out at the expense of time,
good will and Sisyphean work of the Jury.
5. While the Holy Martyrs of the Jury were being used in the gov's treason, I was able to participate in the Adelaide Festival of Ideas (AFoI).
I wish to report to the Jury what follows:

On Oct 22, 2016, American activist Erin Brockovich appealed to the full house at Bonython Hall to defeat the nuclear dump. At this point the head of the festival Greg Mackie addressed the audience: "Hands up if you want this project?" And he counted the hands: "Two...and a half". That was out of 1000.

I wish to extend my appreciation, gratitude and encouragement to the Jury. In order not to allow your sacrifice to be wasted by the gov:
Please MAKE SURE that YOUR FINAL REPORT SAYS NO, in the name of us all.
Thank you!

Jeffrey Frommelt > Malgo Schmidt

26 Oct 2016

Well said.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Malgo Schmidt

29 Oct 2016

Hi Malgo, thanks for taking the time to join us as an observer and we hope it provided a good insight into the process the jury is undertaking. As you know from the tour, Democracy Co is facilitating the proceedings at arms length from Government, and the jury are in control of many aspects, including who they wish to have inform them, what options they would like to consider, and of course the direction their final report will take. It is only the jurors who can decide what the report will look like that they provide to the Premier; nobody else.

All live streamed sessions are available here on our website in full (see video library) and we also have highlights packages available so the wider community can see the process and understand what information the jury has access to. We hope this helps and thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

Peter Mahoney

25 Oct 2016

South Australia is presumably an attractive option because of its seismic stability. This conception is presumably based predictions of frequency of earthquakes that would be of sufficient power to destroy underground infrastructure, and lead to an uncontrolled escape of radioactivity into the ground and ground water. While the probability in of such an event any given year may be lower here than on other parts of the planet, given the long time frames speculated apon in Jacobs' proposals in the "Royal Commission", the probability of at least one major event in the life of the "facility" would be considerably greater. And there only has to be one such event.... Any business case therefore has to outline in detail a contingency plan for such an event, and deduct the properly estimated cost of implementing such a contingency plan, and of compensating any victims (such as users of the Great Artesian Basin), from any economic prospectus of benefit to our State. This would seem a staggeringly high risk. I strongly oppose it.

Steven McColl > Peter Mahoney

25 Oct 2016

AS1170.4

Jeffrey Frommelt > Peter Mahoney

26 Oct 2016

Australia's earthquake code is based on 1836 to 2016 of records! Robe in the SE had a 6.0 earthquake and Newcastle had a big quake a few years ago.
All the spent fuel ( depleted uranium) which instead of being cooled on the seabed off Tahiti or La Hague is dry underground or in 48C sunshine in airtight sealed canisters during a 7.5 quake in 2019. The insurance Companies are broke, the crushed canisters let the spent fuel dry and spontaneously catch fire because the Bandioota geology was not researched or suitable. The fuel ignites a few m3 of spent fuel nearby and an area "60 times that effected by Chernobyl" is contaminated. Remind yourself that all Chernobyl contamination maps show everything to the West but nothing to the East, which is where weather goes. Meaning Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane is down wind forever.

John George

25 Oct 2016

Jeffrey, long post but one must demonstrate some knowledge on atomic energy and atomic fuel.
+
It is easy to see who (out of the 'naysayers') know what they are talking about - because those that do, actually put forward those specific disadvantages to nuclear energy making reference to Physics and Engineering. Because all forms of energy have their advantages and disadvantages. First up you are wrong on your claim on Medical Nuclear waste being just over 2L. Where are your calculations? Any one with knowledge on the subject knows what the density of medical waste is.

I also noticed those complaining about High Level Waste (HLW) do not make reference to what HLW actually consists of and what HLW is!
Jeffery, you may fool the other 'naysayers' because you are no doubt a smart person - but to one must put forward a cogent and credible argument showing demonstrated knowledge on the subject.
-
Things like radiation, what are the three types? And is the half-life of something inversely proportional to radioactivity or not? See what I mean?

And your claim: " most countries are shutting down their nuclear reactors" Which ones? Again you make no mention of demonstrated knowledge by not differentiating between Generation II, Generation III and Generation IV reactors. Wild claims like this.

Good luck!

Jeffrey Frommelt > John George

26 Oct 2016

Picture a sad excuse of an ocean going freighter cruising up Spencer Gulf with all recreational sea going craft banned from ever using the Gulf again and no light aircraft from Edinburgh pilot school, just in case a jet ski or Cessna is carrying home made explosives.
Inside the sealed and toxic waste drums labelled medical waste is as much HLNW as possible, because nobody is brave enough to go near the drum to find out what it actually contains for fear of death.
Previously this high level toxic waste was dumped in Hurd Deep and then off Somalia and Tahiti.
Hanford had a leak from a double walled tank within 50 years of construction. The site will be toxic for a very long time.

After watching and reading a significant amount about nuclear waste, it is obvious the truth is not often told if ever told. Ten fold errors in toxicity were very common.

Medical waste weighs whatever it weighs and is a red herring. How is 45kg of Australian medical waste going to necessitate a "Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump" or is there more than a pair of gloves and bandages in a drum of "toxic nuclear waste"? I might be wrong, but storing 45 kg of medical waste does not generate billions of dollars and jobs. The figure of 100,000m3 could not have meant 100,000m3 of medical isotopes wrapped in rubber gloves.
100 of billions of dollars for 45kg of medical waste?

Depleted Uranium weighs 19kg/ltre. It is used as ordinance because it is not only twice as heavy as lead bullets, it ignites on impact and any dust from the collision is potentially lethal and is not classified as a chemical weapon. A lot of tons of depleted uranium were used in the Gulf Wars, so it was helpful when disposing of toxic nuclear waste, without mentioning how many tons. Deny that.

Were any experts from Hanford, Chernobyl or Fukashima or Greenpeace asked for advice at the RC? If not for Greenpeace, the French would still be dumping spent toxic fuel at sea, so Greenpeace has expertise but better still, Greenpeace is a nonprofit venture without any hidden agenda and finds the truth and exposes lies.

Before "Integrated Management Systems" (WHSEQCWS), the Lemmings all chorused "she'll be right, no one will know" when pouring sump oil in a pristine mangrove.
These days large reputable Companies treasure their reputations in the Environment and a simple burnt down platform and oil spill cost Macondo operators circa $90 billion. Self Insured maybe but I doubt any upstart "Toxic Nuclear Waste" enterprise in Australia could afford an oil spill, let alone increased iodine levels in seaweed or human error emptying a freighters bilge tank after washing down deck contamination whilst berthed Pt Augusta.

And of course earthquakes won't happen in SA is another untruth.

"Senior seismologist Jonathan Bathgate told ABC News the Flinders Ranges is one of the most active earthquake areas in the country.
"The Flinders Ranges in general have a long history of seismicity so we certainly record earthquakes in that area on a regular basis."

Jeffrey Frommelt > John George

26 Oct 2016

Which countries are closing nuclear reactors?
Read this extract and pay attention to the risk associated with storage of spent fuel. Bandioota is scheduled to store spent fuel according to responses.

"However, the WNA also enumerates 89 reactors scheduled to close by the end of 2025. Among the planned closures:

Armenia 1 in 2026
Belgium 2 by 2015, 5 more by 2025.
Canada 4 by 2015, 10 by 2025, 5 more by 2040.
Finland 3 by 2040
Germany 9 by 2025
Hungary 2 by 2025, 2 more by 2040
Mexico 2 by 2040
Netherlands 1 by 2025
Pakistan 1 by 2025, 1 more by 2040
Russia 1 by 2015, 23 by 2025, 4 more by 2040
Slovakia 2 by 2025
South Africa 2 by 2025
South Korea 1 by 2025, 1 more by 2040
Spain (7 reactors whose licenses run out before 2025, no decisions yet)
Sweden 2 by 2025, 5 more by 2040
Switzerland 34 by 2025, 2 more by 2040
Ukraine 2 by 2015, 10 more by 2025, 3 more by 2040
United Kingdom 1 by 2015, 6 more by 2025, 2 more by 2040

These numbers do not include the Japanese reactors shut down for safety checks following Fukushima, a third of France’s 58 nuclear reactors, and 7 Spanish reactors whose licenses are expiring without a close/refurbish decision by national regulators. Interestingly, the Philippines is converting a nuclear reactor to natural gas.

Spent nuclear fuel continues accumulating onsite at existing plants in “temporary” fuel pools or security-vulnerable short-term waste casks. In some cases, this storage may begin to preclude other uses, including potential improvements or plant extensions, at existing nuclear land. Also, a spent fuel pool fire could reportedly make an area 60 times larger than that of the Chernobyl accident uninhabitable."

60 Times larger than Chernobyl!
Spent fuel is depleted uranium which can go critical if not cooled and by nature is burns almost spontaneously. Imagine dousing 100000m3 or 1900000000kg of burning spent fuel anytime in the next hundred thousand years time!
Hanford waste site USA had a burst double walled 50 year old tank a few days ago!

Since October 2012, U.S. nuclear plant owners have closed or announced closure of 14 reactor units at 11 plant sites.

“We think that the costs of new nuclear right now are not competitive with other zero-carbon technologies, renewables, and storage that we see in the marketplace…. Right now we just don’t have any plans on the board to build any new reactors.”

Jeffrey Frommelt

21 Oct 2016

Medical nuclear waste? 45 kg is just over 2litres.
Billions of dollars? Most countries are shutting down their nuclear reactors because of risk of another Chernobyl or Fukashima and the toxicity of byproducts. The demolition material is similar to the uncooled reactor materials at Chernobyl or Fukashima. A high percentage is depleted uranium. The Gulf War used depleted uranium as armour piercing ordinance and anyone who came into any contact with depleted uranium by inhalation. Ingestion, cut or lesion contact got "Gulf Syndrome". Elevated risk of thyroid cancer but statistics in Veteran Affairs is confidential. Fukashima also has swayed medical stats like most large chemical catastrophes. ( Hiroshima, Bophal, etc) The cleanup at Chernobyl was allegedly by volunteer helicopter pilots who knew they would die and 17yo military conscripts, who coincidently were all dead within 12 months. Nuclear waste can be Carbon 14 or toxic, yet the RC does not clarify how toxic any transported or stored waste will be.
Oh and I just read that a comparable "Toxic Nuclear Waste Storage Facility" overseas was recently closed because of corruption in the upper management. Almost sounds like Australia's banks except no one was ever caught or prosecuted. Trust? When is the plutonium Maralinga going to be stored safely?
I am confident that a select few will be paid billions and a few or maybe two meaningful or fulfilling safe jobs will be created. I wonder if Mark Oliphant would buy shares in a toxic waste dump or donate his back yard for storage of toxic nuclear waste free of charge?
The US and FSU were working together on a solution until recently.
Perhaps the US could use a disused underground missile silos for Australia's 45kg of medical nuclear waste and the medical waste problem would be solved.
Did anyone explain this to the two people who were at a recent regional "Know Nuclear" seminar?
Oh and 70% of "Aircraft Disasters" accidents are from human error. The aircraft industry is the safest technology in history.
200 violations at Kakadu Uranium mine and how many prosecutions?
Trust?
File this one with the "Outer Harbour Passenger Terminal", MATs plan, Scrimber, Monarto, Hindmarsh Island bridge, Multi Function Polis.
What if the GMH plant used Italian Robotics to make bicycle and household lithium/graphene ( mined in SA) batteries for SEAsia instead of "Toxic Nuclear Waste Storage in shallow back filled trenches in locations having high seismic activity".
BTW Which insurance Company would insure a "Toxic Nuclear Waste" industry for the next 200,000 years?
Next year it will be a Chunnel to Granite Island!

Jeffrey Frommelt

21 Oct 2016

After 911, all hazardous facilities need to withstand a 787 fully fueled at full throttle diving as a minimum.
The US Govt spent 9 billion $ on Yucca Mountain Nuclear Storage Facility EHS and Investigation and decided the storage of toxic nuclear waste will not happen at Yucca Mountain. They also used the best information, people, technology available, not a few select "Expert Witnesses". Were any of the Royal Commission Expert Witnesses from Chernobyl or Fukashima clean up expertise?
There is no seismic or geological report on p89 of the Royal Commission. Why has Bandioota been selected out of all optional sites without any geological, risk, safety, terrorist analysis, hydrological, environmental investigation? Is AREVA ( the bank rupt company indirectly responsible for sinking the Rainbow Warrior, 200 nuclear bombs in Tahiti, dumping plutonium in the Pacific Ocean setting up office in Adelaide? Did the French build the Pt Stanvac Desal and are they building the Collins Class diesel submarines? Are the Gen IV Nuclear Reactors cleaner than all the ones built by Areva? Do Areva have a Gen IV design? How are the Hindmarsh Island Bridge property developers associated with the ownership of Bandioota? As the biggest user of power in SA is BHP at Roxby Downs, perhaps they can finance a clean Gen IV Molten Salt Thorium Small Modular Reactor and Desal at Port Augusta and bury toxic waste in the abandoned stopes without letting any future Bandioota property developers with no hope of insurance or technical capability scam the SA public.
If there is only 45kg of Australia. Nuclear medical waste to be stored, how does this generate billions of dollars and jobs in a shallow trench filled with demolition materials from dirty reactors and spent fuel (depleted uranium).
A simple water pipeline from the Ord River Scheme to glasshouses of hydroponic glasshouse tomatoes and herbs for export to SE Asia, as a staged Project in growth based on cash flow might create a glass and hydroponic tomato, herb industry with jobs and a long clean future. Toss in an MFP and a Monarto or kibbutzes near the recently built glasshouses near Pt Agusta.
A nuclear dump will kill our wine industry instantly as soon as anyone finds a Geiger counter reading in a foreign newspaper. How many jobs are there today guarding Maralinga, Taranaki, Vixen 22 kg of plutonium and what stops this plutonium getting in the food chain at Maralinga for the next 200 million years?
After Monarto, State Bank, Multi Function Polis, MATS Plan, Hindmarsh Island bridge fiascos, who really believes any SA Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump will create jobs? Trust?
The Uranium industry is in massive decline simply because the end product is so toxic. "The clever country" becomes a rubbish dump for Toxic Nuclear Wastes is not a future. Who gets billions of $? Is there penalty rates on Christmas Eve at Maralinga for the next 200million years for terrorist SWAT teams on 24 hr call or can I rent an Avis 4WD and find some free surface plutonium at Vixen pluonium dump today without even a permit?

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Jeffrey Frommelt

29 Oct 2016

Hi Jeffrey, thanks for taking the time to have your say on this topic. One important thing we do want to clarify is about Barndioota - this is the site in which the Federal Government has selected to store low level radioactive waste - this process is completely separate to what we are discussing here in relation to the Royal Commission. Both processes are running at the same time however are unrelated.

If you would like more information on the Federal process, you can go to www.radioactivewaste.gov.au

henry francis

21 Oct 2016

A reply from the Government Agency/Consultation Team would be appreciated.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > henry francis

29 Oct 2016

Hi Henry, we did reply to your post further below - please let us know if you have any questions.

Sri Udakumbura

20 Oct 2016

this is just a 0.6666 billion deal per year [net economic worth = (257 - (145+32))/120], not a wise deal. This will not only destroy environment, water resources, air, gene pool, soil, .........................................etc. Also destroy the brand image of SA it will label SA as a "Nuclear Waste Dumping Ground". such a shame.... NO Nuclear.

Malgo Schmidt

18 Oct 2016

"Weatherill, aware of most people's instinctive and rightful mistrust of anything nuclear, has launched a meticulous, expensive PR campaign."

Jack Crawford, https://redflag.org.au/node/5521

Christopher Huckle > Malgo Schmidt

19 Oct 2016

Malgo Schmidt.
So you're happy to take for granted access to all the information for your internet, courtesy of:
The beta-emitting Plutonium-238 radio-isotope generators, {the very stuff you complain about from Voyager's, Cassini's, New- Horizon's and Galileo's satellites!}.
*****************
So what's beta emitting?
*****************
So please do not complain about nuclear energy.
*****************
Thank you.

Christopher Huckle > Malgo Schmidt

19 Oct 2016

What a rant - putting rational thinking aside, allowing for emotions to prevail.

Peter Mahoney

17 Oct 2016

The Royal Commission report appears to be silent on the details of how these radioactive materials would be transported to South Australia, and what sort of defence force support would be required to ensure that they are not the subject of terrorist attack. Who would be responsible for ensuring that they are correctly and securely sealed in their containers in the country of origin, say India or Pakistan? How would an SA facility ensure that proper standards are being followed at every step. The consequences of undetected, small or slow leaks would be enormous if they occur all the way from the country of origin, across the oceans and then across the land to SA.

Will Matthews

17 Oct 2016

I was wondering, If you divide the remuneration received by the storage timeframe what is the value per year we receive for storing the worlds high level nuclear waste? .....and secondly, this has probably been answered, but what happens if the high level storage facility is hit by a nuclear bomb in an unforseable future war or attack?

Will Matthews > Will Matthews

17 Oct 2016

Just wanted to add that I personally do not want the nuclear waste facility in our state.

Will Matthews > Will Matthews

17 Oct 2016

Just been reading the report again and noticed "It will take more than 100 000 years for used fuel to reach similar radiotoxicity levels to natural uranium, primarily due to the presence of some of the longer-lived radionuclides that remain hazardous93, even in trace amounts, to humans and other organisms if inhaled or ingested. Therefore, the
potential for these radionuclides to migrate into the living environment must be managed over such timeframes.94
The rapid decline in radiotoxicity means that the most critical period during which isolation and containment of the used fuel must be assured is relatively short in geological terms (up to 10 000 years).95"

Will Matthews > Will Matthews

17 Oct 2016

So doing the math.... 100,000 years storage divided by the 100billion dollars we get equals 1million dollars a year..... ummm that's not looking like such a good deal then!

Will Matthews > Will Matthews

17 Oct 2016

Just noticed this article also highlight the dangers of the inevitable human error http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/eric-schlosser-exposes-our-nuclear-delusions-at-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/news-story/8c07f4215ba3aeebbecda332b40889fa "What’s more frightening is investigators later blamed the incident on someone putting the wrong type of kitty litter in the drum containing radioactive waste.

Despite being a pioneer of nuclear technology, even the US has struggled with how to manage the waste it produces.

The seemingly absurd error has crippled the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, which was built for an estimated cost of about $19 billion, in an underground salt bed under the Southern New Mexico desert.

“It sounds great (economically) but you’ve got to know what you’re doing,” Schlosser told news.com.au.

“It’s really difficult to store this stuff, it’s really complicated ... good luck with that.”"

Jeffrey Frommelt > Will Matthews

21 Oct 2016

Why not put the "Toxic Nuclear Waste" storage facility in or very near Canberra if the facility will always be safe and there is no risk of leakage? The Specialised Anti Terrorist Armed Forces, Toxic Nuclear Waste expertise, cleaners, etc could live in suburbia and cut remote location and flights costs, saving billions over 200000 years.
As a side benefit, the Australian voter could say "we trust politicians".
Trust?
What is the truth?

henry francis

17 Oct 2016

Can someone please inform me why high grade nuclear waste will have to be stored ABOVE GROUND in an interim facility for about 40 years after arriving on our shores?
Surely this is when it is at it's most dangerous levels.
Why then cannot it go straight into the presumably "safe" method of storage deep underground that is promoted as "best practice" for storage of nuclear waste?

Claire Catt > henry francis

17 Oct 2016

We won't have the money to built the facility until we have imported thousands of tonnes of waste for a price unknown and untested anywhere in the world.

We plan to built this repository without any idea how to actually do this since it has never been done before, not anywhere including Finland. There they have spent billions of dollars for a dump still unfinished, for waste produced by them requiring no transport to speak of. If it will work and for how long is unknown.

It is my guess this underground pipe dream will never be built and we will be left with mountains of toxic waste in the open, possibly covered with concrete, like in Chernobyl. We'll have to keep it from all life, protect it from terror attacks, climate change threats and leakage into the environment.

But hey, we probably won't have to worry about it just yet, more likely our children and grandchildren and a thousand generations after them.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > henry francis

21 Oct 2016

Hi Henry, thank you for your question. The Royal Commission's economic modelling is based on pre-commitments from customer countries who are looking for a permanent storage solution. Essentially, when the used fuel arrives in South Australia, so would the funds, which would then be used to facilitate the construction of a geological disposal facility. Whilst this facility is being constructed, the material is stored in dry casks at an above-ground interim storage facility. Multiple barriers in these interim storage casks ensure that nuclear waste will not be released into the environment or accessible to humans while it remains hazardous. We hope this helps clarify and please let us know if any further questions. There is also some detailed information on this process on page 90 of the Royal Commission Report (you can access in the above tabs on our website).

Jeffrey Frommelt > henry francis

21 Oct 2016

Since 911 nuclear facilities must withstand near to a fully fueled 787 at full throttle in a dive, so surface storage in glass bottles in disposable non corroding high impact transit vessels seems very unlikely.
If you consider the huge problem globally in dumping spent fuel and contaminated demolition materials will be, a lethal industry is unlikely to attract and keep any people with any IQ. This now provides another huge ongoing risk.
If the "Toxic Nuclear Waste" facility was built in or near Canberra, it might be safe immediately after commissioning, but thereafter is a guess. At Bophal the accountants saved on maintenance costs, 15000 dead, and a $2000 fine for "criminal negligence". Fukushima saved money during construction by ignoring tidal wave size predictions. Now as a consequence, nuclear facilities are built for far worse than 1; 100 or 1; 1000 events, but there are very few records for say flood at Bandioota. The local farmer once showed me an FE Holden stuck in a river gum 6 m above the creek bed due to a past flash flood. The Flinders Ranges is bare rock mostly, so a single storm event of say 700mm of rain ( say from tail of Cyclone Tracy or Larry) can produce extreme flooding at base of Wilpena very quickly if not in hours. Canberra does not have extreme rain storms and floods from cyclones like Bandioota and
Wilpena , nor frequent large earthquakes over 6.0 or dust storms that seed clouds. I mention dust seeding clouds because Maralinga has surface plutonium which can seed clouds. Canberra is an optional location if the waste is safe, but the politicians did not suggest Canberra.
Unfortunately, a toxic nuclear waste storage facility with a design life of 200000 years using a soil back filled surface trench is almost ridiculous in this day and age. Billions of dollars for digging a trench and tipping toxic nuclear waste into it where no one notices and hopefully no one complains does not generate trust. Put the facility near Canberra!
Up until 1985 and the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, French Nuclear Companies simply dumped plutonium into the Pacific Ocean near Tahiti, but the French did 200 nuclear blasts with out concern for locals.
Perhaps the RC could qualify the source and toxicity of the wastes rather than using acronyms like HLNW which are actually ambiguous and misleading to the public.
Also the use of annual safe exposure time did nothing for all the US Vets exposed to depleted uranium ordinance for a minute. There appears to be as many "safe" levels of radiation as there are victims of radiation exposure. Where is the "expert witness" or do I Google "Yucca Mountain, safe levels of radiation" to get facts first hand and based on accepted science.
Billions of dollars for 100,000 m3 of waste which needs verification of toxicity sounds lucrative until you cost workers lives and a single spillage. BP paid 89billion for Macondo and even today did not have confidence in their technical expertise to drill the Great Australian Bight.
Did the proponents of this toxic nuclear waste facility consider anything except "billions of dollars"?
Put it in Canberra if it is so easy and so safe!
We can bury all the WMDs we found in Iraq at the same location!
Trust!

Jeffrey Frommelt > henry francis

22 Oct 2016

"Whilst this facility is being constructed, the material is stored in dry casks at an above-ground interim storage facility. "

Read "Disastrous Decisions" urgently!

Anyone can get the plans for a basic Rotax powered drone at eBay or scale a few photos for a few dollars and a GPS from any obsolete iPhone. The flight controllers are in any hobby drone kit. A recipe for nitro glycerine from Mr Nobel's biography or a long term angina sufferer and an esky filled with ice, could see a $300 WMD heading to the " temporary above ground storage facility" described by the quoted expert.

Oh BTW, a GPS permits a drone to fly very low at night and carbon fibre is not detectable on radar. Is this really how "the experts" intend storing "1000m3 of toxic nuclear waste" for forty years above ground or until the tunnels are built and filled with the filtered air, robots, cameras, drainage, paving, dust controls, containment areas, fire protection, armed guards, airport, lighting, security, training, safety, emergency people are standing almost motionless in a remote location for 200000 years.

Why do I feel like this facility will be a global disaster of biblical proportions ? Bophal was over in a few days not 200000 years.

One single depleted uranium spillage dooms Australia forever, just like Chernobyl or Fukashima except there will be 100000m3 of " Toxic nuclear waste" located at a single spot, not simply a few tons. Each m3 weighs 19000kg so 100000m3 is 19000000000kg of "toxic nuclear waste" in a single location.

Kakadu Uranium mine had almost 200 uranium spillages by experts! No prosecutions!

BTW $300 drones can fly near ships, ports, trucks, roads anytime! The cost of transport for "toxic nuclear waste" just leapt into millions $ per m3. Where is the profit? Imagine the cost of the robotics or safety!

Spent fuel needs cooling or it might go critical, so who tests it at every packing point or is it left to an honour system of testing?

Malgo Schmidt

16 Oct 2016

Msg received at the Anti-Nuclear Rally at Parliament House, Oct 15
From: Adnyamathanha Traditional Land Association RNTBC Aboriginal Regional Authority
“I am sorry I cannot be with you all today but I would like to thank you all for being here on behalf of the Adnyamathanha people.
The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) is totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallaberdina in the Flinders Ranges – in our yarta!
But this is bigger than just the Adnyamathanha people this will affect us all! Radiation is NOT racist.
We do not have the right to leave poisoned land for our future generations.
I don’t want to leave toxic land for my great grandchildren or yours. Thank you for standing with us today to stop this dump in Adnyamathanha Yarta.”
Vince Coulthard ATLA CEO
ceo@atla.com.au Ph 0429900222; PO Box 4014 Port Augusta 5700

Jeffrey Frommelt > Malgo Schmidt

21 Oct 2016

Campaign for the facility to be built in Canberra!

Nadine Schoen

13 Oct 2016

I am adding this review. Just for the record, I am entitled to my opinion, I have a right to express my voice and I do not appreciate being told that in order not to be called an idiot, I should educate myself. I am expressing my voice the way I wish to do so. I do not begrudge anyone else's opinion, I respectfully ask that no one else begrudges mine. Thanks.

Road Map: lnternational Nuclear Dump - Hurdles & Strengths:
Brief by David Noonan, lndependent Environment Campaigner
Premier Weatherill's lnternational nuclear waste dump target's Aboriginal communities
Nuclear waste affects the rights, interests and safety of all Australians and target Aboriginal communities in a threat to their country and culture. Their No Dump struggle is our cause,
South Australia is protected by the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000
OurState Parliament passed Legislation to prohibit the import, transport, storage and disposal of international nuclear waste under the political leadership of then Liberal Premier John Olsen.

The Objects of this important Act provide critical public interest tests for today's waste dumpers:
"The objects of this Act ore to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State."
The Premier's nuclear waste dump plan is to roll out over the next three years:
- Manufacture consent, make a political decision and take further steps in November;
- At a minimum: Repeal prohibitions on spending public funds on nuclear dump plans; o The Premier requires support from SA Liberal Party for pro-dump legislative changes;
- Federal Liberal government to go overseas to work up these dump plans through 2017;
- To pitch the claimed economics of nuclear waste as an SA ALP State Election agenda;
- In a likely 2nd round: Repeal the prohibitions on import, transport, storage and disposal of nuclear waste - otherwise no overseas party can take an SA nuclear dump option seriously;
- ln parallel: Undermine, try to change or break out from binding ALP National Platform oppos¡tion to the ímportation and storage of international nuclear waste in Australia;

There is no independent Nuclear Regulator in Australia and SA has a conflict of interest
The nuclear dump plan proposes sitting a Nuclear port and an above ground high level nuclear waste storage facility in Project Year 5 - before potential nuclear waste contracts in Year 6' This depends on assessment and approval by an lndependent Nuclear Regulator- that does not exist in Australia'
The current Federal nuclear regulator would requiré legislative amendments before it could claim to 'regulate' lnternational nuclear wastes. SA is disqualified from doing so by clear conflict of interest'
This senate can block any nuclear dump legislation up to the next Federal Election ALP, Greens and the Xenophon team can together block any pro-dump legislation in the senate
Four key themes in community concern over international nuclear waste dumping:
It is quite clear that there are 4 key concerns that have to be dealt with collectively. Failure to pass any of these tests should stop further consideration of a Nuclear Dump. They are:
1. safety of workers and community throughout the nuclear waste supply chain.
2. Flawed Economic assumptions
3. Aboriginal veto
4. Environmental and inter-generational concerns, risks and impacts

Safety is compromised by import of nuclear waste long before any disposal capacity

The Nuclear Commission proposed import of nuclear waste in Project Year 11' four years ahead of an agreed licensed disposal site and some 16 years ahead of any potential waste disposal capacity
SA faces the threat of a Nuclear port receiving nuclear waste ships every month for decades
Reality check analysis shows there is No Profit in Nuclear waste

South Australians are being misled by inflated revenue claims, untenable assumptions including globally unprecedented scale of dump plans and under reported nuclear waste costs & liabilities'
Nuclear dump plans are prone to fail- like Yucca Mountain in the USA, and end in debt not profit.

Future generations - importing international nuclear waste is an irrevocable decision
The nuclear waste would be here forever and remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years' our children will have no say in this decision hgt be left with this liability into the future '
The Campaign needs to mobilise mainstream community to oppose nuclear waste dumps

Countering the Premier's nuclear waste agenda requires mobilising SA community' working through the steps in who? when? where? and How? to engage groups across society on these issues'
We can all contribute to protect SA from nuclear dumping and build strength in our community'

For further info see: www.foe.org.au/import-waste & http://www.nodumpalliance.org.au/

Greig Ebeling > Nadine Schoen

13 Oct 2016

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” - Harlan Ellison

Siting of a nuclear waste repository DOES NOT "target" Aboriginal communities. The siting will occur, and will ONLY occur with the complete agreement and cooperation of indigenous communities.

"Safety is compromised by import of nuclear waste long before any disposal capacity". Incorrect, the above ground facilities are proven safe for up to 10,000 years, a dealy of a decade or two is not relevant to safety.

"Reality check analysis shows there is No Profit in Nuclear waste" - based on what? all data gathered to date shows that this will be a highly profitable exercise.

"South Australians are being misled by inflated revenue claims, untenable assumptions including globally unprecedented scale of dump plans and under reported nuclear waste costs & liabilities" - says who? Facts please.

"The nuclear waste would ... remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years" Incorrect. It will NEVER be dangerous, because of the careful engineering involved.

Jeffrey Frommelt > Nadine Schoen

21 Oct 2016

Why not employ a few WMD experts as expert witnesses ? They might even be able to explain "Gulf War Syndrome" to all future worker safety inductions and how toxic depleted uranium can be. A brochure to local residents in Hawker to explain "thyroid cancer" would be honest.
The site selection is based on predetermined and existing political networks, not careful engineering or safety.

Where are the research findings? Expertise?
Where is the EIS?
Where is the geological report refered to on p89 which mentions recently recorded earthquakes of over 6.0?

Most nuclear reactors are being decommissioned globally because of toxic waste disposal problems and the magnitude of risk when running reactors 50 years old.
Most civilised counties are taking children out of coal mines and going GREEN as fast as possible.
500000 people were effected by Chernobyl.

The USA spent billions scientifically researching Yucca Mountain as a Toxic Nuclear Waste Storage Facility and concluded "no" !

AREVA are going bankrupt after building many nuclear reactors and politicians think nuclear waste is a money tree.

Macondo cost BP $89 billion and it was an oil spill which is virtually undetectable now.

Not 200000 years.

The Russians engineered the T34, MIG, the first satellite, the first man in space, a buggy driving on the moon for decades, the first space station, Concord before the French, SMRs and Chernobyl!
The Japanese engineered Fukashima.

The Australians engineered 22kg of plutonium lying exposed to the wind in the desert unprotected and unguarded for decades and a cover up with dirt disposal at Vixen, Maralinga.

If it is so safe and easy to store toxic nuclear waste, store it in Canberra.

In Adelaide vineyards, growers are removing permapine trellis supports because the timber coating is toxic and residual.

Imagine a single nuclear waste spillage (Kakadu had 200 documented mine site uranium spills and no prosecutions) and the international wine buyers avoiding SA wines forever!

Chernobyl devastated the French wine industry for years.

Do a survey on winery or Riverland orchard owners and workers who want a "Toxic nuclear waste dump" Safety Stamp on bottles of fine wines.

200000 years contamination, nationally from a single spillage!

Gen IV reactors are designed with the intention of disposing of the toxic nuclear waste acceptably, so develop Molten Salt Thorium Small Modular Reactors ASAP! Gen IV reactors produce minimal toxic wastes and Gen 1,2,3 are being decommissioned, globally because of toxic waste and risk.

"Toxic Nuclear Waste storage" could be a terrorist Mecca for 200000 years!

Dispose of waste, don't store it.

mark anderson

11 Oct 2016

I would like to know why people are only discussing waste storage here. There is a lot of emotion surrounding this issue but there are three other areas of activity that were to be investigated by the commission and I don't see many references to these. It is obvious that a few posts here are based on opinion not fact. Please educate yourself. Start by at least reading the preface of the NFRC Final Report or the Summary Presentation.

Here is the first paragraph from the report. Read the rest and like me you might find yourself wandering through the whole report. Only with education can you form your own opinion. Don't be a sheep.

"The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission was established by the South Australian Government on 19 March 2015 to undertake an independent and comprehensive investigation into the potential for increasing South Australia’s participation in the nuclear fuel cycle, specifically in four areas of activity:
•expanded exploration, extraction and milling of minerals containing radioactive materials
•the further processing of minerals and the processing and manufacture of materials containing radioactive and nuclear substances
•the use of nuclear fuels for electricity generation
•the establishment of facilities for the storage and disposal of radioactive and nuclear waste."

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > mark anderson

14 Oct 2016

Hi Mark, thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Indeed the Royal Commission made 12 recommendations to which we as a community, and the Government, need to consider and it's important we do so. Recommendation 11 around the storage of used nuclear fuel and intermediate level waste was the key opportunity to which the Commission identified that we should discuss in more depth, and one that the Citizens' Jury in June/July identified as important. Therefore it is this which we are primarily considering, but in saying that, we welcome other recommendations to be examined by the community so please feel free to share your thoughts on these as you wish.

Nadine Schoen

11 Oct 2016

The only things I want to add here at this stage are: To those who support nuclear waste being dumped in South Australia, I ask whether you would be happy to put it in your back garden. If the answer is yes, then go ahead but I doubt that would be your answer. If you don't want it in your back garden, then why should any of the rest of us? I say absolutely no nuclear waste in this country full stop! I don't want to read that there has been an accident during the shipping process, the transport process or the dumping process. I don't want Aboriginal communities dumped on again and I don't want to be patronised about the economic benefits. NO NO NO! Anyone who has political consciousness would understand that the most insane decision would be to bring nuclear waste into South Australia. What is even crazier than this, is the fact that we mine uranium in South Australia and then send it to India (not a member of the proliferation treaty), to do what they want with it. Muckety Aboriginal community had to fight hard to get the nuclear waste barrels removed off their country because they knew perfectly well how dangerous it was. The government thought no one would notice because it was dropped on Aboriginal land in barrels that would rust over no time at all and then leak! It's disgusting how we, the people, are treated like idiots. The government has amnesia about who they work for! I don't have amnesia. I remember history. Nuclear waste material does not go away, does not just evaporate into thin air and does not promote health and growth from the ground up.

Claire Catt > Nadine Schoen

12 Oct 2016

I completely agree with your sentiments. It is truly extraordinary we are even discussion the importation of this waste.
The nuclear industry has had Australia as a dumping ground in its sights for many years. So far we have resisted but lets not be complacent because they are desperate and won't give up easily.
Our Government is seriously failing in its duty of care.

Please everyone come to the demonstration next Saturday, 11am in front of Parliament house!

Greig Ebeling > Nadine Schoen

12 Oct 2016

I have taken the time, and investigated the technology involved in storing the waste. Based on that, I would be completely happy to have this waste stored in my backyard. It is completely safe. Note: We are NOT talking about barrels that will rust and leak. If you don't want to be treated like an idiot, please take the time to understand this subject better before commenting.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Nadine Schoen

14 Oct 2016

Thanks for your discussion on this thread. Indeed this is an important topic for all South Australians to consider and discuss, but we ask that is done in a respectful manner so everyone can participate equally. The community guidelines for conversation can be found at the bottom of this page. Many thanks.