Community discussion: trust

The Citizens’ Jury looked at the choices which South Australia has around establishing a nuclear waste storage and disposal facility, identifying that trust, accountability and transparency are three vital elements. Share your views on why these are important to you, and what Government could consider further.

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.

John Collins

30 Oct 2016

At the ALP Convention on 29 October Peter Malinauskas acknowledged the protesters – then really got stuck in. He spoke of “us and them” painting the “them” (the protesters) as being driven by emotion while “we” (the Labor Party? The Cabinet?) have “an ideology supported by facts”. We are “the party of science” he said.
Talking of “us and them” and assuming a superior intellectual position belies the notion of respectful debate so often spoken of by the Premier.
Malinauskas’ characterisations of “us and them” clearly demonstrates that lack of trust in the present process IS valid.

Noel Wauchope

30 Oct 2016

Trust - hmmm How can anyone trust a process that began with the charade of the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission South Australia?

For a start - what a strange topic for a Royal Commission (RC) . RCs are called when there is an urgent problem, ?scandal to address.- child abuse, Aboriginal deaths in custody, detention of juveniles. I know of no other RC called to study a commercial enterprise. RCs are up until now, chaired by persons of legal knowledge and a legal background, generally retired judges. They are not chaired by military men. In this case, the Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce is a person of defence industry background and clearly a previous promoter of the nuclear industry - clearly biased choice for a clearly unsuitable topic for a Royal Commission.

The Weatherill government then set up a State wide blanket of promotion, (despite the law prohibiting such spending taxpayers money on such a nuclear promnotion. Then set up the Citizens' Jury process - designed to delay decision, and get some sort of claim to community support. The Citizens' juries were given loaded questions, designed to prevent any verdict, and to produce a veneer of support. Some of the witnesses were poorly informed and biased, especially in the First Jury sessions, on the subject of ionising radiation and health.

At the very worst, the Juries are expected to produce a report that says "Further discussion is needed" and certainly, by the wording of their questions - not able to produce a "NO to Nuclear Dumping" answer.

The surprising factor in all this, is - as far as I can see, the Weatherill government, the nuclear lobby, and the shonky Nuclear RC have underestimated the intelligence of the jury members. The took it seriously, and asked inconvenient questions.

Malgo Schmidt

29 Oct 2016

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

Malgo Schmidt

29 Oct 2016

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

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"...

Josephine Sando

28 Oct 2016

I say NO NO NO NO to the storage of other nuclear waste in SA. It makes no sense at all to me except as a cheap catastrophic response to the socalled dismal economy. Money is not everything. Life is.

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

Claire Catt

26 Oct 2016

Can anyone explain to me why Australia would want to accept the world's toxic waste.
Yes we have areas which are geologically stable but so have many other countries including countries who have chosen to go nuclear and are now facing the problem of waste, as they always knew they would.

We have no high level nuclear waste in Australia. It seems to me the importation of such dangerous material is clearly AGAINST OUR NATIONAL INTEREST. Hence the good laws still in place to protect the population from nuclear interests who would have us pollute our land in perpetuity for economic pies in the sky.

Our Governments, state and federal, need to do their duty and put Australia's interests first. We are waiting!

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!

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Malgo Schmidt

29 Oct 2016

Hi Malgo, we have responded to your post about this in the safety discussion board, for your reference. Thank you.

Malgo Schmidt

26 Oct 2016

Yeah, Claire. But at times he can be quite straightforward.

“Open State is about…being bold…risk-taking…giving people the permission to fail…”
Jay Weatherill, Oct 18, 2016 https://openstate.com.au/

Claire Catt > Malgo Schmidt

26 Oct 2016

Yes, he is taking risks with our taxes, our health and reputation, our children's future.
And if we fail, it's going to be catastrophic and irreversible.

Our Premier, reckless on our behalf and abandoning all duty of care! This is not what we elect our representatives for, surely.

Claire Catt

20 Oct 2016

Weatherill is stating today in the Advertiser he is asking the community 'its views on the establishment of a nuclear waste disposal industry in SA'.

It's not an industry he's proposing, just a dump in the outback. No sophistication there, just enormous risks and costs.

The discussion is bias and manipulated by the Government. Real information about the scale and dangers of this proposal are suppressed and the media is complicit.

The language used by Jay Weatherill is really creepy!

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

Peter Mahoney > Malgo Schmidt

25 Oct 2016

The amount of money being spent on the government campaign for this highly speculative proposal is criminal.

Peter Mahoney

17 Oct 2016

It is very difficult to trust a Royal Commission conducted by a former military officer and a large commercial consultant to the nuclear industry. It seems to me a bit like getting Coles or Woolworths to run a Royal Commission into milk pricing. The military culture is one traditionally based on loyalty and obedience, and is not recognised for its objective and dispassionate consideration of all angles. Our former Governor may be a very upright and affable chap, but it is difficult to believe he would hold an opinion contrary to what he has been told is in the best interests of his beloved State. You can't blame him for this, but it does not engender trust. The implausibility of the arguments for the proposals also do not engender trust. The long time-frames, massive up-front investments, and projected revenues are so incredibly speculative and unlikely that they are insulting. You cannot keep telling people that their problem is lack of education. The problem is the Royal Commission's absolute gall in presenting these as anything resembling even a distant relationship to facts.

Noel Wauchope > Peter Mahoney

18 Oct 2016

The Royal Commission and their promoters keep stressing that we all have to learn "the facts". Trouble is THE FACTS that they regard as reliable come mainly from nuclear experts. Even radiation oncologists like Michael Penniment are a bit suss - seeing that the further development of their industry depends on nuclear power.

It's a bit like expecting a team of bishops to impartially consider whether or not God exists.

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

Kym MacPherson

13 Oct 2016

Has any government in Australia ever successfully managed to regulate and provide a positive outcome to the citizens that those same governments represent? Think about how well governments already try to regulate basic utilities like power and water, banks, retail monopolies, trade agreements, media etc.

Claire Catt

08 Oct 2016

Since Mr. Weatherill suggests politicians should perhaps trust the people, I suggest it is high time for the State Government to stop meddling in this debate and stop pushing the nuclear industry's agenda.
This industry has been searching for a Government stupid enough to consider such a reckless proposition for years. No country, rich or poor, has found such a proposition acceptable. No doubt the nuclear lobby is overjoyed and perhaps somewhat baffled to find South Australia is listening and falling for their outrageous claims of safe management and riches.
If we are talking about trust, well I consider our Government is grossly failing in their duty of care towards the people and yes, I've certainly lost trust. They have lost my vote.

Simon George

06 Oct 2016

These are important to me, however, I'm already skeptical. I think that despite the reservations, it will be billed as a money-maker for the state. I'd rather we considered the ethical and environmental factors than economic.

J Wain

27 Sep 2016

Nuclear power is widely regarded as a necessary energy source to meet the increasing demands of the world’s energy requirements. Nuclear power is environmentally friendly in many ways; however it also requires natural resources to operate which brings with it its own set of environmental issues. In addition there is no means of eliminating nuclear waste, currently the only safe method of disposal for the majority of waste is to store it in geologically sound underground repositories. According to the World Nuclear Association, 31 countries in the world operate a total of 440 commercial nuclear reactors with many more under construction. The Open-pool Australian lightwater reactor (OPAL) in New South Wales is operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO); however it is used for research and medical purposes, not for commercial energy production. This submission will consider a compromise to improve the environmental footprint of the nuclear fuel cycle in addition to South Australia still receiving the economic benefits of becoming a storage and disposal site for the international nuclear communities spent nuclear waste. Such a compromise may placate those who are against the South Australian outback becoming a nuclear waste dumping ground. It is acknowledged that nuclear energy is a complex technical, environmental and societal issue and not all of the subject matter concerns can be discussed here.

A life cycle analysis of nuclear power generation demonstrates it is not as ‘green’ as it is often touted to be. Nuclear power plants produce zero greenhouse gas emissions and are safer than the mining industry; however uranium, as the primary fuel source for nuclear power, still needs to be mined and transported overseas which creates its own environmental issues. In addition, fossil fuels are still required to operate a nuclear power plant. It is acknowledged however; that nuclear power has a lesser environmental footprint than other energy technologies, such as coal. One of the most significant issues with nuclear waste today is storage and disposal with many countries having no disposal facilities for their own nuclear waste.

In addition to the 31 countries using commercial nuclear power throughout the world there are also 240 research reactors in 56 countries, such as OPAL in Australia, and many emerging nuclear energy countries on the horizon such as Vietnam and Belarus. Greenpeace International reports that in the year 2000, 220,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel was generated globally and estimates that this grows by approximately 10,000 tonnes per year. It is no wonder countries using nuclear energy are looking for geologically sound waste dump locations such as South Australia; however can the world continue to support such high levels of radioactive waste?

There are three levels of nuclear waste, low, intermediate and high. Australia does not currently produce or store high level radioactive waste. However, Australia already stores low and intermediate level nuclear waste produced at ANSTO’s OPAL site. This waste is shipped overseas to either the United States of America (USA) or the United Kingdom (UK) where it is reprocessed and returned to Australia for storage at various locations including the CSIRO at Woomera and the Department of Defence. Disposal of low, intermediate and high level nuclear waste in underground storage facilities is generally considered safe for the community and the environment. The depth and type of storage depends on whether waste is low, intermediate or high level. The Government of South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report considers storage of all levels of commercial nuclear waste from other countries, and from OPAL, within South Australia. The economic benefits to this are predicted to be significant for the state, in the order of billions of dollars; however public opinion of storing nuclear waste and the environmental and health risks involved are significant and around the world are generally outweighed by the science. However, these risks could be minimised by changing the technology of nuclear reactors.

Since the late 1950’s, shortly after nuclear energy was introduced, a range of different methods have been experimented with to find better, cheaper and safer ways of producing nuclear energy. One such method, the molten salt reactor (MSR), has been researched by many countries including the USA, France, Russia and Japan and more recently in China and India. Now seen as a viable option, research and development continues today to perfect the technology. MSR technology is considered to be safer in many ways, including having a higher tolerance operating temperature than water cooled reactors and offering lower vapour pressure, avoiding the explosions caused by steam from water cooled reactors. In addition, MSRs are also more economical to operate than water cooled reactors. Importantly, MSRs can generate much less waste.

Light water reactors produce around ten tons of waste per year whereas MSRs only produce 1.5 tons per year. Transatomic Power Corporation in the USA report they are less than five years away from completing construction on their first fully operational molten salt reactor nuclear power plant. Given how close this is to being operational, Australia, or more specifically, South Australia, has a real opportunity to get behind MSR technology, as a safer and more environmentally friendly energy source, and support a nuclear industry which produces less waste and is much safer for the environment. If South Australia was to only consider disposal and storage of nuclear waste from MSRs the South Australian government would be perceived as supporting ‘green’ technology, and the environment, by offering a reduced risk of contamination from radioactive nuclear waste with significantly less amounts requiring transport and disposal. In addition, with countries such as Vietnam and Belarus expected to move into the nuclear industry, Australia has the opportunity to encourage them to build MSRs as opposed to water cooled reactors, thus offering a better way of providing the energy needs of an ever growing world population. This would again strengthen the ‘green’ position of the government and benefit a global population.

Perhaps this compromise for South Australia could create a win-win situation globally. By agreeing to only dump waste from molten salt reactor nuclear power plants producing much less waste, South Australia could still reap the economic benefits of disposal. Given Australia already stores its own low and intermediate level waste, the benefits of storing MSR waste are likely to outweigh the negatives. Conceivably then, those against a nuclear waste dump site in South Australia could consider this compromise for the greater good of the world. This may also go some way to reducing the perceived or real risk from the general public in becoming a nuclear waste disposal site for other countries.
(Note: my full list of references needed to be removed to be able to submit this piece)

Tony Glasson

21 Sep 2016

I suggest you all read a book called "Maralinga" by Frank Walker, it highlights the apalling lies told to the Australian public over the Nuclear tests in the Aussie Outback in the 1950 and 60's.
This must never happen again......

Lan Kelly

20 Sep 2016

I have mixed views on the waste dump (may as well call it by the common name!) On the one hand, it could help the world be a safer place by storing dangerous waste in a stable manner. On the other hand, I think the nuclear industry should be phased out across the world and nuclear weapons decommissioned. How to reconcile both views? If the dump is to go ahead, there should be a strategic vision that takes the notion of a safer world as a guiding aim - not economics. If that is the goal, then morally ambiguous purely economic pathways will be avoided. Plus, "a safer world" is an easier sell than "SA is becoming the world's nuclear waste dump because we're broke and desperate for cash." Store the waste in the safest, most secure manner (NOT barrels of liquid waste) that won't cause problems for future generations. And remember, the ultimate aim would be that eventually there would no longer any waste needed to be stored since there would be no longer be a nuclear industry.

Susan Storm

20 Sep 2016

We have already been forced to have a dump that everyone said was safe - it explodes and is eventually going to seep into the gulf - it seems no-one in government cared about this fact - why should we get rid of other countries wastes - we are not the only country with dry arid land - don't want it here at all - regardless of how much money it would make for us ... it isn't safe and yet we will be told like the dumps yes it is safe - what a load of crock.

Jeffrey Frommelt

19 Sep 2016

Maralinga
Plutonium "spillages", exposing people to nuclear waste as guinea pigs, etc
The clean up effort is described in the Wikipedia article. Biomedical disinformation is an interesting pursuit. It involves contaminating recorded data and then producing a result which is fabricated. Look at Hiroshima radiation research.

Jeffrey Frommelt

19 Sep 2016

Kakadu Uranium Mine.
Over 200 spillages of uranium process fluids or diesel or contaminants in a "World Heritage Listed" Park. How many prosecutions? How many clean ups?