Share your initial thoughts on the Royal Commission's Report

Your comments will help us to understand your initial thoughts and concerns and will support the development of a broader conversation with the community.

Comments closed

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke

25 Jul 2016

Hi everyone, this discussion board is now closed for comment as we launch four new topics for the community to participate in. You will still be able to read through the conversation however comments are disabled. We look forward to continuing the discussion on the new boards.

Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

The entire Process from the Government instigating the Royal Commission through to the charades they have now progressed to of the community consultation and the have your say circus and now the circus continues to roll out to regional areas with one objective and that is to tick the relevant boxes so they can in turn try to convince the public they have had their say or at least had some input when the actual truth is the whole sorry saga was corrupt from the start and they hope to be able to railroad the community into accepting this corrupt system in my opinion they will be sorely mistaken and the Australian public are quite a bit smarter than the Government give them credit for Mr Weatherill and his colleagues should start packing now because their departure will be swift when the Australian people march onto Parliament House and call for his removal.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

Hi Christopher, thanks for your feedback. The purpose of our state-wide consultation is to visit as many communities around South Australia as possible to give everyone the opportunity to learn more, and provide their feedback to our consultation team. We need to consider the choices we have as a state and make a decision, which is why we are undertaking such an extensive process.

Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

The majority of Australians are against Australia becoming the TOILET BOWL of the Nuclear Waste Industry and they do not want Australia to become THE WORLDS TOXIC NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPING GROUND and this is Evident by the Governments reluctance to allow Australians to be able to voice their disapproval at the ballot box and instead are hoping to use deception and lies to fulfill their Filthy Toxic Agenda

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

Hi Christopher, we understand you are passionate about this cause but we do remind you (per our community guidelines) to be aware of the number of times you post the same comments, with respect to other community members on this forum. Unfortunately if this continues, you will no longer be able to participate in the discussion. You can see our community guidelines here: http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/community-guidelines

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

About time!

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

Yes many forums out there and some with a much greater reach than this circus.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

Brooke I'm glad your impartial and not biased in regards to those that have posted the same regurgitated stuff time and time again but then again Steven McColl is pro the Propoganda Brooke but that's my perception Brooke

Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

The whole concept of Safety is a complete lie and is purely based on guessing and best case scenarios and we know how that panned out for Fukushima don't let these EXPERTS (idiots) turn South Australia into THE WORLDS TOXIC NUCLEAR DUMPING GROUND it's not worth putting at risk the future generations and their ability to have a safe clean environment to thrive in for the promises made by greedy individuals with their own self interest at heart.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

How many deaths from nuclear waste toxicity Christopher?

How much power is generated in a waste containment?

How many tsunamis have made it to central Australia?

Hint: The answer to all three is ZERO.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

Christopher, do you want to come clean on your complete lie? It's taken some time, but I have the numbers, and I apologise in advance (and tell you because you might not notice) but I seem to not have details on two deaths. Nonetheless, deaths WORLDWIDE KNOWN to be caused directly by actual acute radiation syndrome. (Excluding the devastating losses of life at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - because no rational database in the world includes them - and whatever Australia builds in terms of the nuclear fuel cycle, a bomb will not be a part of it).

From 1944 to 2010 the numbers are thus:

Total 108-127.

Somewhat spongy, but that's due to 24-41 of the number being medical overdoses, variety of reasons, indeterminate age of source, poor calibration, change of source not being noted before dose admission, etc. Not great, not even good, but worldwide a much, much, much greater number of medical patients would have been OD on assorted other drugs for all sorts of reasons. You'll have to forgive me if I state that I think worldwide those working in nuclear medicine have been extraordinarily diligent in keeping their contribution to the death count so low... None of these deaths were due to Uranium or Plutonium.

Accidentals (and the reason a SECURE waste repository is so required URGENTLY) 20!! Most of these occurred either by theft of sources in use or shortly out of use (3 in Thailand was quite newsworthy recently), mistaken collection of source (by people who do not know it is not simply 'scrap metal', and frighteningly 4 deaths in Mexico and 4 deaths in Brazil after former medical sources were stolen from their storage locations in hospitals (sound familiar to something I have said ought be avoided here?). None of these stolen sources were Uranium or Plutonium, mostly Co60, the very source I used to have on my desk...

Chernobyl killed 28, a reactor in Japan (I won't name it, but not Fukushima) killed 2, 3 died at an experimental reactor in the US.

3 died at Los Alamos, unfortunate, but not the safest or most informed of locations at the time. It was all pretty new, cutting edge and OH&S wasn't what it is today.

27 have died due to reactor accidents on SOVIET SUBMARINES - hardly relevant. I am sure even Christopher will agree to events on land at a storage containment?

Then there's the most famous case of acute radiation syndrome yet recorded, Alexander Litvinenko, criminal poisoning not by Uranium or Plutonium, and such a death is not likely to occur in a storage facility.

So in 56 years the total death count is actually not that high, South Australia alone has about that number killed annually in road accidents. No one would be regarded as sensible if they declared over and over and over again, IN ALL CAPITALS, that we should "BAN TOXIC CARS AND TRUCKS!!!!!"

Very few (likely no) industries could celebrate as few as 127 fatalities WORLDWIDE in 66 years!

That's the upper range, take out the medical ODs, irradiation from stolen sources, and Litvinenko, and it's 63 deaths worldwide in 66 years. Worldwide, less than one death per year, it's fashionable (and truthful) to say 'but even one death is too many' but how many industries worldwide can actually claim less than one over 66 years?

Take out the Russian submarine accidents because it's certain we are not building a Russian nuclear submarine in central Australia, 39 deaths in land based, ARS deaths, three of them at Los Alamos when the total safety surrounding the weapons test were dark glasses that most didn't wear, and no deaths anywhere at a waste containment site...

To say 'it's not safe' or 'it's too dangerous' is simply 'not true'.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

When you have to bury High Level Nuclear Waste for several hundred thousand years before it reaches a level of safety and we do not have the ability to guarantee the publics safety for that period of time then yes Aaron it's unsafe the Government and the EXPERTS (idiots) who have vested interests at heart will say and do anything to get their Agenda which is to become the toilet of the world's Nuclear Waste Industry and only when those that regurgitate the lies of the Propoganda machine can be honest with themselves and the public that this risk is far too great to push ahead with this Filthy concept

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

Did you note how many of those deaths were due to containment sites? NONE.

Note that some of those deaths (20) could have been DIRECTLY AVOIDED if proper, secure, storage had been in effect.

Secure nuclear waste facilities SAVE lives!

Steven McColl

24 Jul 2016

Christopher have you read the NFCRC yet?

What is a moderator?
.

Why is it that fast neutron reactors don't use a moderator?
(such as the partially successful but terrifying Alpha-class submarine having a cruising speed of 42 knots).

.

- what is a Alpha radiation? No idea.

.

- what is Beta radiation? No idea.

.

-what is the highly penetrating Gamma wave radiation? No idea.

- Can the metamorphic or sedimentary rock hundreds of metres underground offer shielding for an underground nuke waste module?

- And if you are so worried, will you be living down there?

Christopher Huckel > Steven McColl

24 Jul 2016

Steven still playing your infantile games when the real crux of the problem is there is no HLW Dump that has been successfully and safely operating anywhere in the world. Thankfully the Propoganda machine is failing the Government and as such the public opposition to this Filthy Project remains in the majority and is growing daily.

Aaron Morley > Steven McColl

25 Jul 2016

Carlsbad - New Mexico.
Morsleben - Endlager für radioaktive Abfälle Morsleben-ERAM - Saxony, Germany.
Wolfenbüttel - Schacht Asse II Mine - Lower Saxony, Germany.

There are others too. In France, China, Russia, Sweden, USA, UK, those above are merely the best examples of operational, or formerly operation sites similar to what we could have in Australia.

Care to post the death count from those facilities Chrsitopher? Or perhaps you could just document the disasters occurring at them?

Aaron Morley > Steven McColl

25 Jul 2016

La Hague? We could have one of those here...

Christopher Huckel > Steven McColl

25 Jul 2016

Democracy

Donand Mercado

24 Jul 2016

Finally, someone is creating a solution to the HLW problem! Stand up to those wacky enviro nuts and use the science to do it right. And they are starting to do it all over the world! YESSSS!!!!

Christopher Huckel > Donand Mercado

24 Jul 2016

Yes People are Standing up to the Nuclear Power Industry like never before and with the advent of social media it's making it much harder for the Pro Nuclear Radicals to keep perpetuating the lies and it explains why today No country anywhere in the World Has an Operating HLW Dump yes the Nuclear Power Industry dirty little secrets have been building up around the globe with no end in sight.

Aaron Morley > Donand Mercado

25 Jul 2016

Carlsbad - New Mexico
Morsleben - Endlager für radioaktive Abfälle Morsleben-ERAM - Saxony, Germany.
Wolfenbüttel - Schacht Asse II Mine - Lower Saxony, Germany.

There are others too. In France, China, Russia, Sweden, USA, UK, those above are merely the best operational, or formerly operation sites similar to what we could have in Australia.

Care to post the death count from those facilities Chrsitopher? Or perhaps you could just document the disasters occurring at them?

Christopher Huckel > Donand Mercado

25 Jul 2016

Let the people vote

Steve Charles

24 Jul 2016

Abandon the idea of turning SA into a nuclear waste dump. The potential benefits have been overstated, and the risks understated. Who would want to visit a city that is host to a nuclear waste dump?

Donand Mercado > Steve Charles

24 Jul 2016

No they haven't. It's very cost effective, and safe.

Christopher Huckel > Steve Charles

24 Jul 2016

The cost benifits are all based on assumptions the science as you put it is actually projections which is putting in data to generate the outcome your after no scientific bases whatsoever and to make the statement of ( it's safe ) currently there is no HLW dump that is operating anywhere in the world therefore there is no data to establish the it's safe Propoganda that the World Nuclear Organization is perpetuating.

Aaron Morley > Steve Charles

24 Jul 2016

Steve, someone else who's not read the NFCRC report?

What city will be hosting the facility?

Steven McColl > Steve Charles

24 Jul 2016

Scaremongering drama by someone trying to link unrelated facts to the proposal by the NFCRC.

So what is an isotope Steve Charles?

.

No idea.

.
What type of moderator were used in the Generation II Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) of Daiichi and Pripyat?

Where is Pripyat?

.

How may milliSieverts go into your mouth at the dentist?

.
No idea.

.
What is a Sievert?

No idea.

NAVAL NUCLEAR:

Why is it that all US and UK submarines are fueled by Uranium-235?

No idea.

.

What is Uranium-235?

Ignorant on this topic.

.

- Steve are you saying that Naval reactors in Washington DC is wrong?

- Steve are you saying that the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command (NNPTC) in Goose Creek South Carolina are wrong?

Are you saying Admiral Hyman Rickover was wrong?

Are you saying that President Carter was wrong to meet and give due credit to Admiral Hyman Rickover?

Are you saying that President Eisenhower was wrong to learn the lessons of the Battle of the Atlantic?

.

Please read the NFCRC report.

.

Please stop scaremongering.

.

Ignorant on this topic.

.

And what are you solutions to the consumption of trace actinides?

.

What is an actinide?

.

No idea.

.

Why do you think that some Generation IV reactors facilitate multiple fuel feeds?

.

What is a fuel-feed?

.

No idea.

.
And why is it at that some Generation IV reactors have a breeding ratio greater than 1.0?

.

So are you saying these Gen. IV reactors are not renewable energy?

By the way there is no such thing as 'clean energy' please read your Physics and Chemistry books.

.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

.

From which law of thermodynamics?

.

Also do not go out in the sun and get any of (what type of nuclear energy)?

.

Ignorant on this topic.

.

Also please do not use your Sat.Nav.

.

What type of fuel is used for Voyager and other satellites?

.

Ignorant on this topic.

Steve are you an Electrical Engineer?

.

The Greens dancing in the bottom of the garden will be very happy drinking their kool-aid.

The Greens don't need lights: they imagine the flashes in their eyes are the lights.

.

.

Steven McColl > Steve Charles

24 Jul 2016

Steve you may read the NFCRC report.

Aaron Morley > Steve Charles

25 Jul 2016

Steve are you an Electrical Engineer? - Most probably not, but I am...

Steven, this is a good sentence:
"The Greens don't need lights: they imagine the flashes in their eyes are the lights."
I think we could do with an RC into why we let South Australia be led down the garden path to having the most expensive, least reliable, power in the nation. South Australia should never have allowed so much wind to enter the market at the expense of our much needed base load generation capacity.

The wind generators are all about making money, and they exceed at doing two things: dump dangerous peak generations into the grid/NEM and suddenly cease production. This sometimes requiring the draw of in more than an entire back up thermal plant of energy to prop up the network.

When wind over produces it's sold nationally and the plant owners pocket the money, when wind production spikes to zero and a thermal plant has to fire up instantaneously to keep our lights on WE pay a fortune for the energy.

Maybe nuclear thermal power IS required here after all. We can always export all wind and our excess nuclear to the east, so they can shut down their brown coal thermal.

Christopher Huckel > Steve Charles

25 Jul 2016

It might shock you Neanderthal's that the majority of Australians are against this Filthy Project to turn South Australia into THE WORLDS TOXIC NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPING GROUND but that is the case and if you could use the last Federal Election as a guide you will come to the conclusion that the majority of Australians are not Greenies as you put it or Nay-Sayers but just average people who put the Safety of their fellow man and the Safety of Australia above any short term promise of riches because the RISKS are just too great.

Aaron Morley > Steve Charles

25 Jul 2016

Where do you propose we get our caseload power from then?

Aaron Morley > Steve Charles

25 Jul 2016

Base load power...

Christopher Huckel > Steve Charles

25 Jul 2016

Terrified of giving the people their Democratic Rights

Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Finland government gave approval in 2015 for the construction of a HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP on an island called OLKILUOTO population 0 that's correct zero population they hope to have the HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP ready to begin Dumping nuclear waste by the year 2023 Finish Authorities are hoping by the year 2120 they will stop Dumping High Level Nuclear Waste and be able to bury the Facility then after SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS if everything goes as planned the EXPERTS pray that after SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS THE DUMP HOPEFULLY WILL BE SAFE and sadly we all know how wrong the EXPERTS have been with their guessing and theories over the short term now we have to trust the EXPERTS get it right over SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS what could possibly go wrong.

Donand Mercado > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Excellent! A solution is at hand! Some day science will figure out how to de-activate radioactive material and all will be right with the world. And it WON'T take thousands of years. LLNL is already working on it.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Well let's wait until they discover this miracle before blindly following.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

We already have the technology, Pu is consumed in fast breeder reactors, more to the point, we can now make reactors that do not produce transuranics in the first place.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

All lies Aaron when you consider the major players in the Nuclear Power Industry want the Enriched Plutonium to protect their power base and make more Warheads.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

There's a glaring mistake in my 'still awake at 5am' reply if you knew anything about the topic you'd see it. I'll let you point it out...

All lies? The major players in nuclear power industry want enriched plutonium ... [to] ... make more warheads?

How about correcting a lie of your own straight away... What in the world is enriched plutonium? Where would I go to find that? And what exactly (so I can discern the difference and not be ripped off buying the wrong one) is unenriched plutonium? And because it's you, can you comment on the difference in toxicity between the two?

If the plant operators want the Pu for 'their' weapons, why is it that about 1/3 of the world's nuclear energy production COMES FROM Pu? Surely it's much to important to weapons than to be used in such mundane ways as to generate power?

You know that energy production is most often not about plutonium for weapons, you've given yourself the answer any times, over and over and over again, you keep naming a power plant that was using Pu as fuel. One time at least you even managed to use the correct term for its fueling 'MUX' - or did you not actually know what that means?

You're a nonsense talker Christopher, I have before mention several times that one of the reasons to store waste product here is to prevent some weapons proliferation. Remember me telling you what Russia and tin pot dictatorships will do with 'waste' handed to them? Suddenly you're all concerned about the proliferation but against one of the simplest methods of avoiding part of it...

How does it feel having the pickets from the fence spike your butt every time you jump from wanting to support Russia's weapons industry to wanting to end proliferation?

Lastly, I will leave you with this to investigate, what kick backs from the weapons industry get do the owners of Throrium fueled MSR receive? More importantly, what would that kickback even be paid for?

We await your learned and considered response.

Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

There is currently NO HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPS IN THE WORLD THAT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED TO DUMP HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE

Donand Mercado > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

No time like the present to start.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

They used your Logic when constructing Fukushima and look how that turned out.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

If they used your logic Christopher we would have ANYTHING! EVERYTHING has a first.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

If the world was to use your logic Aaron it would be uninhabitable

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

And if it were to use yours, humans would be walking on all fours too scared to try standing for the first time. Living without dwellings because building the first 'abode' might be too dangerous. Not cooking food, because you know, first fire bad and all that. Whatever it would be we were eating it would only be one thing, because we have to stick only to what we know, not try new things.

Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

NO TO TURNING SOUTH AUSTRALIA INTO THE WORLDS TOXIC NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPING GROUND

Donand Mercado > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Australia, a leader in technology, science, logic and innovation. Go get 'em!

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Must really upset you Donald knowing that your in the minority.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Donand

Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

Nowhere can you Safely Dump HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE it is an Extreme Risk to Dump HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE anywhere in the World but that risk goes up Exponentially to the Population that has to live in the State or Country it is Dumped in. The Nuclear Proponents have been busy lobbying our weak and corrupt government officials for many years and they are hoping this time they will be successful in turning South Australia into one of the most TOXIC PLACES ON EARTH if we are unable to put a STOP to this INSIDIOUS FILTHY PROJECT TO BECOME THE WORLDS TOXIC NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPING GROUND.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

Exponentially! Wow Christopher, this is a big moment for us - you've managed to name a mathematical function!

Now tell us how you arrive at this exponential risk to the state or country.

Can you tell us what an exponential relationship looks like?

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

Aaron be honest with everyone explain your vested interest in the project or as they commonly put it your conflict of interest with this Disgusting Project it's time you came clean Aaron

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

I don't have any interest whatsoever.

Why don't you declare your educational background?

I said once (or more) before, that I have no link to anything nuclear, anything mining, anything to do with this project. Go looking.

I have studied nuclear science, learnt about radioactivity, particle physics, quantum and a bunch of other stuff incidentally, by virtue of what it is that I have had study in my core interest.

Currently my interest is in a very narrow field of engineering relating to EMR. You will probably want to suggest a link to the NFCRC project because, yes I deal in 'radiation' in terms of EMR, but in some sense you 'see' part of my EMR and yet you do not fear the colour red giving you eye cancer.

My radiation is due photons, black bodies and quantum stuff beyond the scope of here. The radiation you are scared of is somewhat different, but I'll leave you to work out how and why.

What do you do Christopher? What have you learnt and more importantly ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED that provides you with your ideas?

BTW, where's your explanation of this exponential relationship?

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

That explains everything Aaron your whole life has been devoted to science and as you put it a narrow field of engineering EMR which I'm guessing is electromagnetic radiation unlike yourself I've experienced quite a diverse package of life experiences from farming to the harvesting of radiata pine through to shark fishing in the Northern Territory and cray fishing in Tasmania to a mechanical repair business in South Australia and Hotels business in rural NSW to Hotel in Port Adelaide and Port Elliot so I've had the pleasure of dealing with a diverse cross section of the public which has taught me that ones ability to empathise with another's circumstance and to be able to look at things through another's perspective wether one may agree or disagree with those perspectives or not is besides the point but to take into account and to respect the opinions of all for the greater good of the people rather than the I know what's best for the people. This has been compounded even more so because of the need to contain HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE for thousands of years so in actual fact we are making decisions that will affect many generations to come when those that made those decisions will not be around or be possibly affected by those decisions in the short term and when I take this into account my answer and the only answer that I can responsibly come to is NO we cannot turn South Australia into the Worlds Toxic Nuclear Waste Dumping Ground because the LONG TERM RISKS far outweigh any short term financial gain.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

That's my current 'CV' appropriate to this topic, I have done way more than that in my life.

The point is, I know what radiation is, it was clear to most of us before I asked the question that you do not.

Still no word from you on that exponential relationship...

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Aaron you still refuse to enlighten us on a High Level Nuclear Waste Dump in the world and if such a Dump has any proven history of storing High Level Nuclear Waste and if so how long have they been Dumping High Level Nuclear Waste into this Dump. Your silence speaks volumes Aaron

Donand Mercado > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

There are high level wast storage sites all over the USA and not a single person has been hurt by radiation from commercial nuke power in the 400 reactor-years they have been operating. NOT ONE! that's a pretty good track record, and enough to show it is a proven technology.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

That's a blatant lie research Fukushima and Chernobyl

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

There is no permanent HLW site in the USA no one wants to take the risk that's why they have paid trolls trying to convince other countries to take their trash.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Calsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico.

Other places?
Morsleben - Endlager für radioaktive Abfälle Morsleben-ERAM - Saxony, Germany.
Wolfenbüttel - Schacht Asse II Mine - Lower Saxony, Germany.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

That's Wonderful Aaron and how many decades of data do we have to reference from or is it that they have dug a hole in the ground so we should be just as stupid as them and do the same PFFFT..........

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

Do you want to claim they don't exist? Or that they don't work? How many people killed at these facilities Christopher? You're fighting a battle on what is rapidly becoming less and less territory for you.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

Still waiting on the exponential explanation?

Megan Riley

22 Jul 2016

Let's talk economics, the only argument that governments find persuasive:

If storing nuclear waste is so lucrative how come those countries who produce it aren't doing so?
If nuclear waste can be stored safely and effectively, won't other countries get on board and then under-cut South Australia because they can cut out shipping costs to the other side of the world?
If spent nuclear fuel is so safe how come those countries who produce it aren't storing it?
If the technology to store nuclear waste safely doesn't exist, how come South Australia thinks it can do so safely?
Why does it seem to be a good idea to store this nuclear waste in volume and concentration unheard of in the history of the planet? Surely 'spreading the risk' by each country that produces the waste making their own arrangements is better for the health of the planet.
World markets are volatile - how can any economist predict how much countries will be willing or able to afford to pay for transport and storage of this waste in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years' time?
Taking on this toxic waste and storing it safely becomes South Australia's problem for hundreds of thousands of years - how can anyone guarantee that level of safety or the untold billions of dollars that it will take to keep this storage facility safe [from geological, meteorological and even ideological [terrorist] events]?
Nuclear fuel was seen as 'the next big thing' 40 years ago and yet the technology and the take-up of this fuel has NOT advanced in the way predicted. Why would anyone believe these 'next generation' reactors are just around the corner? Even the Royal Commission itself found that nuclear production of energy is unviable for the state. As it is unviable, less money will be spent in research and development and there's less chance that 'clean' solutions to this poison will ever be found. Meanwhile, SA is left with the world's largest pile of toxic waste to maintain for perpetuity.
How much will it COST to build a storage facility?
How much will it COST to maintain this facility in perpetuity?

I believe these are very valid concerns which have not adequately been answered by the Royal Commission. However, I believe the ethical considerations have much more weight.

The State Government will lose all credibility on Indigenous matters if it goes ahead with this nuclear facility. Both the state and the federal government are treating the outback as 'terra nullis' - an empty expanse full of 'nothing' where this waste can be stored out of sight and out of mind. They pay lip service to Aboriginal concerns but do not truly grasp the idea of connection to country. All of us, as human beings, are connected to country in a very real way. We can't exist if our air and our ground and our water is polluted.

To quote EF Schumacher: The nuclear lobby "is a transgression against life itself, a transgression infinitely more serious than any crime ever perpetrated by man. The idea that a civilisation could sustain itself on the basis of such a transgression is an ethical, spiritual, and metaphysical monstrosity." Why? Because nuclear fission [and it's waste] "represents an incredible, incomparable, and unique hazard for human life" which "does not enter any calculation and is never mentioned."

Like Midas, the Royal Commission is seduced by the idea of untold riches and it lacks the ethical, spiritual and metaphysical backbone to resist the nuclear lobby.

Aaron Morley > Megan Riley

23 Jul 2016

Megan, it's just easier for me if I quote a bunch of your questions with answers.

"If storing nuclear waste is so lucrative how come those countries who produce it aren't doing so?" - Possibly several reasons, most usually, they may not have suitable geology.

"If nuclear waste can be stored safely and effectively, won't other countries get on board and then under-cut South Australia because they can cut out shipping costs to the other side of the world?" - This is similar to the above, other countries cannot 'undercut' us if they do not have the requisite conditions to create the facility. I think I actually saw this covered in the NFCRC, have a read of it.

"If spent nuclear fuel is so safe how come those countries who produce it aren't storing it?" - See above two.

"If the technology to store nuclear waste safely doesn't exist, how come South Australia thinks it can do so safely?" - It does exist, nuclear flasks are not new, and Finland already has a pretty good example of an underground repository, likewise the french.

"Why does it seem to be a good idea to store this nuclear waste in volume and concentration unheard of in the history of the planet?" - Good question! I like it. The volume is not a problem, and 'concentration' in the strict physics definition is actually LOWER than what you would find in a nuclear reactor. There's a reason this is 'spent fuel' the energy density (what you might call concentration) is much, much lower than when this fuel was in use. I'll let you into a secret, this is one of the reasons I occassionally ask posters something like 'by what mechanism do you expect criticality to occur'. Criticality (in lay terms is what keeps the reactor going, spent fuel cannot generate criticality anymore).

"Surely 'spreading the risk' by each country that produces the waste making their own arrangements is better for the health of the planet." - This is an opinion question, and I actually think spreading it about makes the issue worse, not better. 'Spreading the risk' means spreading security, spreading the need for tracking and reporting', lots of undesirable outcomes from this.

"World markets are volatile - how can any economist predict how much countries will be willing or able to afford to pay for transport and storage of this waste in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years' time?" - Good question, I am not an economist, best directed to them, safe to say though, it's pretty likely we will be well paid.

Sadly, I am out of time, hope I can answer some of your other questions later.

Christopher Huckel > Megan Riley

23 Jul 2016

Aaron for someone who acts like an Expert your lack of understanding on the word safely is quite a concern can you show us where and which country has been safely storing HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE for the past 100 years I'm guessing you have no data on this and yet we are meant to trust our incompetant government and the fools who parade around as so called Experts that spew the Propoganda of safety and storage when it comes to the most dangerous substances known to man.Aaron no country has successfully stored HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE for 100 years how can you in all honesty expect that we could do it for 1000 years or 10,000 years or 100,000 years NO Aaron it's not worth the risk and that's exactly what it is an extreme high level risk.

Aaron Morley > Megan Riley

23 Jul 2016

Christopher, it is quite clear that you have not even the slightest idea of what engineering or science actually is.

You don't know what 'apocalyptic' means. You don't know what 'toxic' means. You don't know what the planet would look like in an Eocene climate, OR what will get the planet to have such a climate OR even why such a climactic event will be looked at during the site selection process. You wouldn't know what 'metres per second squared' were used to measure. You don't know a Sievert from something you'd remove lumps from flour with. You sure as hell don't know what a nuclear reaction looks like, and if someone mentioned a nuclear reactor being in 'critical' condition, you'd most likely think it had been in a car accident or something.

What do you even use to determine 'dangerous' I could gaurantee you (and everyone else, myself included) have metals and chemicals in your/our houses that are much more dangerous than contained waste is.

Why do you keep commenting with rubbish? When it's vastly apparent your knowledge on this topic was exceeded 200 years ago when we used to let the women who made glow in the dark clock faces LICK their paint brushes having dipped them in radium based paint.

Aaron Morley > Megan Riley

23 Jul 2016

Gah, 100 years ago for the radium painted clock faces and licked paint brushes.

Christopher Huckel > Megan Riley

23 Jul 2016

Aaron I have obviously struck a nerve with your inability to show us where they have safely contained HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE for a period of 100 years is it because to date they haven't SAFELY DUMPED High Level Radioactive Waste anywhere in the world for 100 years and yet you continue to say how safe it is to do so when it's plainly obvious this is a blatant lie and just pure hypothetical guessing.

Aaron Morley > Megan Riley

23 Jul 2016

Learn some science we are well beyond hypothesis here - or do you not understand what science means by hypothesis either Christopher?

Christopher Huckel > Megan Riley

23 Jul 2016

Where have we Safely stored HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE for 100 years Aaron.

Aaron Morley > Megan Riley

24 Jul 2016

Where have we had need to store it before the 50s Christopher?

Christopher Huckel > Megan Riley

24 Jul 2016

Typical Aaron like the powers that originally perpetrated this atrocity onto the world they to did not see the need to be able clean up its waste and after 66 plus years are still unable to Safely clean up its waste safely like the EXPERTS that said what could possibly go wrong at Fukushima and look at the EXPERTS now is there a published paper we can refer to about remediation of the Fukushima site NO are they able to remediate the site at Fukushima NO can they remediate the site with our technologies and EXPERTS today NO should we trust the Royal Commission NO should we trust the EXPERTS that gave misleading one sided information to the Royal Commission NO should South Australia or Australia for that matter ever contemplate a HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP NO NO NO

Aaron Morley > Megan Riley

24 Jul 2016

Christopher, again, by what mechanism can you see a tsunami hitting central Australia? By what mechanism can you see critical reactions occurring in a waste facility? Can you tell us one, just one, storage site where a critical reaction has been known to spontaneously (or even non-spontaneously) occur?

Until you can understand the FUNDEMENTAL DIFFERENCE between waste storage and energy production facilities, PLEASE refrain from commenting.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Megan Riley

25 Jul 2016

Hi Megan, thanks for joining the discussion and sharing your thoughts and concerns. Many of the countries who currently have waste don't have the geological attributes to store the waste in a deep geological repository, among other potential factors which may include space and/or political stability. The NFCRC report did note that SA had a unique combination of attributes that offer a safe, long-term capability for the disposal of used fuel in a geological disposal facility (Chapter 5 of the report covers this in detail).

Based on the economic modelling (baseline scenario) by the Royal Commission, the facility would generate $257 billion with costs of $145 billion. These cost include a $32 billion reserve fund to cover maintenance, closure and remediation.

In regards to your point about consultation with the Aboriginal community, we do want to assure you that the deep connection that Aboriginal people have with the land is central to our consideration of the Royal Commission's report. Our engagement team will, over the coming three months, visiting over 30 Aboriginal communities around the state to talk to, and learn from, their experiences.

Thanks again for your comments. This forum will close shortly but feel free to join us on one of our new discussion boards.

Penny Campton

21 Jul 2016

The most upsetting thing about this whole proposal is that the same people who gave us Maralinga (the British Atomic Agency) are behind this push for a waste dump. Should we trust these people after what happened at Maralinga? Should we put up our hands again to be guinnea pigs? This whole process is flawed- and an expensive exercise in denying us our REAL rights- the right to say no. ... The language used, the lack of transparency, the refusal to investigate the people posting here under false names… The whole process is rotten to the core. Brooke, what real effort have you made to ensure only real people post here? Very very easy to use a false name, and you know this. As easy as it is to create a false Facebook page, and we know how easy that is. Why don't the mediators give their real names? Why do we only know you as 'Brooke and the team'? Why do you feel the need to hide behind a first name only? Where is the link that tells us who you are and what your credentials are? How do we know that you are neutral?

Steven McColl > Penny Campton

22 Jul 2016

Penny have you read the report yet?
Dear if you read the NFCRC report you will see the proposal has nothing to do with Maralinga- you make good contributions here but are trying to link unrelated facts to the NFCRC proposal.

Steven McColl > Penny Campton

22 Jul 2016

Penny you have a lot to offer; why not put something in writing and post to your local Political member?

Christopher Huckel > Penny Campton

22 Jul 2016

Must really annoy you Steven when it's obvious you and your team have lost the narrative.

Christopher Huckel > Penny Campton

22 Jul 2016

Steven you have nothing to offer why not just pack it in or are the financial kickbacks or possibility of financial gain for yourself the reason you keep banging the drum for the Pro Nuclear Lobby please enlighten us on your obvious vested interests in this Filthy Disgusting Project Steven.

Christopher Huckel > Penny Campton

22 Jul 2016

Dear Steven why don't you contact your local member.

Aaron Morley > Penny Campton

23 Jul 2016

Penny, why are you so concerned with what 'Brooke's' credentials are? I have not seen you tell us yours...

'Brooke' likely is her real name, and she's likely just another government employee doing a job she may, or may not, actually have an interest in, but most was most likely just assigned to do by her boss. Pretty much what I do at work, 'whatever my boss dreams up for me to do for the day' - it's not as though we often have a choice.

Aaron Morley > Penny Campton

23 Jul 2016

Christopher, I bet your local member has you labelled as a vexatious correspondent!

Christopher Huckel > Penny Campton

23 Jul 2016

Unlike yourself Aaron I'm not head and shoulders up my local member like your good self.

Aaron Morley > Penny Campton

24 Jul 2016

In all honesty, I wouldn't even know who my state MP was, nor do I care.

Aaron Morley > Penny Campton

25 Jul 2016

I was just thinking about this contacting a pollie thing... I don't even know (or care) what SEAT I am in!

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Penny Campton

25 Jul 2016

Hi Penny, firstly, there is no connection at all between the Royal Commission or the Consultation and Response Agency and the agency involved in the Maralinga testing - this is incorrect information. To address your point regarding false accounts, registration via YourSAy requires a range of unique credentials and also requires the user to agree to the YourSAy terms of use, which talk about the legalities associated with having an account. In regards to the moderators of this site, we are from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency and our role is to monitor all conversations and help everyone understand the findings of the Royal Commission's Report.

Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

South Australia The Worlds Nuclear Waste Dump thankfully the People won't allow this to happen no matter how much the Nuclear Propoganda Machine and their minions try to coverup and hide the real risks to our Environment and Future Generations.

Steven McColl > Christopher Huckel

22 Jul 2016

More ranting from the emotional weak who do cannot even tell an isotope from a proton - ignorant.

Steven McColl > Christopher Huckel

22 Jul 2016

Christopher my friend have you read the NFCRC report yet?

-
Still waiting Christopher for one fact such as:

What is Alpha particle radiation?

What is Beta particle radiation?

What is Electromagnetic radiation?

And still haven't told us all what a moderator is.
-

All we get is the continual emotional ranting, as the NFCRC proposal moves further forward.

No idea.

Ignorant on this topic.

.

If you are so passionate do you not have the confidence to write to your local member?

.

Just a blogger.

Steven McColl > Christopher Huckel

22 Jul 2016

Christopher ignorance is no defence for a narrative; we can all read the NFCRC report, thank you.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

22 Jul 2016

I'm glad you can read Steven now if you could only use that information to actually base a rational argument on than your continued ranting about Alpha Beta or Gamma radiation only when you manage to access and use your frontal lobe might you find that you can evolve like the rest of us.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Christopher, if you chose to use any love you might be able to 'intelligence' like the rest of us.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Lobe

Donand Mercado > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Oh, but he's been a farmer, so knowledge of Health Physics must be extensive.

Donand Mercado > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

And as you can see, he has to resort to personal attacks because of his lack of knowledge on the subject and his position is so weak and unsupportable. The resort of the desperate.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

How are the trolls today Donand if that actually is your real name and not some alias that allows you to hide behind.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Donand if it wasn't for farmers certain individuals would have died out years ago those individuals that think the food chain is Coles or Woolworths lol

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Thankfully, those educated enough to know what ionising radiation is and how to use and contain such are also sufficiently aware of where food comes from.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

If that was the case they would never contemplate putting our Environment at risk of Contamination

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

What food do we grow in central Australia?

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

See I know it doesn't come from there

Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Aaron it's got nothing to do about a persons race or religion or sexual orientation or the level of education a person has its all about Australians being given their Democratic Right to VOTE even if we don't believe that those persons opinions differ from ours or they differ from the government it does not make a scrap of difference it needs to come to a vote not just for South Australia but all of Australia everyone needs to stand up and have their say and the government needs to abide by that vote and if they feel opinions might change in the future well you have another vote but at no stage should the government of the day ever contemplate becoming a Dictatorship turning us into the WORLDS NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

It's called analogy and similar situations Christopher, less posting, more looking up and understanding is required.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Aaron you still are unable to grasp that the person can have an opinion and vote even if that person lacks the ability to be able to put the long term benefits of the population ahead of the short term financial gains of a few or that same person has no real grasp on what they are to vote on they are still entitled to vote much as this might upset you.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

I do grasp that, that's why there's an education program first, 'vote' if it happens later. You're missing part of the arguement though, we elect governments to make decisions on our behalf. Ever voted on lengths of incarceration for those who break laws? Ever voted on where housing developments and roads are built? Governments do stuff on behalf of their public everyday (well several times a year at least) and we don't vote on everything.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Your still missing the point Aaron when the government is in the process of turning us into THE WORLDS NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP these important decisions need to be put to a National Vote.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

State government...

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Yes Aaron I'm fully aware it's our State Government that is seeking to turn us into the worlds nuclear waste dump but I believe this decision should involve all of Australia as it can impact all of Australia when something goes wrong as it will.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

How an you know something will go wrong? You cannot predict that.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

It's not a prediction it's based on facts and past history when the government is involved something will always go wrong.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

You're talking about the future, it's a prediction.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

An extremely accurate forcast

Shane Feast > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Aaron you need to stop using the heavy drugs you must be on.. So much out of reality must be good stuff

Steven McColl > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

Shane you're no oil painting. Have you looked in the mirror lately? Aaron is one of probably just doesn't want to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Shane, so what are your engineering solutions to waste atomic fuel?

Any thoughts about the Molten Salt Reactor that receives actinide feeds?

Shane Feast > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

Put the TOXIC waste at fucashima.. Chernobyl. They are already contaminated with no population at the moment and for many years to come... And to your other comment go fck your self

Penny Campton > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

Aaron Morley- an 'education program' sounds disturbingly like the programs used by Pol Pot and Hitler and Stalin. Another name for this type of 'education program' is propaganda- getting the masses to believe what it is you want them to believe.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

22 Jul 2016

Shane, Fukushima, if you're going to be scared of it, at least spell it correctly.

Shane, by what mechanisms do you expect a waste repository to be able to self sustain critical reactions? Please inform us!

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

22 Jul 2016

Penny, really, please do not do the EDUCATED people of Cambodia who were exterminated by Pol Pot the disrespect of comparing their issues with this. Likewise those unfortunate enough to deal with Stalin.

We're talking educating the public on the basics of the nuclear fuel cycle, like understanding a nuclear reaction, knowing what an isotope is, some basic chemistry so that the nation doesn't look silly continuously misusing words like 'toxic'. I mentioned that this education would occur in the form of pretty coloured flyers and TV ads because the general populous of this country is sadly not able to comprehend much more than that.

The nuclear commission people are not going to be strapping drink bottles to their feet and killing people wearing glasses. Do not be so disingenuous.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

Steven, I have never been affraid to battle wits with the unarmed... I am (un?)lucky enough to do it often.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

Aaron Penny is absolutely correct and yourself and your mate Steven who continue to push the Propoganda only reinforces her statement that your so called educational process is actually just Propoganda.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

You think global warming is a hoax Christopher? That is pretty much QED on your intelligence for me.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

I expected you to follow the doctrine instead of actually investigating anything on your own Aaron you obviously still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

I don't believe in anything that doesn't have evidence.

Just so you know, I don't believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, a god or deity of ANY kind, or that any person has experienced the toxic effects of plutonium or uranium.

Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

The South Australian government is now launching a publicity blitz with at least 100 "community forums" across the State. It's about time that they came clean and told us how much this massive pro nuclear advertisement is costing the tax-payer

Aaron Morley > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

Never complain about the cost of education, it's what separates us more than anything for those of the dark ages...

Christopher Huckel > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

Its not Education the Government propaganda machine is regurgitating it's a form of brainwashing without actually truthfully informing the public on the real Agenda and the actual Countries and Nuclear Corporations behind this deception.

Aaron Morley > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

Name the countries and corporations you think are behind it then. Enlighten us with your researched knowledge.

Christopher Huckel > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

Aaron if you honestly believe that the government have acted on their own volition without the lobbying of Nuclear Corporations and the country's and states that are behind them you are delusional.

Aaron Morley > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

NAME THEM! You're making these statements, BACK THEM UP! You don't know what you're talking about.

Aaron Morley > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

'That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence'

Saying something like 'corporations or countries are forcing this on us' REQUIRES that you substantiate these claims with NAMES of said corporations and countries. You can't name them because there is no forcing here.

Christopher Huckel > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

Aaron you obviously have no conception of business if you believe the government have undertaken this venture without being lobbied you need to become more politically aware maybe they could run a political awareness program for beginners.

Aaron Morley > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

So you have no names, so it's never happened.

Christopher Huckel > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

Aaron if you have the time scroll back through the feed and you will see not only did I disclose the country's and the companies behind this I also gave their updated information when the first company was outed and they were forced to change their name

Christopher Huckel > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

It's very easy to actually find the list of our government representatives labour and liberal that have been meeting with these companies and lobbying on their behalf.

Aaron Morley > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

By all means then, don't make this difficult, easily look up the list and TELL US!

Christopher Huckel > Noel Wauchope

20 Jul 2016

You are better to stay in your little bubble called Aaron's reality than for me to burst your bubble Aaron and upset your infantile perception of our Government and exactly how they are lobbied on behalf of companies and individuals with vested interests

Steven McColl > Noel Wauchope

21 Jul 2016

Noel can please you tell us something basic about Nuclear energy like what is an isotope from a neutron?

Steven McColl > Noel Wauchope

21 Jul 2016

Noel?

Ignorant on this topic.

Aaron Morley > Noel Wauchope

23 Jul 2016

It would seem so.

Christopher Huckel > Noel Wauchope

23 Jul 2016

Still working as a tag team I see boys I suppose you boys operate like this on a regular basis.

Aaron Morley > Noel Wauchope

24 Jul 2016

Never met anyone from this forum before in my life. Hopefully that will continue to include you Christopher.

Christopher Huckel > Noel Wauchope

24 Jul 2016

Given your Narrow minded short sighted views on the short term financial gain for the guaranteed long term financial and ecological risks to Australia I'm not surprised you have problems of a social nature and an inability to socialise. I can only hope that one day we can get together for a drink and a chat and broaden your social skills Aaron

Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Please read the post from the Consultation Team Member Brooke below especially the piece where she states that the Commission has said that allowing the Public Their Democratic Rights to be able to VOTE on this important issue is not a reliable indicator of the Publics ongoing consent in other words wether we like it or not these so called EXPERTS are going ahead with this proposal. What a Disgraceful and Disgusting attitude the Commission and Government have even worse when you think of the Millions of dollars of tax payers money that is being handed out to all those involved in this corrupt and contemptible charade.

Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

If the discussion forum is anything to go on it's been a resounding WIN for those against this Toxic Proposal I'm certain it would be the same at the ballot box that might be why the Pro Nuclear Lobby with vested interests and the Government are desperate to make sure it doesn't come to a Vote.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

People who celebrate ignorance have always worried me, Christopher you are the champion of the ignorant.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Hi Christopher, we are listening to your concerns and take note of your point around voting on the issue rather than a community consultation process. As we've touched on in your previous posts, Chapter 6 of the Royal Commission Report looks at social and community consent - in particular the importance of 'ongoing' social consent​. In this context, the Commission identified that a public vote on a proposal is not a reliable indicator of this ongoing consent.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Brooke you are spot on the Commission believes that a public vote would not be in their favour so they have decided to circumvent this Democratic process and this is the reason we need a Royal Commission into the Royal Commission the corruption needs to be exposed and all those involved need to be held to account.

Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Aaron why is it that you don't want Australians to vote on the issue surely you don't think you know better than most of Australia surely your not that conceited that you think Australians don't deserve the right to Vote on this issue of turning our State into THE WORLDS TOXIC NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Christopher why are you so keen to vote on a complex topic of which you are so ignorant? Before going to 'a vote' people must first be informed on that which they are voting.

The US only managed to end slavery by the point of a bayonet and a war.

Why do you think it took until the very late 19th to early 20th century before women were emancipated by giving them the right to vote?

Why do you think it took until 1967 before 'the people' could come to grant Aboringinal peoples the right to vote? We changed the nation's currency quicker than we managed to realise the need for Aborignal voting!!!

Voting does not work until the 'public' are sufficiently educated into knowing what they're voting for and why. Right at the moment Christopher, you look like one of those men standing ready to vote saying 'Women, what the devil would we want them to have a vote for?' Fortunately in time even if you won't change your mind, most others will come to understand the risk and benefit, changing their mind.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Let's put it to a vote

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Let educate you first...

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Ph.D. Is Not required to vote in Australia last time I checked Aaron but then again we are not all as highly educated as some on this forum that believe they are Experts. From what I've managed to glean from some of these individuals is they are completely detached from reality with no concept of empathy and being completely out of touch with humanity but that's just my Opinion Aaron.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Those detached from reality are those that think we can have a future with 'no nuclear' - sound familiar?

I have never suggested you need a PhD to vote, I have posted before that I for one don't hold a PhD - waste of time in my field really unless I want to spend my life in academia. I digress, what we need before moving to 'a vote' is a public that has been sufficiently EDUCATED to have an INFORMED opinion, rather than a merely a series of emotions based on fear not fact.

If we let a public, fearful of Aboriginals 'vote' on giving the Aboriginal people rights before they knew why such rights were required, or if we let men who still believed that women were for raising families and cooking or cleaning, not to be heard and whatnot, this forum would only contain the views of a few white, male property owners.

Women wouldn't be here on this forum, in the jury, being heard. Dr Read (do you know who that is?) wouldn't have her job, let alone her say, Sarah Hanson-Young wouldn't be in Parliament, you'd never have heard of her, she wouldn't be campaigning or anything.

The white males that gave women the right to vote, did so because women (and society in general) EDUCATED them as to why the women ought to be able to vote. White Australia voted to allow Aboriginals the right to vote too, but only after a large EDUCATION and AWARENESS program highlighting why this was the correct path. We're still regretably not at the end of the path in terms of Aboriginal rights, but we're slooooowly getting there, so too 'gay' rights. It's a process, we need to get to the 'right time' to take 'a vote'.

This RC was about seeing if there was a potentially viable industry to explore, turns out there is. The jury (a poor choice of label for the group I think) was about seeing what '50 random people' felt they 'needed to know' to be making more informed choices in regards to the nuclear fuel cycle. They weren't there to 'rubber stamp' the commission's findings, they were there to highlight what the public might need/like to be educated about, and how best to do that. Re-enrolling the entire population in year 11 physics (and chemistry so as to know the difference) through to a completed three year bachelor's degree in physics/science or four years of engineering (as much as I'd love for Australia to do that) is just not feasible. Instead, you'll get ads and pretty flyers with limited information and pretty pictures, because somewhat sadly, that is the general standard of education out there. Hopefully even this 'pretty things' education will be enough to open enough minds.

I am not out of touch, completely or partially, I know what humanity needs to survive, and I know the best methods to achieve that survival. We will need nuclear medicine and nuclear energy going forward, else we will all be dying of cancer, cold and insufficient and/or poor quality food - that is if you survive crossing the bridge of undetermined quality steel to make it to the shop or doctor's office.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Humanities Survival is based on clean drinking water and a clean food supply which could be put at risk if we continue down this path of becoming the world's toxic nuclear waste Dump

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Yes, we so actively crop these areas being canvassed for waste storage don't we.

What do the French do at Bure, and what do they make very nearby just a short trip down the road to there? - I have seen both industries.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Obviously your intelligence and ability to predict thousands of years into the future you have factored all possible scenarios into this project Aaron and just like Fukushima it could be a chance in a million and look where the Experts are now unable to prevent the ongoing radioactive waste leaking into the world environment with absolutely no idea on how or even if they will ever be able to mitigate this ongoing catastrophe and if we have the right earthquake/Tsunami again it could be catastrophic for humanity.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Crustaceans and whale bone fossils found around the world in some places up to 800 feet above sea level what would happen Aaron if through some Apocolyptic event the Earth was inundated with such dramatic rise in sea levels how could this affect the Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump and what would be the ramifications if this did occur one chance in a million maybe it would be a bonus for us outa site outa mind just the reason the Nuclear Companies want to Dump their Toxic Nuckear Waste in Australia outa sight outa mind.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

If an apocalyptic event occurred, the presence of anything, and I do mean anything, anywhere is going to be of no concern.

You do know what apocalyptic means don't you?

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

There might be fossils 800 feet about sea level, but two things have occurred since then (incidentally, 'then' was likely Eocene, about 34 MILLION years ago), some land has risen due to techtonic action and the water has retreated to ice caps.

So, if we burned all of the world's fossil fuels, and a good quantity of trees etc as well, and waited (or took) 5,000 years do it, we'd be back with an Eocene climate, and no ice on the planet, and an average temperature roughly, maybe 27C 'ish' higher than present.

If all of the world's ice melted (most surely partly because we gave up nuclear energy) the sea level increase on current would be about 215 metres, not quite your 800 feet. No ice caps, eastern seaboard of Australia, 90% of the current population base or so won't be there. It's actually a remarkably small strip of land, but it won't be there.

The planet would be warm, likely too warm for humans and our cousin species, the greenhouse effect would be generating some pretty impressive flora species, CO2 in the atmosphere would be likely toxic (yes I mean toxic) for humans.

Little of SA would change, sure, current beach front property will need to be inhabited with assistance from scuba gear. Central Australia would likely gain an inland sea, but the areas being scouted for a nuclear facility would be (oddly for you I am sure) still above water.

So my advice, not that Christopher will take it, accept nuclear energy, the heat death of the Eocene like climate will kill near all, or all human life. To put this in perspective, if Australia gets 43C days now, increasing the temperature by 27 gets us to 80C days, we will be just about literally cooked!

With all that happening western central to Western Australia will still be dry, possibly if you can imagine it, drier than even now, and still above water.

The nuclear waste containment will have survived longer and better than humans.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

Stupid board, how can you have a science based discussion when the first four letters in homosapiens cannot be posted in isolation... It's the name of our species genus.

Substitute our unmentionable genus for 'humans and our cousin species' above.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

For those who actually care, this is what Australia would look like at MAXIMUM sea level rise. It is unlikely that any of our extant genus, let alone our species would be living to see an event like this.

http://s.ngm.com/2013/09/rising-seas/gatefold/RS_Web_AUS_12.5M_v3.jpg

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

Like you said Aaron after humanity is wiped out the Filthy Toxic Radoactive Nuclear Waste will live on your own statement should ring a few alarm bells but then again those with vested interests in this project are unable and unwilling to put their fellow man and future generations above their own needs and are happy to take risks with the health of humanity and our ecosystem turning South Australia into the Worlds Filthy Toxic Nuclear Waste Dumping Ground only benefits those in the Northern Hemisphere that are Desperate to unload this Toxic Material on us at any cost at any risk and they will continue to lie about all aspects of this Filthy Industry to make this happen but thankfully they have misjudged the Australian People if they think this is a done deal they will be surely mistaken and any Government that tries to ram the Nuclear Power Industry Agenda through won't be in office for very long .

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

Humanity will not be wiped out by radiation, more likely H0mo sapiens sapiens (that's us if you don't know evolutionary biology either Christopher), will evolve into a new species, sure H s s will cease to exist, that's a natural thing, we are privileged enough to know some other species will evolve out of us.

The nuclear waste repository will benefit far more than just the mere northern hemisphere, incidentally, it's a pretty good thing even IF that is the ONLY benefit. Do not be fooled, of course it will benefit the southern hemisphere too! Do you not think there are no nuclear products being used in the southern hemisphere, just pause and properly think about that for me (us) before you unthinkingly reply.

After that, then consider this, suppose Russia (and some other tin pot dictatorships) continue to be the only places to take nuclear waste and use the products to nuclear proliferate. Consider that properly, (I said properly Christopher) do you really not suppose that Russia could not pass on weapons grade material to some nation (or group of people) with a bee in their bonnet about Australia or some other southern hemisphere country?

Do you really fancy that? A potentially not so amatuer built nuclear weapon made from (instert miscellaneous country here)'s waste in Russa then on sold to whomever to send anywhere in the World? See, I do not fancy that.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

Also, I never suggested that 'humanity' would be wiped out by nuclear energy, that's your false premise Christopher, it is far more likely that 'humanity' will be wiped out by the heat death that will occur as we continue to burn fossil fuels.

Just in case you missed it Christopher, here it is requoted again from my second paragraph.

"So, if we burned all of the world's fossil fuels, and a good quantity of trees etc as well, and waited (or took) 5,000 years do it, we'd be back with an Eocene climate, and no ice on the planet, and an average temperature roughly, maybe 27C 'ish' higher than present."

Fossil fuels -> Heat death. No mention of nuclear there, nuclear energy is one of the potential PREVENTATIVES, not causes.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

Have you worked out what 'apocalyptic' means yet?

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

Aaron don't tell me your one of the few who actually believe the global warming rhetoric when it's obvious that it was all a ruse and we are in actual fact entering a cold cycle or are you going to argue about that.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

You do not believe the climate is heading toward (or actually already in) a catastrophic warming period? Wow you are stupid.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

No unlike yourself Aaron I prefer to not go along blindly like yourself and I believe we could possibly be entering a period of solar cooling but then again I'm not an EXPERT like yourself so I still have the ability to think and not just become another sheep like your good self .

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

I am actually pleased that you know something our star and the potential coming Maunder minimum you probably need to know that anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse effect will outstrip the cooling of the solar cycle. In short we need to take steps to get CO2 (and actually H2O is worse) out of our climate, at the very least we need to reduce emissions, nuclear energy is a big part of that.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

You still have not told us about that apocalyptic event Christopher and what will cause it and what will be left after it.

Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

Christopher, two posts per day for the last two days essentially saying the exact same thing... "Let me vote"

You have nothing to say about radioactivity other than you think it's toxic when it's not, and that you're scared of it even when you don't know what it is?

Nothing to say Christopher that actually means anything? No facts articulating your fears?

Steven McColl > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

Alpha particle radiation.
Beta particle radiation.
Electromagnetic radiation.

Sievert.

Steven McColl > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

Christopher please tell us about these?

Christopher Huckel > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

Steven you obviously believe your an educated man of the world how do think the people feel that had to leave their homes in and around Chernobyl and Fukushima do you honestly think they were concerned about Alpha or Beta or Electromagnetic or was it they were concerned more about how the EXPERTS and GOVERNMENT lied and put their lives and future health at risk instead of being honest and upfront those in charge chose to minimise the actual true extent of the danger what's commonly referred to as a Coverup only to find out the lies years later when it's all too late for those that were exposed to Toxic levels of Radiation. So in answer to your question Steven when you can empathise with the people directly affected and only when you can put the communities Safety above those involved in this disgraceful push to turn South Australia into the Worlds Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump when the decisions we make affect not us but future generations to come will I bother to play your infantile little game.

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

I don't think many people leaving their homes near our proposed nuclear waste repository need be too concerned about alpha, beta (or you missed one, gamma) emissions. They won't be living near the place, there will be no critical reactions occurring and the facility DOES NOT produce energy. THIS IS A FUNDEMENTAL DIFFERENCE! Understand it!

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

Christopher, what a 'toxic level of radiation'? No such thing.

Christopher Huckel > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

Toxic level is the level reached when it becomes Toxic for the human body to continue to be exposed even the robots they have used at Fukushima cannot survive for long in the Toxic Environment so much so they have yet to be able to get photographs of the missing hundreds of tonnes of HIGH LEVEL TOXIC NUCLEAR FUEL

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

'Toxic level is the level reached when it become Toxic for the human body to continue to be exposed'? Wow - an etymologist's nightmare.

Toxic to robots?! I have never seen an LD50 for robots...

Christopher Huckel > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

Yes even the robots don't want to go near it lol

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

Robots have no cognition.

Christopher Huckel > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

yes you are correct Aaron robots have no active brain function similar to the Experts that said nothing could go wrong with Fukushima.

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

23 Jul 2016

I rather suspect you might be a robot Christopher, you've generated no evidence of having cognition.

Christopher Huckel > Aaron Morley

23 Jul 2016

Aaron when are you and Steven going to be honest about your vested interests in this Filthy venture.

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

24 Jul 2016

I have not got a vested interest in this.

Christopher Huckel > Aaron Morley

24 Jul 2016

So you and your place of employment don't hope to recieve any type of financial return if this Filthy Project gets off the ground are you so certain Aaron

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

25 Jul 2016

Quite certain, why would they?

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

25 Jul 2016

If nuclear kickbacks are so prevalent and so lucrative can you please go looking for mine Christopher? All the cheques from the industry to me appear to have gone missing in the mail.

Christopher Huckel

19 Jul 2016

The Pro Nuclear Lobby are terrified of allowing Australians their democratic right to vote on such an important issue they would prefer to tell us that they know what's best for all of us. Have the EXPERTS ever been wrong well yes they have Fukushima is a case point and the EXPERTS don't know how to fix it do we really want to allow the EXPERTS to destroy our state for a quick dollar.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

19 Jul 2016

Pro the nuclear lobby (whatever that even is actually I don't know) are not nearly as terrified of democratic votes. Those with the terror are generally those (youself being a prime example Christopher) without any specific knowledge of anything nuclear. People don't like me saying it, but it's actually true, by definition 'fear without cognition is irrational' - to be fearful when you don't even know what you're fearful of is irrational.

It's not about quick dollars, exactly the opposite of that, it's about LONG TERM dollars (you your very self keep mentioning hundreds of thousands of years Christopher) it's actually nowhere near that long, but nonetheless this is a long term project with long term money attached to it.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Aaron for someone who thinks he is so intelligent your numbers don't add up over the long term especially when the containers begin to break down and leak over the long term but then again your narrow minded short term view on Toxic Nuclear Waste and your deluded belief that our Government can handle it over the long term when you and I won't be around over the long term just the future generations to come that will be forced to live with this Toxic Legacy Aaron.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Christopher, your posts are non sensical! I have never given any of my numbers to add up...

If a containment begins to break down, and this is exceedingly unlikely, but hey, just to humour you I'll run with the idea, IF a containment begins to break down, don't you think we would simply move the stored product into a NEW container? Really, you think it's more complicated than that? If you actually knew what a contained pile of waste looked like you wouldn't be posting such rubbish.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Aaron the only reason Nuclear Reactors were established in the first place was to allow the worlds super powers the materials needed for Nuclear Weapons nothing more nothing less it was more than a decade later they decided to use them to generate electricity. If the containers which are stored above ground for the first 120 years start to leak it won't be our generation left to clean up the Toxic Legacy but many future generations to come if the Toxic High Level Nuclear Waste was so safe why is it that they want to Dump it on Australians and not Dispose of it in their own Countries.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

What does the original purpose of nuclear reactors have to do with this? The reason power generation came after the war was wartime (especially World War II time) was not a good time to go building nuclear power plants. It wasn't until Fermi got CP - 1 to critical that anyone even knew what was required to sustain a nuclear reaction. Fermi as great as he was didn't initially get the calculations right, and he managed to produce self sustaining reaction before he thought he would. That's the reason CP - 1 was not 'finished' - less material was required than thought.

During the war science found a way to bring about the end of the war. Those experiments and the subsequent production of the nuclear weapons of the day (extremely crude devices) enabled science to understand the amounts of fuel required (thanks to the great Oppenheimer, Einstein, Fermi, and Feynman etc) to operate a thermal energy plant.

Sure nuclear energy production started in seemingly nefarious activities and crude experimentation, but things have been very much more refined than that now. The world of nuclear science and engineering has moved on from the 40s and 50s.

Early 'medicine' started in blood letting, early contraceptive studies and testing began in Hitler's concentration camps, early human trails of the wonder drug penicillin were hiddieously devised and killed people before they managed to save anyone. We don't today abandon medicine, 'the pill' or antibiotics do we? Why is nuclear energy necessarily treated any different?

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

'Their own countries'? We've been over this before, there are already countries, Russia and potentially some tin pot dictatorships HAPPY to take waste from countries without suitable GEOLOGY to store their own waste. These countries (and we will just go ahead and name Russia) gleefully accepting the waste are using it in their own reactors to make further nefarious products from the waste CONTRIBUTING TO PROLIFERATION. Australia has the largely unique ability to safely take and store the wastes, keeping it out of the hands of those who seek to do further evil with it.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Aaron you cannot safely take and Dump High Level Radiactive Nuclear Waste that's the whole reason this charade the Government has entered into to try and fool Australians into the false belief that it is safe when we all know this is totally false and so far from the actual reality of Dumping High Level Radioactive Nuclear Waste onto the Australian population

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Christopher, you're tiring even me, read the report, we can store the waste securely, we can transport it safely, we already do, our HLW already travels to France for processing and back for storage. You're saying we cannot do things we are already doing, that's kind of a weird technique for argument.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

We do it with our waste we are responsible for our waste at no stage should we contemplate on becoming the world's toxic nuclear waste dump.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

Is that because it's too dangerous to transport international waste? Or because it's too dangerous to store it here?

You see Christopher, HLW is HLW, it matters not where it is sourced from, it all behaves the exact same way, that's the best thing about physics, it's predictable.

If we can store our own HLW, and we can transload our own waste (site, truck, ship) and transship our waste (Australia, France, Australia) all safely, as we already do then what is so dangerous about doing it with foreign product? Going from some site, to a truck to a ship in another country is no different, and going from that country to France to Australia is also no different to what we are already doing.

Same products, same transports, same processes, same safety measures. What's the difference?

How's this difference? Australia does not safely store product, other nation sends their HLW to Russia, they take waste and use different processes to produce plutonium and other weapons grade material from it, nuclear proliferation, leading to a different world... Want to see that difference?

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

It's sad that you want an Industry that was built on the Destruction of humanity to continue to proliferate if your love of Nuclear Waste is so great I would suggest moving to France Aaron there you could live out your life surrounded by this wonderful Material or moving to Fukushima you could volunteer in the clean up a real hands on experience but I'm guessing even if we could crowd source for your ticket to get you on the front line so to speak your attitude of Toxicity would change when you are actually asked to clean up very similar to if we allowed them to Dump this Filth here and there was a leak and all those in favour of this Filthy Project were made to clean it up.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

22 Jul 2016

My attitude to toxicity doesn't need to change and won't, name a paper that mentions people dying from Uranium or Plutonium toxicity... It's never been known to happen.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

24 Jul 2016

Nagasaki and Hiroshima both contained Uranium and Plutonium 80,000 to 100,000 killed not too mention those that were afflicted with birth defects and cancers for many generations to come Aaron

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

None of that is due to toxicity though! If you knew physics or chemistry you would know this.

You have a semantic error in your statement too. Nagasaki and Hiroshima didn't both contain uranium and plutonium. The Nagasaki weapon (Fat Man) contained plutonium and the Hiroshima weapon (Little Boy) contained uranium, neither contained both.

I will also be honest and tell you I think you've underestimated the number of fatalities too. I have said before, we must never trivialise what the Japanese went through at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but we must also understand the vast difference between a bomb, a reactor, an energy plant, a reprocessing plant and a storage facility.

I don't accept the trivialisation of these events in history, but I also do not accept that they have anything at all to do with a waste repository discussion.

Christopher Huckel

19 Jul 2016

Democracy let Australia vote

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

19 Jul 2016

That's fine, we can arrange that, just one qualifier on the voting slips, each slip must contain a random question about some nuclear concept, get the question wrong and your vote is invalid.

I am not afraid of the voting Christopher, but I suspect you might be afraid of the learning...

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Yes Aaron try to keep Diminishing Australians right to vote based on your narrow minded thinking unbelievable how you continue to think your smarter than the rest of us when your posts clearly show your lacking.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Christopher, show us some fact! Get youself some data, tell us something about it, you can't vote on something you have no knowledge of.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Most Australians know that there is no Future in Generating Nuclear Waste Most Australians would like to see a clean green renewable future one we can leave future generations not a NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP and to leave such a TOXIC LEGACY for future generations to come is abhorrent to most decent minded individuals.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Most Australians know that they have a very much reduced life expectancy if we do not allow the use of nuclear medicine, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, brachytherapy, etc and much reduced quality of life if we don't use nuclear products to examine of materials in structures for quality, food sterilization and preservation etc. All these produce wastes.

Not all nuclear waste comes from energy production.

To suggest that we can have no nuclear at all in our future is just simply ignorant of what we even use nuclear products for.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Not against medical waste Aaron it's the High Level Nuclear Waste that the government want us to accept from the world which is what is actually behind this circus that is going on at present.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Christopher, direct quotes from you
"Most Australians know that there is no Future in Generating Nuclear Waste"
"Most Australians would like to see a clean green renewable future"
"one we can leave future generations not a NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP"

Now Christopher, you need to start saying what you mean, rather than saying what you think is convenient to you.

We CANNOT have nuclear medicine WITHOUT generating nuclear waste (some of which I hate to inform you IS high level) so that kills the first quote from you. There is indeed no future without nuclear waste, accept that.

Then you mention power in the second quote as though that is the World's sole source of HLW - it's not.

Then you comment that we don't want to leave a dump lying around... Well where else do you propose we leave the waste left (ALL levels, including high level waste) from medical usage, industrial usage, in fact any useage not from energy?

"Most Australians know that there is no Future in Generating Nuclear Waste" - Christopher Huckel

Except we cannot live as we do without it.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

We managed to survive up until the discovery of Nuclear medicine Aaron so to assert that humanity cannot survive without it is quite a stretch honestly who are you kidding lol

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

'We CANNOT LIVE AS WE DO without it [nuclear products]'

Want to go back to incurable cancers, and a life expectancy of only 55 years?

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

It's must come as a great shock to find out that before Nuclear Humanity had done pretty well Aaron and now we put at risk our continued existence if we continue down this path as was clearly evident with Chernobyl and Fukushima but make no mistake Humanity is slowly waking up to the lies this Filthy Industry has perpetuated to get a foothold on the planet.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

22 Jul 2016

Before nuclear medicine we'd never cured Leukaemia, bone cancer, brain tumours were untreatable, before radiation X-rays were not possible, CT scans were not possible. You've never lived in those times Christopher, neither have I, but I sure as hell don't want to go back to them.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

The way you bang the drum for Filthiest Industry on this planet begs belief Aaron all of the marvellous breakthroughs you speak so glowingly of as though Nuclear Waste and Nuclear Weapons is something the world should be proud of.

Christopher Huckel

18 Jul 2016

Let Australia Vote On It

Steven McColl > Christopher Huckel

19 Jul 2016

No because the uniformed like yourself who have not even read the Nuclear Fuel Cycle report can not even tell the difference between Chemical Energy and Nuclear Energy.

Steven McColl > Christopher Huckel

19 Jul 2016

Christopher you're smart on other things and you're good at standing up to be counted.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

19 Jul 2016

Standing up to be counted it's called a Democracy Steven this might be an alien term to the so called educated EXPERTS who think they can tell Australians that they know what's best for them and the country and we should just fall in line and not question them but that's not a Democracy we all have the right to express our beliefs and the democratic right to vote on those beliefs as much as this upsets you Steven you need to learn to accept this reality.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

19 Jul 2016

Christopher, you might claim to be 'entitled to your opinion', but you are by no means entitled to be taken seriously.

If opinion is to be taken seriously, it must first be informed. By all means Christopher express your 'entitled' opinion, but please do not mistake yourself as being an 'informed' opinion to be taken seriously.

Steven McColl > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Christopher it is okay to have an opinion - but first 'on the basis of adequate knowledge'.

'Be prepared to give up any pre-conceived notions - opening your doors to pluralism particularly when facts are going in the opposite direction (Admiral Hyman Rickover -father of the nuclear-fueled Navy).

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

I'm glad you think it's okay for Australians to have an opinion but i see you are still having difficulty coming to terms with those that are not educated or have a Ph.D. In nuclear physics being allowed to have an opinion also that's where you and I differ.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

You don't need a PhD to have an opinion, (incidentally I don't hold a PhD) but you have to have some education on the topic of you want your opinion to be taken seriously.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

It's not about ones opinion being taken seriously or not or the fact that people might have a difference of opinion it's the fact that the corruption and lobbying of our government behind the scenes that has been going on for possibly nearly 18 plus years to try and convince them and now they have managed to corrupt our government with delusions of a river of money that our government are so desperate and incompetent that they will try and push this onto the Australian Population without the need for the people to have a Democratic vote and if they did allow the people to speak and the people said NO they still believe that the people's will should not be taken as a true representation of their consent if they actually believe this why is there a need for political parties when all we need is one Dictator that can make all the decisions for us because that is currently what is happening now although on the periphery the Royal Commission and the Government are desperately trying to convince us that we actually have a say and we are being fed a balanced impartial report when this is clearly not the case.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

How long has this lobbying been going on? "Possibly nearly 18 plus years" well if we were looking for a definition of uncertainty we've found it. Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg would be impressed!

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

When you awaken from your Dreamworld of Government and become aware of actual reality of how our government are lobbied by those with vested interests who also Donate large sums of money to both sides of government to ensure their interests are protected at any cost we can only hope it's not too late before you wake up Aaron.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

22 Jul 2016

I can only hope it's not too late before you might actually learn something real Christopher.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

I think that's what has the Pro Nuclear lobbyists scared of Aaron is the World is slowly waking up to this Filthy Industry and beginning to realise our Planet is worth more respect.

Christopher Huckel

18 Jul 2016

Just allow the people their Democratic right to vote on an issue that has the potential to affect us all stop wasting tax payer dollars on paying the so called pro nuclear experts to turn us into the THE WORLDS TOXIC NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP let the people have a vote we are meant to be in a Democracy.

Steven McColl > Christopher Huckel

19 Jul 2016

No you do not understand it, your probably skilled and smart on other things - why not put something cogent and credible in writing like what others do here and post to your local member?

Chemical Energy and Nuclear energy:

And the terms toxic and radioactive are mutually exclusive;
(a clear example is the set of outcomes of a single coin toss, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both).

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

19 Jul 2016

Steven it must be hard to accept that the majority of us do not want South Australia to become the WORLDS TOXIC NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP but that is the truth you need to come to terms with the fact you live in a Democracy corrupt.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

19 Jul 2016

Getting the population to agree with the proposal might be possible if only people like yourself actually understood what TOXIC actually means...

Christopher, for your benefit again, NO PERSON, not some huge number, not three, not two, not even one, NO ONE(!) NO HUMAN, HAS EVER DIED FROM THE TOXIC EFFECTS OF URANIUM, PLUTONIUM or likely any other radioactive metal you could care to name.

NO DEATHS EVER RECORDED FROM 'TOXIC' EFFECTS OF URANIUM OR PLUTONIUM!

Why? Because those educated enough to know what it is, and therefore be sufficiently close to the materials, is by simple default, intelligent enough - even without education, to not eat the material!!

You might as well exclude that toxic petrol stuff from the country, it after all being TOXIC and all, except sadly, there are people out there throughout history and even in the present day stupid enough to consume petrol... Ironically, toxic petrol by direct toxic effect has killed vastly more people than U or Pu product is ever likely to.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Aaron you obviously havnt heard of Nagasaki or Hiroshima pretty sure the effects of the first atom bombs to be dropped on heavily populated areas killed many tens of thousands but then again us Plebs might be wrong lol

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

I have heard of those locations, I have been to those locations!

You should understand those that died did not do so due to toxicological effects... They died due to radioactivity, heat, burns, asphyxiation and other things. People were literally vaporised, and/or burned to death, it wouldn't have been pleasant, and no one wants to see that again, no one must trivialize the events there. To say they died of toxic effects is just plain incorrect, the U and Pu and the fission products did not land on their food or in their water and poison them, those thousands and thousands of people perished long before they had time to contemplate their next meal being laced with heavy metals...

You are wrong, there is no 'might be' here.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

20 Jul 2016

Nuclear waste is toxic to humanity the higher the level the higher the Toxicity we financially do not need to accept the Worlds High Level Nuclear Waste not now not ever I'm all for being responsible for our own waste but that's where it stops Australia does not ever need to become the World's Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump not for any amount of financial remediation it's just not worth the he risk.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

Toxicity is a chemical construct, to say 'the higher the level the higher the toxicity' is simply rubbish. Again, and I will keep making this point if it kills you, forget what it does to me.

The 'level' of the waste has NO bearing on toxicity. Raw uranium ore is probably just as toxic as the uranium compound found in a fuel rod. The uranium, thorium, and radium naturally present in granites (and other rocks) is just as toxic to you as those things found anywhere else. Their level of radioactivity is irrelevant to their toxicity.

Toxicity depends only on the dose (usually expressed against some other term - likely body weight in animals) of the chemical compound present.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

21 Jul 2016

Radiation Poisoning when you recieve a Dose greater than that which is recommended it becomes Toxic and continued exposure will eventually lead to death maximum Toxicity reached.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

22 Jul 2016

Pick up a dictionary.

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

What is your formal training/qualifications Christopher? I can tell you're not a scientist of any description, and you're no etymologist either.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

23 Jul 2016

Yes your intuition is correct Aaron I'm no Expert unlike your good self who claims to be an Expert hopefully I never become an Expert like your good self as I would prefer to be in touch with humanity and have enjoy the little things in life like empathy I would suggest you try it but I'm pretty certain your too far gone.

Steve Charles

18 Jul 2016

The Royal Commission Report states that "the storage facility has the potential to provide a significant income for our state". It does not specify for how long or whether it expects client countries to continue to pay for the maintenance of the storage facility 50, 100, 500, or 1000 years into the future, or is the plan to just let it crumble and hope everything will be alright? Establishing a nuclear dump in SA would be an act of folly and a betrayal of the population and would be tantamount to a Sword of Damocles representing an ever present and imminent peril hanging over us.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Steve Charles

18 Jul 2016

Hi Steve, thanks for getting involved in the conversation. For your interest, more detailed information regarding capital and operating costs (including maintenance, closure and remediation) over the course of the 120-year life of the project are outlined in Appendix J, specifically from page 295.