Comment on the specific recommendations in 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

Franca Vasileff

29 Jun 2016

Serious concern on transport of 138,000 tonnes of high grade toxic nuclear waste travelling over the seas to Australia.
There is no way the Royal Commission can state it is safe to do so. The dump will destroy our clean, green agriculture industry.
Tourism will suffer. We as a country will be put in a eternal nuclear prison because we wont know when things will go wrong.
Not a good environment to live in and bring up a family ( and for generations). This dump will cost us. The monetary gain is very questionable. There is no amount of money worth all the risks.What is the hurry. These decisions can not be put under tight time limits. The future could bring a more suitable answer. Take the time . It is too important for very short term gain/loss. Dump is a DUMB idea .

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Franca Vasileff

06 Jul 2016

Hi Franca, thanks for sharing your thoughts and joining the conversation. Just a couple of points to help you (and the community) who are concerned about transport, and the effect on other industries. Firstly, the Royal Commission found that transportation of radioactive materials is routine, with around 20 million consignments transported worldwide each year. Detailed analysis and consideration of the risks (along with history of transportation) can be found in Chapter 9 from page 153.

Further, the report found there was no compelling evidence that nuclear activity in SA would adversely affect other sectors such as tourism and agriculture, aquaculture or viticulture provided those facilities were operated safely and securely. This conclusion was reached by the Royal Commission based on the experiences of countries such as France and the USA who have significant involvement in all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle yet have world-leading industries as mentioned above. It’s also worth noting SA is already involved in uranium and other mining, and heavy industry without unduly damaging our clean, green image.

Franca Vasileff > Franca Vasileff

06 Jul 2016

Brooke,

What contingency plan do you have in place in the instance of a freak weather event? Worst case scenario would be total loss of containment, an event far too risky. An occurrence like this, whether in transit on land or on sea, would see the contamination of vast areas, which we and the international community will be left to deal with the dire consequences. I appreciate the strict standards of the nuclear industry and do believe they carry out their operations quite responsibly most of the time. However, no one can mitigate risk totally and these freak events do occur (i.e Fukoshima). It should be plainly clear that risk greatly outweighs the reward in this instance.

Thank you for providing the straw man argument regarding SA's current mining and industrial activities. Surely no logical person can equate high level nuclear waste to mining effluent or even un-enriched Uranium ore. The proposed dump is nothing more than political leveraging for short term economic gain. A nuclear power generating nation should be responsible for their own waste otherwise the liability associated with its waste will be transferred to us. Further, we will be obliged to take this waste and be its custodians forevermore despite the very real possibility that the nuclear power industry could be superseded by cleaner and more sustainable alternatives in the near future.

Franca

Franca Vasileff

29 Jun 2016

Serious concern on transport of 138,000 tonnes of high grade toxic nuclear waste travelling over the seas to Australia.
There is no way the Royal Commission can state it is safe to do so. The dump will destroy our clean, green agriculture industry.
Tourism will suffer. We as a country will be put in a eternal nuclear prison because we wont know when things will go wrong.
Not a good environment to live in and bring up a family ( and for generations). This dump will cost us. The monetary gain is very questionable. There is no amount of money worth all the risks.What is the hurry. These decisions can not be put under tight time limits. The future could bring a more suitable answer. Take the time . It is too important for very short term gain/loss. Dump is a DUMB idea .

Tim Bickmore

28 Jun 2016

Many South Australians following this page would be aware of the public demonstration which occurred last Saturday at the venue for the Citizens Jury.

Some people have acquired misconceptions regarding the nature & intent of those who gathered outside SAHMRI.

I am a member of the 'No Dumps Coalition' who helped facilitate the event - & I wish to set the record straight. We have no reason nor desire to humbug jury members, & we did not do so last Saturday. Why would we antagonise those whom we wish to become better informed? We also respect the wishes of those jury members seeking to remain anonymous.

Our beef is with Premier Jay Weatherill's experimental fiddling with democracy in order to implement a 100,000+ year toxic legacy.

We are there to provide factual information which the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission failed to deliver - with a little street theatre on the side.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1823958434499719/

Ben Heard > Tim Bickmore

05 Jul 2016

Sorry, you have lost me.

Isn't it part of democracy that we get to decide whether someone is "fiddling with democracy" or just offering an opportunity for citizen involvement?

In suggesting he is undertaking "experimental fiddling with democracy in order to implement a 100,000+ year toxic legacy"... aren't you kind of saying that the rest of us who might like to be involved in this process are either complicit or too stupid to notice this nasty person doing this horrible thing.

When you say you want these people to be better informed... you mean informed by you and your chosen sources, am I right? Not informed in a fora with lots of different sources which you call "fiddling with democracy".

Overall I am not buying this. If you trust democracy and respect the jurors, let the process happen and take part.

Tim Bickmore > Tim Bickmore

05 Jul 2016

The Heard mentality - ' too stupid ... nasty person ... horrible thing...': such emotive language that merely highlights your unwillingness to accept the fact that no-one nor any 'science' can provide surety of safety, nor probity of risk, for anything like 100,000+ years - according to many anthropologists, Homosapiens !!YourSay Nuclear content filter would not let me separate these 2 words!! had barely left Africa 100,000 years ago. What turmoil & upheavals have occurred in that duration? Decisions that generate a toxic legacy for 400+ generations should not be scaffolded upon socio-political experimentation. They also should not be made by such restricted congress - since the subject matter under consideration goes way beyond the competence to implement by any single Australian State.

Ben Heard > Tim Bickmore

05 Jul 2016

I have a mentality named after me? Well, that's news.

The 100 K+ years thing, ironically I partly agree. I think it's absurd to presume planning over those time frames. I think it is particularly absurd to assume subsequent generations will be less intelligent, less competent, less informed, less well equipped than we are. I think it is absurd to be making pre-suppositions about either their needs or their abilities so far in the future. That's another reason I prefer the pathway of recycling.

The immediate term crises of climate change and poverty on the other hand, that is a different matter entirely.
https://decarbonisesa.com/2013/03/20/the-wisdom-of-the-seven-generations-approach/

Meanwhile, you are abusing the language and concepts of science. It's not about surety or 100% certainty in anything, ever. It is about seeing what we do know, bounding the uncertainty and making a responsible decision with that knowledge.

I happen to think South Australians are capable of doing that and should be able to do so unharrassed. You seem to think differently.

Tim Bickmore > Tim Bickmore

06 Jul 2016

'... absurd to be making pre-suppositions ...' - exactly my point - the fantasy fleet of SMRs upon which your whole 'recycling' scaffold depends is just a chimera. Your bread crumbs trickle down from a non-existent imaginary future.
'... immediate term crisis of climate change ....', again way beyond the competency of this current SA political process
'.... bounding the uncertainty ....', you sound like Rumsfeld c2002

Jennifer Stone

28 Jun 2016

We can listen to opinions and receive information from experts and ordinary citizens who may or may not agree with each other, but at the end of the day it should be up to the people of South Australia and how much is this process costing us, when it has already been rejected. You are correct, the only way to get a fair representation of the people is to hold a referendum. I don't agree with the fact that because we mine it, we should deal with the left over waste and I certainly don't see a uranium dump in South Australia as an opportunity.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Jennifer Stone

06 Jul 2016

Hi Jennifer, Chapter 6 of the Royal Commission Report looks at social and community consent which you may be interested in, including addressing the importance of "ongoing" social consent​. In this context, it identifies that a public vote on a proposal is not a reliable indicator of this ongoing consent.

Kym McKay

27 Jun 2016

It is time to have a mature and informed debate and current facts put up for all to hear and see. The fors and the against a must not stifle the process by hijacking the process with skewed Information and stats to suit each other's position.
If it's good enough for this State to mine and sell the product then it's good enough for us to look at the end of use options and opportunities. It's tiring hearing hearing all the old rhetorical arguments about 3 mile island, Chernobyl technologies and engineering improve everyday.
The only other way forward after this process is to hold a referendum of the SA people.

The discussion needs to be held.

Tim Bickmore

27 Jun 2016

The Citizens Jury has no legal standing & that the facilitators Newde Mocracy describe the whole process as a socio-political experiment:

"The opportunity to test a process on the topic of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle is a near perfect test environment for this"

http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/ndf-work/316-sa-cj-nuclear-fuel-cycle

Steve Walker

26 Jun 2016

Jay = yes to Pangea

Steve Walker

26 Jun 2016

I would like to know why we are revisiting this idea again... are we being pressured by the likes of Pangea all over again ?

Darren Jakobsson

26 Jun 2016

Clean, Green Renewable Energy

Humanity should know by now that we have to work with the planet, to not use any nuclear or fossil fuels for our energy consumption which are so detrimental to our climate, our planet and more importantly our civilization.

So why think of spending billions of dollars on research, technology and new infrastructure for a nuclear industry when it is so dangerous and harmful to our society and the environment. Instead, use those billions to open up the Clean, Green Renewable Energy markets.

Use Geothermal energy for base load power.

- Japan - Opens its first new Geothermal Power Plant, three years after the nuclear disaster in Fukushima. The mood has shifted and opposition lessened, resulting in a growing number of companies seeking to build as many as 15 geothermal plants within the next five years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10701440/Japans-first-new-geothermal-power-plant-in-15-years-to-open-next-month.html
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/print/volume-18/issue-3/features/geothermal/is-japan-the-next-boom-market-for-the-geothermal-energy-industry.html

- Germany - Decommissioning their Nuclear Power stations after the Fukushima disaster.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/dossiers/challenges-germanys-nuclear-phase-out

- Geothermal in LA - Expanding their use of geothermal energy.

http://www.google.com.au/search?client=ms-android-sonymobile&channel=bm&site=webhp&source=hp&ei=4IihVp-SGcS-0QTHhJC4CA&q=geothermal+baseload+power+for+LA&oq=geothermal+baseload+power+for+LA&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.12..33i21.3672.35961.0.38375.25.24.1.1.1.0.626.10604.2-2j10j4j8.24.0....0...1c.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..1.19.7675.3.Y6u228TeF_E

- Geothermal in New Zealand - Is 90% carbon emissions free and use geothermal energy.

http://www.nzgeothermal.org.nz/geo_systems.html

Increase the Solar and Wind energy markets to help with baseload power and develop Biofuels for the transport industry: Cellulose, Corn, Soy, Algal Oil, Sugar Cane, Camelina and Jatropha, Rapeseed - canola oil and Methane.

Better still, Australia needs to make several key policy changes to boost the Electric Vehicle (EV) market and be the forerunners in the EV industry by inviting EV companies like Tesla Motors to establish electric vehicle manufacturing plants to replace Australia’s dying petrol car industry.

The key of course is the battery technology which is improving all the time both in terms of cost and energy density. Electric Battery storage will revolutionise the energy market, reducing peaking power requirements, optimising grid utilisation of renewables and in some cases enabling consumers to go off the grid altogether. The Electric Vehicle with Battery Storage market is really the answer for the transport industry by far.

Since the 1980’s the majority of Australians have fought against having any nuclear industry in Australia and the answer for creating more revenue and jobs for South Australia is to generate the Clean, Green Renewable Energy markets which emit substantially low carbon emissions and are safe for our community and the bionetwork of our region.

The Australian government was closely and deeply engaged in the international debate that led to the Kyoto Protocol, however since the Abbott government it seems we have done a total backflip in regards to climate change and the renewables energy markets which is so embarrassing and disappointing on the international stage.

In regards to the COP 21 Agreement made in Paris, France in December 2015 which has been ratified 22/04/2016 by every nation in the world bar two, Australia should be ceasing all uranium and coal mining as we know it.

Jay Weatherill’s venture of wanting to make Adelaide a carbon-neutral city by 2025 offering the Low Carbon Entrepreneur’s Prize of $250,000 in seed funding for the development of ideas spanning, energy, transport, waste and liveability is a great way forward. To have Adelaide be a world leader in renewables and clean technology, aimed at cutting green-house gas emissions and to generate new green businesses in Adelaide I think we should exploit to the highest degree but when the SA Government issues a Royal Commission for a nuclear fuel industry in SA it seems very contradictory.

It has been said the nuclear industry has a popular vote, so let there be a State Vote, a Constitutional Referendum to let the people of South Australia have their say and vote on the nuclear issue which is our constitutional and democratic right.

The correct way forward to keep SA’s reputation as a clean, safe state is to invest in and be the forerunners and global market leaders in the Clean, Green Renewable Energy markets which will create more revenue and jobs for our people now and for future generations to come.

The people of SA should come first, so don’t invite such a high risk and condemn SA’s or Australia’s future generations and the environment to toxic waste for such a short term financial gain.

Don’t damage Australia’s clean reputation (clean being on so many different levels) as one of the world’s great countries, don’t contaminate it, just open up the Clean, Green Renewable Energy markets which the Australian people want!!!

Concerned Australian Citizen
Darren Jakobsson
Kingston Park

Steve Walker > Darren Jakobsson

26 Jun 2016

Search Pangea nuclear waste.. at it again :(

Maryanne Shepherd > Darren Jakobsson

27 Jun 2016

I strongly agree with Steve and Darren comments.
We need to look after the future for our future generations and the nuclear dump is not the way to go especially with all the technology we have today.
We should be heading to greener solutions. Why should South Australia be the dump site for the world. I oppose this idea and wish all Australians had more choices when voting to ensure all Australians have a better future instead of no choices and with stupid ideas and outcomes.

Hans-Christian Marker

26 Jun 2016

The consulting process seems to me like a distraction from an almost predetermined outcome. A laymen jury, that has no access to potential relevant scientific data, or better does not even know of their existence let alone be aware of their potential relevance has to make recommendations which part of the report have e to be discussed more. All they have is this report only. And that is the crux. A report that shows only a percentage of the big picture. Don't get me wrong it is very thorough. But only looks at a selected section of a bigger picture. We do not know what we don't know or not look at. For example, seismic activities worldwide have increased much more than the historical levels and has not declined yet. No one knows why? So we ignore it. Such current scientific observations are not in the report and not up for discussion. How can we have an unbiased discussion? What other scientific observations could be of relevance? We should be aware, once radioactive elements have escaped, e.g. into the ground water we could be in trouble for a long time. Ingested radioactive elements may not leave the body and are 1000 times worse than x-rays or cosmic radiation.

Steve Walker > Hans-Christian Marker

26 Jun 2016

Search Pangea nuclear waste.. there back forcing the issue on us again

Hans-Christian Marker > Hans-Christian Marker

27 Jun 2016

Thanks for that I add a quote from that earlier attempt:
"Professor John Veevers from Macquarie University wrote in the Australian Geologist in August 1999: “[T]onnes of enormously dangerous radioactive waste in the northern hemisphere, 20,000 kms from its destined dump in Australia where it must remain intact for at least 10,000 years. These magnitudes – of tonnage, lethality, distance of transport, and time – entail great inherent risk.”"

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Hans-Christian Marker

06 Jul 2016

Hi Hans-Christian, thanks for your comments. Firstly, it's important to recognise that there is no pre-determined outcome in this process. What we are trying to do is consult broadly with the community to determine whether social consent exists for Government to continue investigating opportunities associated with nuclear activity. Secondly, members of the Citizens' Jury have access to a range of subject matter experts and have identified a specific witness list in which they would like to hear from as part of their examination of certain areas of the report. It is not just the report in which they have access to during the process. We hope this helps clarify.

Hans-Christian Marker > Hans-Christian Marker

06 Jul 2016

Thanks for that. I take back pre-determined. Not knowing what is on the table, I just voice my concern, that everything the Citizen's Jury has access to can by nature never be complete and will always be a selection. And there is the danger that bias can come in. I hope this discussion will be as broad as possible.

Katrina Kytka

25 Jun 2016

The Premier stated in his introductory talk this morning that safety was one principle he would not compromise on. Can anyone guarantee transport safety in a world populated by humans?

Ben Heard > Katrina Kytka

05 Jul 2016

Can't guarantee safety in anything ever!!!

Based on my research, I have no concerns about that whatsoever. Compared the environmental risk of transporting fossil oil, it's really, really safe. Based on the accident risk of transporting LPG as a comparison, it's incredibly safe. You know if an LPG tanker exploded, you get second degree burns from 5 km away? We have to measure out monsters. The used fuel is ceramic, heavy, does not dissolved in water and in a virtually indestructible canister.

That's not a guarantee but it's as good as we get in transporting just about anything.

Janice Young

25 Jun 2016

I am probably one of those people that others will ask how I can be against something that I don't understand, I have read others very informed comments and I have to admit that I am just an ordinary person who loves this Country and State and I am terrified of nuclear power and waste, yes there are always safe guards and these are only safe until there is a problem and then people find out otherwise, it is too late then. If this is so safe why don't the other countries just store their own waste, why send it here, I don't want our state to be the worlds rubbish dump, I have children and grandchildrens future to be concerned about, I WANT TO SAY NO. Yes I am am not an expert and probably don't know what I am talking about but I live here and am entitled to my say, so feel free to shoot me down in flames

Ben Heard > Janice Young

05 Jul 2016

Thank you for this.

I would like to reply later when I have a little more time. I really respect what you have said here and can relate to it.

Ben Heard > Janice Young

05 Jul 2016

Dear Janice,
So, I am one of those people who knows a lot on this topic. Six years ago this was not the case. Then I started learning because I needed to, now I am doing a PhD. Yes, , I am supportive of nuclear technologies.
So we are different in that way.
I am also a South Australian. I raised in Adelaide, I have family still here and me and my family live here, work here, send children to schools here. It’s our home, we love it. So I think we are the same in those ways.
Why do I support it? That’s a long story so let me say just a few things.
I have seen the way we make our energy now with fossil fuels and I hate it and what it is doing to our planet.
I have seen the way people area making energy with fossil fuels in so many other countries and… same thing. I hate it. Difference is while we can probably do a lot with renewables being blessed with such a large country, the rest of the planet is not like that.
I have learned about what the used nuclear fuel is including the critical point that we can recycle nearly all of it, and make it something very short-lived. That helped me realise this is not a forever problem. From there I leaned more about the material itself and found nothing to be afraid of.
I want it for South Australia so we can be prosperous, so we can do high science and technology and so we can help the world get away from fossil fuels.
I would not presume to convince you of something so complex so easily. What I might hope you can take away though is this: the people who want and support this are not just science wonks (though I sort of am). They are South Australians with the same love of our state and their children as you have.
I tried to pack as much good information into an enjoyable video as I could. I hope you get something out of this.
https://decarbonisesa.com/videos/brisbane-global-cafe/ . Just scroll down and you will find the video.

Tim Bickmore > Janice Young

05 Jul 2016

Perhaps Janice your instinct tells you that 100,000+ years is a very long time = 400+ generations of South Australians. The last Ice Age finished only 16,000 years ago. The earliest pyramids built around 8,000 years ago. The wheel (& writing) emerged about 6,000 BP.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Janice Young

06 Jul 2016

Hi Janice, we really appreciate you taking the time to comment and be involved. Nobody should be shooting anyone down in flames for sharing their point of view and we thank you for your honesty. What you have said represents exactly why we are undertaking this detailed consultation process - we want as many South Australians, who are passionate our our state, to be involved and have their say on the future. There will be varying levels of knowledge on the topic, so we want to give everyone the opportunity to learn more. We have a state-wide consultation program kicking off later this month which will visit over 100 locations across the state and would love for you, and everyone else, to come along and chat with our team about this important topic. More details will be on our website soon. We thank you again for joining the conversation.

Janice Young > Janice Young

06 Jul 2016

Thanks, I will keep a look out for a location near us.

Steven McColl

25 Jun 2016

Specific recommendation please to the NFCRC (extracted from Brendan's link below), regarding the proposed storage of waste atomic-fuel such as;

- MOX* from the terrifying hot rod Alpha-class submarine having a 42 knot cruising speed!
- The Soviet atomic junk** still under the ice cap after years of patrolling during the Cold war.

Using HI-STORM*** (or other proprietary module stored underground to AS4360 and other relevant Australian standards):

HI-STORM: (Holtec International Storage Module) is Holtec International’s Multi-Purpose Canister system for the dry storage of used nuclear fuel. The HI-STORM system consists of interchangeable sealed metallic canister which contain the used fuel; a vertically ventilated storage over-pack or underground Vertical Ventilated Module, which contains the multi-purpose canister during loading, unloading, and transfer operations.

*MOX is approximately: 1% U-235, 7% Pu-239, and remainder being U-238 (Mixed Oxide fuel).

** https://news.vice.com/article/the-soviet-union-dumped-a-bunch-of-nuclear-submarines-reactors-and-containers-into-the-ocean

*** http://www.holtecinternational.com/productsandservices/wasteandfuelmanagement/hi-storm/

Gavin McAuliffe

24 Jun 2016

The commission, rather too conveniently, glossed over the unbelievably high danger of the nuclear waste produced by nuclear power plants, disenge nuously implying that it is next to harmless. The fact is that although there may be a slightly reduced production of carbon dioxide by using a nuclear reactor to produce electricity, the nuclear waste it produces is infinitely more polluting than the carbon dioxide that it saves.

The other total lie that it claims is that nuclear reactors are inexpensive to build and fuel, conveniently ignoring the incredibly expense of maintaining the security and containment of the radioactive fuel.

Carol Buchanan

24 Jun 2016

There is a reason why other countries are looking to pay huge amounts of money for our country to deal with their nuclear waste, and the only reason why SA is considering the proposal is money. It seems the government are happy to prostitute our land, environment and reputation if the price is right.
Short term gain for long term pain, what legacy are we leaving potentially forever.
A monumental risk of transporting it over sea and land.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Carol Buchanan

06 Jul 2016

Hi Carol, thanks for having your say on the topic. The Royal Commission found that countries who are looking for storage options have limited means to store their own waste - coming down to space, geological and seismic suitability. We hope this helps clarify your point. Thanks again for joining the conversation.

brendan john

24 Jun 2016

Nice to see the anti nuclear "activists" becoming increasingly desperate about not being able to control the dialog. Imagine ordinary citizens being able to investigate the evidence the themselves choose, without the constant harassment from anti everything NGOs like Fiends of the Earth.
Now the American Health Physics Society, the US peak body on the effects of radiation have come out to say that radiation in doses below 100mSv/a (about 5 times higher the worst affected area around Fukushima) should be ignored, as they are both irrelevant & have insignificant health consequences http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/06/24/radiation-poses-little-risk-to-the-world/#cdb626848b51
Makes the almost undectable levels at the boundary of nuclear fuel storage sites http://www.holtecinternational.com/productsandservices/wasteandfuelmanagement/hi-storm/ look a bit different to the picture that FoE tries to paint
Have a nice weekend

Steven McColl > brendan john

24 Jun 2016

Well said Brendan, now I will go to your link.

From Derek Muller's SBS TV series: 'Uranium- twisting the dragon's tail', the mean background radiation is about 0.03 microSieverts (300 nanoSieverts).

How many microSieverts go into our mouths at the dentist?

Also funny how these anti-nuclear activists have not banned themselves from the B777 (or from flying altogether), when the root-cause of the recent B777 loss of with all those lives lost has still not been determined!

Yet the root causes of the Fukushima Daiichi and RBMK Generation II Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) have been determined!

And what type of moderator were used in these two BWR?

What is a moderator?

And how is it that all Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR) in the US Navy are so famous from their Negative-thermal-coefficients?

What is a negative-thermal coefficient?

Ever since SSN-571, right up to SSN-774, there have been hundreds of sailors working around and close to their S2G reactors and so on; working only about 2m from their source of nuclear propulsion, all safely receiving Alpha, Beta or Gamma radiation less than about *250 nanoSieverts/hour.

*Source: '151 million miles steamed safely on nuclear power' Dept. of Energy, US Navy.

And what type of moderator was used in the RBMK and Fukushima reactors?

What type of moderator is used in the PWR?

Why is it that the Fast Neutron Reactors (that have multiple passes rather than single fuel passes) that almost solve the 'back-end' of the nuclear fuel cycle have NO moderator at all?

Found out also that:

- Alpha particles (a helium nucleus) can be stopped by a piece of paper.
- Beta particles (an electron) can be stopped by a piece of aluminum foil
-Gamma radiation needs lead to stop it.

The term 'radioactive' is an adjective used to describe the atom.
'Unstable' is another name for 'radioactive'.

Another question: Why type of nuclear energy comes from our sun?

Steven McColl > brendan john

24 Jun 2016

revision A: 300 nanoSieverts/hour (not 300 nanoSieverts).

Steven McColl > brendan john

25 Jun 2016

revision B: Gamma-rays are stopped by materials with lesser densities than lead but greater thicknesses: eg: Post-tensioned concrete to AS3600, metamorphic rock, mild steel etc (shielding).

brendan john > brendan john

25 Jun 2016

Stephen
ordinary tap water stops Gamma-rays quite effectively. That is why people can, & do, swim in used nuclear fuel pools to do maintenance. This might interest you http://www.popsci.com.au/science/swimming-on-the-hot-side,377591 and this http://papyone.over-blog.com/article-the-funny-story-of-3-nuclear-commercial-divers-125559003.html

Noel Wauchope

24 Jun 2016

A businessman, an environmentalist and an oncologist walked into a citizens' jury...http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/06/23/a-businessman-and-environmentalist-and-an-oncologist-walked-into-a-citizens-jury/

omigawd I can't believe that they are classing nuclear business lobbyists Nigel NcBride and Jason Kuchel as "experts" on nuclear science.

This Citizens jury panel is worse than I expected it to be. As for the link to "streaming" - it does not lead you there. It leads you to the Nuclear Royal Commission's page where you're invited to "register for discussion". So much for public access to the hearings. This is a charade of the Citizens Jury Process.

To have any credibility a Citizens Jury on this nationally important matter should be televised, or at very least available as video, audio and transcript.

Maxine Gibbs

22 Jun 2016

Enriched uranium 235 - half life of approximately 700 million years. This storage facility will always need maintenance. We all know the world is entering a period of economic, political and climatic uncertainty. If we accept waste from a country this decade how do we get them to pay for ongoing costs (for thousands of years)? Even if that country still exists in 200 years, it may be in political turmoil or facing significant climatic and hence economic issues. Even if this country does have funds we - in the land down under - may be considered to be of little significance in their Pandora's box of issues.
Thus, my question to this government is, how do we not load up all our descendants with an economic noose around their neck (and probably the rest of Australia too)? This state has so much to offer; fantastic wildlife (probably the best in Australia), areas well suited to renewable energy production, GM free crops, great opportunities for food and fibre production, great scenery.
We need to work collectively (get rid of the tall poppy syndrome) and be innovative. Be proud and promote ourselves but not as a waste dump? Imagine what that could do to our immigration in a few hundred years? And as for brain drain? Anyone with the smarts and thus the job pulling power would probably choose not to raise their children in this state. That would be a very sad legacy.

michael byrne

21 Jun 2016

I would like to hear, with some clarity, and not the usual spin / rheotoric that we usually receive, from the State Government, about exactly why they are SO KEEN to use this state as a global rubbish dump. Could it be money, which is nothing more than a pipe dream? Who will be paying for storage in 100/200/300/ 1000 years? It's interesting to note that the proposed sites are on heritage listed land. That means that the traditional land owners don't have any say in the matter! The local population didn't want it dug up in the first place, and now the plan is to take it back and bury it. Jay Weatherill's ego is the biggest hurdle that we face here. He hasn't done anything great that helps anyone outside the Adelaide metropolitan area. But he is willing to pollute remote South Australia for his own political purposes. Maybe if it is built, we can call it Weatherill Park just to make sure he is remembered appropriately. This stuff has a half life of 100,000 years so he will never be forgotten will he?

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > michael byrne

06 Jul 2016

Thanks for sharing your concerns and questions, Michael. One point we do want to clarify is that the Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference did not require it to select a site for a high level waste facility for SA. You may be referring to the Commonwealth decision to identify Barndioota Station as a site to store low level waste, which is completely separate to the SA process in discussion here.

It is important to note, however, that respect and understanding for the deep connection that Aboriginal people have with the land is central to our consideration of the Royal Commission’s report and the Government will be meeting with, and learning from, the experiences of Aboriginal communities over the coming months.

Phillipa Allwood

21 Jun 2016

Who remembers the moratorium marches on parliament house in opposition to the Vietnam war and conscription back in the 60s? This is just as important. Everyone with a social conscience needs to start showing their outrage at being railroaded along this most unpopular path. I'm ready to march again! Not one person I speak to about this dump has said that they're in favour of it. The ineptitude and arrogance of this government is mind boggling. What part of "we don't want a nuclear dump in South Australia" do they not understand?

Catherine Franks

21 Jun 2016

I had a quick look at the royal commission report, my only comment is in their impressive flow chart/ bubble diagrams they forgot to include a picture of Homer Simpson, subtitle 'your children's future'.

Jennifer Stone

21 Jun 2016

Thanks for the information. I have signed the petitions and will contact Guy Dickson. It looks like more people need to sign and share the petitions if they want to be heard loud and clear.

Steven McColl > Jennifer Stone

24 Jun 2016

Stephanie, you make good points; but how to operate
- Aluminium smelters,
- Petrochemical plants and
- Hydrogen production

by intermittent Solar and Wind that require thousands of kW and sometimes up to a GW?

Steven McColl > Jennifer Stone

24 Jun 2016

Stephanie in the meantime you may refrain from using your SatNav, and receiving real-time images for your weather forecasts from Voyager and other satellites.

So are you saying that Naval Reactors in Washington DC is wrong?

And that President Eisenhower was wrong to fund the world's first nuclear submarine USS-Nautilus Christened by his wife on 21 Jan 1954, learning from the mistakes of the Battle of the Atlantic was also wrong?

Stephanie why do you think the Battle of the Atlantic suddenly and rapidly changed in our favour from the introduction of the long-range B-24 Liberator in May 1943 - eventually shooting and sinking 72 U-boats all having to rise to the surface?

In Mar 1943 1200 lives were lost at the peak of the Battle of the Atlantic. President Eisenhower was right, and that's why every US submarine has been nuclear fuelled ever since, with over 151 million miles steamed safely on nuclear fuel.

Do you know how an internal combustion engine works?

Why is it that inside a nuclear reactor, at no stage during the energy transfer process there is no requirement for the presence of air or oxygen?

No idea.

Even with forms of Air Independent Propulsion(AIP) inside a Diesel boat, it is the limit of the amount of oxygen onboard that prevents the Diesel boat from seriously contributing to global maritime influence.

Why is it that nuclear fuel is so important under the polar ice cap to hunt enemy SSBN?
Which can sneak out retreat back under the ice-cap to launch their Baluva ICBM?
Where Diesel's cannot go.

Quite terrifying.

Also there is a lot of 'nuclear junk' under the Ice cap from the Cold war, a bit of creativity would allow an atomic waste-fuel depot in Australia to manage this.

Stephanie Johnston > Jennifer Stone

24 Jun 2016

Steven most of those contributing to this discussion not arguing to shut down the nuclear industry worldwide. This is a very specific debate about whether South Australia should embrace becoming the world's nuclear waste dump when we aren't even involved in nuclear energy production. To date we have not needed to invest in nuclear energy, and the Royal Commission sermon from the mount, after much research, recommends that we don't. The Royal Commission report is simply suggesting that we get into the nuclear waste disposal game to make some money. I am afraid I find it very difficult to be persuaded by the very speculative economic scenarios provided, and the very real risks to our existing clean and green food, wine and tourism economy. Why enter a game that we don't need to enter and have very little experience in? Hundreds of countries around the world are already dealing with nuclear waste. If the solutions are so safe, let those countries figure out the solutions on their own turf, and avoid all the risk that transportation of waste across the globe presents.

Stephanie Johnston

21 Jun 2016

Reminder the July 1 deadline is coming up for written submissions. Written submissions and expressions of interest should be addressed to the Secretary to the Committee, C/- Parliament House, GPO Box 572, Adelaide 5001, by telephone on (08) 8237 9498, or e-mail at guy.dickson@parliament.sa.gov.au

Steven McColl > Stephanie Johnston

24 Jun 2016

Generation IV nuclear energy systems such as;

Generation IV type Fuel recycle.

Gas Cooled Fast neutron Reactor (GFR) multiple passes
Lead-bismuth cooled Fast neutron Reactor (LFR) multiple passes
Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) multiple passes
Sodium cooled Fast neutron Reactor (SFR) multiple passes
Supercritical Water cooled Reactor (SCWR) single or multiple passes
Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) single only

all provide continuous electricity, sorry but Wind and Solar cannot.

And Stephanie I have some questions for you:

What are your Engineering solutions to no control over the magnitude and timing of energy input from Solar and Wind transformed electricity?

Stephanie?

And how do you expect Solar panels and Wind turbines to offer co-generation for Hydrogen production without an outlet-coolant temperature of around 850 degrees C?

Stephanie Johnston > Stephanie Johnston

24 Jun 2016

Steven most of those contributing to this discussion are not arguing to shut down the nuclear industry worldwide. This is a very specific debate about whether South Australia should embrace becoming the world's nuclear waste dump when we aren't even involved in nuclear energy production. To date we have not needed to invest in nuclear energy, and the Royal Commission sermon from the mount, after much research, recommends that we don't. The Royal Commission report is simply suggesting that we get into the nuclear waste disposal game to make some money. I am afraid I find it very difficult to be persuaded by the very speculative economic scenarios provided, and the very real risks to our existing clean and green food, wine and tourism economy. Why enter a game that we don't need to enter and have very little experience in? Hundreds of countries around the world are already dealing with nuclear waste. If the solutions are so safe, let those countries figure out the solutions on their own turf, and avoid all the risk that transportation of waste across the globe presents. Or are you arguing that we should be embracing nuclear energy production here in South Australia? That is a different debate isn't it?

Stephanie Johnston

21 Jun 2016

For those arguing that fourth generation nuclear reactors are the answer (http://www.adelaidehillsmagazine.com.au/professor-corey-bradshaw-climate-change-yoga-nuclear-power-adelaide-hills?utm_campaign=Adelaide%20Hills%20Magazine&utm_content=35852340&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter) I found these comments of Joe Mifsud Principal Environmental Consultant at COOE Pty Ltd enlightening:

1. The half life of uranium U-238 is ~4 billion years and U-235 is ~700 million years. The half-life does not change only the amount of radioactive material remaining changes. Please enlighten me on how the half-life of nuclear fuel, which Corey says is 300,000 years is reduced to 300 years by 4th generation reactors.
2. I did an internet search the only references to 4th generation nuclear reactors are for plans to start experimental construction of between 2020 and 2030. Please enlighten me how this technology will significantly change carbon emissions over the next 20 years.
3. If this technology is so on the verge of revolutionising global power supply, by using nuclear waste, why would countries want to pay Australia for taking their future fuel supplies?

Steven McColl > Stephanie Johnston

24 Jun 2016

- Meanwhile your quite happy to get the benefit of Technicium-99 for your X-rays.

-And how many microSieverts go into your mouth at the dentist?

Your happy to drive on all Freeways that have had the density of their compacted fills all tested using Nuclear densiometers (around 1800kg/m3) to AS1289.

And more:

Why is it that all U.S. Navy SSN, SSBN and CVN use Uranium-235 same as in Lucas Heights?

We've already got a 20MW reactor and there is nothing wrong with it.

Jennifer Stone

21 Jun 2016

Perhaps change.org to start a petition if majority of people are not happy with the final outcome of Jury process.

Stephanie Johnston > Jennifer Stone

21 Jun 2016

There is already a petition on change.org around the proposed Flinders Ranges dump: https://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-no-nuclear-waste-dump-in-south-australia?recruiter=65402684&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-md-no_src-reason_msg&fb_ref=Default

Noel Wauchope > Jennifer Stone

24 Jun 2016

There should undoubtedly be a petition about the foreign nuclear waste import plan. The two nuclear waste facility plans are really about different things.

Australia is obligated to take back the Lucas Heights nuclear wastes, that have been processed in England and France. (Of course anyone with any brains would shut down that reactor and stop making this trash).

However, the plan to import foreign radioactive trash is a different plan. I have spoken to MPs and found that they don't know the difference! Clearly the nuclear lobby would like to join the two, and the Flinders waste dump plan is seen by them as a foot in the door for the commercial import.