Of all the politicians it was Nick Xenophon who actually managed to display the most howling error about the proposal and the storage facility. The man didn't know ore from waste.

Aaron, well I am in ore of Nick Z, as he is one of the few, if only, politicians to comment on this dump (aka storage facility) other than Jay W. My own representative I was told is opposed to a dump, but it is Jay W calling the shots, so much for our democracy.

You can be in awe of Xenophon if you like, but the plain fact is he was trying to be popular, and made a silly comment, that showed a blatant misunderstanding of the industry. I am not so sure that being the only one to comment, and getting it so horribly wrong is a badge he should be proud of wearing.

Darren you have provided a great counter argument to this forum, if only more Australians could understand the implications the government are proposing and educate themselves like you clearly have. I just think it is really interesting that no one from pro-nuclear or the consultation team has responded to this brilliant response. That just shows how corrupt and dillusional this campaign for nuclear waste is, and how they are willing to dismiss the opinions of the Australian public that have real evidence.

Karen I am slowly learning that there appears to be an established technique for so-called "trolls" (in the case of this website who are clearly not citizens of this state) to jump on all the online forums and deliberately inflame normal debate. The state government managers of this website do not seem able to control this unfortunately. For the benefit of other users, the two trolls all over this website should quickly become obvious. They both attacked Karen's post below, and are quick to attack just about any new post. To quote Wikipedia:

"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement."

The only way to deal with them is not to respond, or leave it to the loveable Christopher Huckel to deal with them.

I don't think pointing out where this material is actually 'cradled' is an attack, I did nothing more than name three local 'cradles'. If anything, Karen attacked her own argument by suggesting that the 'cradles' should also become 'graves' for the product she is trying to deny should be here. I actually thought it was a brilliant idea, just don't put it back in Beverley.

Olympic Dam, Beverley - Four Mile, Honeymoon. Where are those 'cradles'?

Cradle to grave?

Karen, Just another emotionally charged rant, from someone who cannot tell an isotope from a neutron.

Still working as a tag team guys

Still posting nothing Christopher?

Steven, you ridicule Karen's 'cradle to grave' - but this is precisely what BHP-B & the other World Nuclear Association members have committed themselves to They call it "Uranium Stewardship" & BHP-B is a major proponent of this principle. http://www.bhpbilliton.com/~/media/bhp/documents/society/regulatory/_copper/olympicdamproject/supplementaryeis/chapter-27-product-stewardship-and-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle.pdf?la=en

I didn't suggest you didn't understand, my question was directed at Stephanie who suggested that you should ask to speak some other witnesses which are notably not able to named by her, from outside of the original pool of 132 witnesses.

I see what you might be thinking, my second comment indeed all of the subsequent ones are actually replies to Stephanie's statement. It puts your name there David because you had the original comment.

Business as usual

Well we already know they are, this is just another in a long line a "Richard" moves.

A key question for you and the rest of the jury David, is whether the second, larger jury will be allowed to request expert evidence from outside the scope of the Royal Commission Report. I think you should get on the case about this early - i.e. talk to Iain about how alternative viewpoints to the Royal Commission might be introduced to the debate, and set that up well in advance, because it seems to me that the whole citizen jury process is manufacturing a result by constraining the scope of the debate to the rather limited viewpoint of the Scarce Report recommendations.

For example can the jury recommend a referendum, despite the Royal Commission arguing against it?

The report dismisses a referendum as a means of testing ongoing consent, presumably because a vote from the current generation can't speak for future generations, but it does not explain how a citizen's jury can speak with any more legitimacy in that regard.

Finally there is the issue of unseemly haste in all this. Why does the Premier want to force a decision to proceed to spend what will be 100s of thousands of dollars on the next stage of this process when the odds of the project being successfully realised are so low?! (You only need to look at the failure of those countries that actually have a nuclear waste problem to deal with to get a feel for what the odds are of an inexperienced provincial government like ours succeeding getting this idea up... )

Economic risk to our clean and green image is my main concern, and that is all about perception, rather than "facts".
Anyway, I agree that testing public consent with a vote is the only legitimate way to take the temperature of the population, and one would assume that "ongoing consent" would need to achieve much more than a 51% majority...

Do you actually understand what the NFCRC was and undertook Stephanie?

Which experts from outside those already canvassed would you expect the jury to be interested in? The NFCRC called 132 witnesses, that is an extraordinary amount, it took over 37 days to do so. To suggest that the NFCRC did not interview the correct people is just plain wrong.

How long are you going to lock the citizens' jury up for interviewing more witnesses Stephanie?

A referendum is only a snap shot, the same referendum held on two different days is guaranteed to supply two different sets of votes. It is irrelevant to ongoing consent.

Ongoing consent will only be achieved by demonstrating to the public that such a facility is necessary and can be made safe. While the public can see ongoing benefit the facility will have ongoing consent.

Let me guess for you a 'majority' vote on 'ongoing consent' would always need to be a majority 1% larger than that which will ever be achieved at a vote huh?

Aaron, if your mission in life is to create an informed, educated and supportive public that sees the necessity of locating such a facility in their own region, when they don't even produce the high level waste, then you're going to have to change your dismissive tone and superior attitude when dealing with enquiring minds like my own who are attempting to come to grips with the debate and the whole proposition.

PS I do have a copy of the full report in print form Aaron, and while I do not claim to have read it from cover to cover, I think I have a fair understanding of the work that the NFCRC has undertaken. I have probably put in a lot more effort than the average citizen would be prepared to. I have also attended a couple of the citizen jury sessions to get a feel for how that process is intended to work and how it actually works in practice. I have been in dialogue all my life with scientists on this subject, from my former father-in-law (an inorganic chemist and nuclear waste dump "open minder" since the nuclear industry first started proposing SA as a potential site decades ago...) to pro-nuclear greenies such as Barry Brook et al.

Yes there were a large range of witnesses involved in the NFCRC and preparation of the report, but there was also a huge range of areas of expertise to cover in it too. I don't see a great range of economic analysis or viewpoints in it. The economic analysis seems to come mostly from a single source, and as you have agreed, it is speculative. I have seen other economists, and even the Premier question the economic scenarios. I have also seen nuclear industry proponents (Ben Heard) question the wisdom of going with the dump proposition. The report is putting the proposition to us as South Australians that this is a good idea and a good way to make money, and supposedly seeking our consent to make that choice. Why shouldn't the jury and the rest of us seek out alternative views? The analysis and definition of "ongoing social consent" is vague and open to interpretation to say the least, apart from its insistence on not using a referendum.

But I find it tedious when the dialogue in this forum gets personal, with participants attacking the player rather than the ball...

You don't understand that WE DO create our own HLW! So I am not sure you understand the rest of the report either.

Things happen in order, you can't have a decent economic analysis when current legislation pretty much forbids EVERYTHING and you don't know what future legislation is going to allow/disallow. First we need a proper legislative framework in place that will allow sounder economic analysis to take place in full light of the actual facility we are legislatively enabled to build.

In all technicality you cannot even have a true economic assessment made until a site is identified, the RC didn't seriously consider siting. You cannot know the coatings of a project if you don't know something as basic as where it's even going to be located.

We still do not know what we are going to store (or even what we're allowed to store), how much we're going to store, what type of repository we will have (above ground, below ground, some combination of both), staffing of the facility cannot be determined until we know the facility is.

A 'full economic analysis' at this point would be meaningless, that's why there isn't one.

Thank you David. No one I know, or my friends know, got a jury invitation. Not one single person among our wide acquaintance. I hear the questions you are raising. And I hear your doubts, especially on the issue of no free vote for all citizens. I'd like to see other evidence than that obtained thus far from what I perceive to be a directed RC. Please persist, for all our better representation.
People will win no hearts or minds with patronising words.

Consent is that Aaron giving people the right to vote even if they refuse to swallow the Government Propoganda the Government and Pro Nuclear Lobby need to swallow this fact as much this annoys them this is a Democracy.

Go away Christopher, 'informed' is mentioned three times in the explanation of this forum. Nothing is more apparent than that you are not, nor do you have desire to be.

You can try to brainwash and manipulate the public all you want but at the end of the day if they still choose not to swallow the government Rhetoric that's it game set match respect the vote learn to live with it and move on.

Aaron you seem to be talking about the federal proposal for the Flinders Ranges dump (for Australia's low to medium waste ) rather than the Royal Commission's proposal to import other countries' waste? I thought this forum was to discuss the latter? There are many who accept that a single site to deal with our own national waste makes sense (while questioning the reasoning behind choosing a location miles away from any source and associated unnecessary transport risks) and then there are those of us who don't see any reason why we would even contemplate let alone consent to importing high level waste from overseas.

First, I see no need for the duplication of state and federal facilities, just build one facility, and use it for national purposes. I am indeed discussing the state proposal, I just see no need to exclude a federal use.

Second, we already have our own HLW, we have to store it, there's seldom another option at the moment. Why not take on imported waste (we exported the raw material in the first place) if we are to properly store our own we might as well get 'other nations' to pay for it. HLW is HLW its source and destination make no difference to 'the risk' of storing it.

Third, the location of this facility is all about containing waste in the safest, and best way possible. The supposed 'risk in transit' is negligible - nuclear flasks used in transport have been proven to withstand high speed impacts from trucks and trains 'with damage too insignificant to measure'. We as a nation already transport and transship HLW for reprocessing in France, it then returns. Australia is a large nation, but no reasonable road route between two points in Australia approaches anything like the return distance between Australia and France! The reason we locate facilities such as those featured in the NFCRC recommendation away from population and water sources is precisely so that in the unlikely event that something does 'leak' there is a long period of time and distance to cover (additional containment) before population, food or water is impacted.

Aaron it's not a case of if there is a leak it's when there is a leak it doesn't matter how much you try to soft soap the issue the case is that High Level Nuclear Waste has not been proven to be able to be safely stored for 100 years let alone the several hundreds of thousands of years actually required to render this toxic filthy waste safe. Still the Government and EXPERTS are determined not to allow the Public to have a vote but instead want to push this filth onto us at any cost and justify it by whatever lies they regurgitate from the Nuclear Waste Producing Industry.

Yes Aaron Australia does produce "HLW", however as far as I know - acknowledging of course that I'm not nearly as knowledgable or informed as you are - in minuscule amounts compared to countries that produce nuclear energy, and in minuscule amounts compared to the volume of the import being proposed. But I'm going to bow out of this forum now, as the consultation process is starting to look like an exercise in manufactured consent, especially after the insight from David-the-jurist about the editing of his own interview, and the Premier's own misrepresentation of the first jury's report. (For those who don't understand what I mean here, the Premier has been quoted in the media as saying the first jury recommended that the laws be changed to allow the nuclear agenda to proceed, however all the jury did was paraphrase the Royal Commission report recommendation in that regard - which was all they were allowed to do.) And Aaron, you seem to believe that understanding the Scarce report automatically leads to agreeing with it, however Ben Heard's position on the waste facility recommendation proves otherwise.

Stephanie, I don't think you need to agree with the NFCRC report to understand it, but I know you cannot understand it if you've not read it. Having a printed copy means nothing if you've never read the copy...

Aaron said above: "The supposed 'risk in transit' is negligible - nuclear flasks used in transport have been proven to withstand high speed impacts from trucks and trains 'with damage too insignificant to measure'."
I do take issue with this understanding. The Type B containers that are proposed to be used to ship HLW to Australia (~62k of them over 10 years is my estimate) have been tested at 200m depth for 1 hour. This doesn't fill me with confidence we have a shipping SOP that caters for a sinking incident at depth. Hope I'm wrong and hope the case against this is not built on probability.

Exactly...when we say NO...that should be enough....the constant bull dozing of our opinions is bullying...there is NO right way to do a Wrong thing....The NO's have it....there isn't a country anywhere, that wants a Nuclear Dump in their area...so it's pretty open and shut...the only ones arguing "yes" are the ones who are making money out of it...and they wonder why we have no respect for them?

How do you know 'the NO's have it'?

I think the facility is both a necessity, and a good idea as well. - I am absolutely in no paid by any sector related to the project. I just acknowledge that the planet has a problem and Australia is one of the few places with the necessary conditions to be a part of the solution.

The majority of South Australians and Australians are against this proposal and do you know how we know this Aaron is because our weak inept Government refuse to allow Australians their lawful Democratic rights to be able to vote on this Proposal Aaron that's how we know if this was not the case then consent would be at the ballot box not through some back door manoeuvre to circumvent our Legal Rights.

Yes Aaron the NO's most certainly have it won hands down on all forums that the Pro Nuclear Lobbyists have put up its been a beautiful thing to see so many concerned individuals stand up to our Government and the Nuclear Waste Industry and the couple of Pro Nuclear Trolls on these forums.