Community discussion: consent

The Citizens’ Jury found that informed community consent is valued, including the need for all South Australians to be informed enough to make a decision around establishing a nuclear waste storage facility. Comment and share your thoughts on informed community consent and why this is important to you.

Comments closed

Peter Lazic

31 Jul 2016

Consent?
Jay W has already stated there will not be a referendum because the 'majority do not understand the issues', as if he does. Such arrogance and ignorance deserves only contempt from all South Australians.
Put this issue to a referendum so we can show the govt. how ignorant we really are.

Aaron Morley > Peter Lazic

02 Aug 2016

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.

Peter Lazic > Peter Lazic

02 Aug 2016

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.

Aaron Morley > Peter Lazic

02 Aug 2016

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 Jakobsson

31 Jul 2016

The World today

Why is Australia looking at Nuclear fuel when the rest of world is so over the nuclear, coal and oil industries and are now doubling their investment in renewable energy, as the following examples state;-

Renewable Energy Investments: Major Milestones Reached, New World Record Set

• Coal and gas-fired generation attracted less than half as much capacity investment as renewables last year;
• Renewables added more to global energy generation capacity than all other technologies combined;
• For first time, developing world investments in renewables (up 19% in 2015) topped developed nations' (down 8%);
• World record total of $286 billion invested in renewables last year; makes $2.3 trillion over 12 years

http://unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?ArticleID=36112&DocumentID=27068

Renewables are beating fossil fuels 2 to 1

While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels

PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant

One of California’s largest energy utilities took a bold step in the 21st century electricity revolution with an agreement to close its last operating nuclear plant and develop more solar, wind and other clean power technologies.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-diablo-canyon-nuclear-20160621-snap-story.html

Concerned Australian Citizen
Darren Jakobsson

Darren Jakobsson

31 Jul 2016

Clean, Green Renewable Energy is the Right Way

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 Electric Vehicle with Battery Storage market is the answer for the transport sector.

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.

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

Selina Ayles > Darren Jakobsson

29 Aug 2016

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.

David Pitt

30 Jul 2016

Hi David Pitt . To those of you trying to gain information, keep going do not let the people who think because you not up on your chemistry, it does make your comment or question any less valid, and there is no need for others to be nasty or condescending. everybody has the right to there opinion without judgement or harassment.

Christopher Huckel

30 Jul 2016

The public will never give their consent and the Government are fully aware of this so they have developed this circus to circumvent the need for consent it's all smoke and mirrors to give the appearance of informed consent without having to actually allow the public an actual lawful Democratic vote.

Matthew Edwards

29 Jul 2016

I will never support this. Even if i believed they would do it correctly, i would still be against storing other countries poison in my ancestral home.

The matter of fact is that i do not even trust our government to do their job properly and have been given no reason to believe they won't cut corners and just ruin everything.

Joe Morris

29 Jul 2016

We must not take other countries problems just for money think about generations to come how are they going to see us.

Karen Bubna-Litic

29 Jul 2016

I am sorry that people feel it is OK to be rude on this forum.

Stephanie Johnston > Karen Bubna-Litic

29 Jul 2016

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.

Aaron Morley > Karen Bubna-Litic

30 Jul 2016

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.

Karen Bubna-Litic

28 Jul 2016

I am quite shocked and disappointed at the comments on this thread.
As a concerned citizen of sa, i do not consent to a nuclear waste dump in this state. I would like the 'cradle to grave ' principle to be employed so that those producing the waste deal with it. This policy would determine where the waste ends up , avoid the concerns around transport and offer an incentive to minimise waste. I say no to the proposal.

Aaron Morley > Karen Bubna-Litic

29 Jul 2016

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

Steven McColl > Karen Bubna-Litic

29 Jul 2016

Cradle to grave?

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

Christopher Huckel > Karen Bubna-Litic

30 Jul 2016

Still working as a tag team guys

Aaron Morley > Karen Bubna-Litic

30 Jul 2016

Still posting nothing Christopher?

Tim Bickmore > Karen Bubna-Litic

30 Jul 2016

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

David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

Stephanie . I am not sure what we will be allowed to ask for in the next part of the citizens jury. However i am concerned, given the directives we were given in the first jury process. The government is going to use this as full community consultation, where in real terms it may be skewed by the narrowing of focus in a certain direction.

David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

Aaron in reference to me not understanding. I do understand as stated in my opening comment, where i state that i feel we need to manage the waste we create . However the Royal commissions findings are talking about importing high level waste from other countries for a price to make money.

Aaron Morley > David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

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.

Aaron Morley > David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

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.

Louis de Villiers

27 Jul 2016

This entire exercise is transparently cynical: a packed Royal Commission and industry insiders making this recommendation which is challenge on environmental safety and security as well as economics, and possibly others too. But the decision has been made and the powers behind it will drive it through against all reasonable objection and facts. And now, after all that, there is this pretense at "public consultation" where you offer to inform us stupid voters of how good this is going to be for us. Utter, despicable rubbish. But expect the most serious and continued opposition.

Matthew Edwards > Louis de Villiers

29 Jul 2016

Business as usual

Christopher Huckel

27 Jul 2016

It's all in the wording (The citizens Jury found informed community consent is valued) but the actual Truth and reality is exactly the opposite while it may be valued it is not required.

Tim Bickmore

26 Jul 2016

There is no mandate for South Australian's consenting to this toxic waste burden as an in-perpetuity heritage for the next 4,000 generations. If this govt goes ahead then they are ethically & morally bankrupt.

Matthew Edwards > Tim Bickmore

29 Jul 2016

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

David Pitt

26 Jul 2016

Hi South Australians, My name is David and I have been involved in the first of the citizens juries on this subject. While I feel that the citizens jury is a great way of gaining a broad mix of people and opinion. I believe that this should be a whole state vote on this issue. However a simple yes or no will not suffice and the reasons why are I feel we have a responsibility to manage the waste we create through medical and other mean, so i would propose several Questions need to be addressed. 1. Do we have our own nuclear waste storage facility for low and intermediate level waste generated in S.A. 2 Do we accept low to high level waste from other states in Australia. 3 Do we Accept high level waste from other countries, the majority being used fuel rods from nuclear power generation. Before any of this can happen the current nuclear legislation needs to be changed, In the Royal commissions report the economic modeling is flawed because the legislation prohibits the discussion of what price may gained from the country which may wish to dispose of there waste. The government has already changed the legislation to allow the citizens jury, although i haven't been told whats involved in the next part i believe that they are going to give us figures from the community consultation roll out and this will be all the community involvement there will be. I have my views as do many others this is far too important not to be done in a more precise manner. So to any body reading this If you have an opinion, a question or suggestion each and everyone of us needs to stand up and let the jury or politicians know exactly what you think, because once the waste gets here, its here for a long time.

Stephanie Johnston > David Pitt

26 Jul 2016

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...

Aaron Morley > David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

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?

Stephanie Johnston > David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

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.

Stephanie Johnston > David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

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...

Aaron Morley > David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

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

Aaron Morley > David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

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.

Aaron Morley > David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

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.

Aaron Morley > David Pitt

27 Jul 2016

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

Mary-Ann Lovejoy > David Pitt

27 Aug 2016

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.

Aaron Morley

25 Jul 2016

I like this topic, of course 'consent' ought to be sort, but I do think the 'informed' qualifier is important.

I mentioned several times in the other discussions that at the moment I do not think the public at large are informed enough to make a decision on this proposal.

A great number of the 'anti' group simply comment on emotional grounds, seldom with much substance or fact behind their comments.

Statements like 'we don't want it' are only emotive and irrelevant, 'we already have it', we need somewhere safe and secure for it. Having small amounts scattered about the state/nation in basements, metal cabinets, elevator shafts etc is most surely not the best we can do. By any metric, storing this material across many locations is less than ideal. Having to evaluate, monitor, document and secure hundreds of sites is just not a sensible deployment of resources. A single, purpose built facility is the only way forward.

The reality is we already have this stuff to store, we will continue to generate it, because we simply cannot sustain our lifestyle without it, it's quite simple it needs to go somewhere safe and secure.

We can complain about the 'nuclear industry' and its waste all we like, but the fact is that at least the 'industry' is making an attempt to contain and do something about its waste. Coal, oil, gas, etc don't have a track record at all of managing their CO2 and only a recent history of dealing with particulates.

The level of radiation we're dealing with outside the storage containers is such that workers at the facility will not be wearing anything more than standard clothes and probably overalls to keep their clothes clean. Even the great majority of workers within the nuclear power industry wear standard coats and overalls over clothes. I used to work with a Co60 source and the only protection I wore was the clichéd regular white lab coat, and that was to protect my clothes, mostly from oil exiting the vacuum pumps.

The industry certainly has my consent to move on to technological and design proposals along with looking into identification of sites.

Hopefully we can keep emotion out of this and have a realistic, fact based discussion.

Christopher Huckel > Aaron Morley

25 Jul 2016

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.

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

25 Jul 2016

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.

Christopher Huckel > Aaron Morley

25 Jul 2016

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.

Stephanie Johnston > Aaron Morley

26 Jul 2016

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.

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

27 Jul 2016

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.

Christopher Huckel > Aaron Morley

27 Jul 2016

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.

Stephanie Johnston > Aaron Morley

28 Jul 2016

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.

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

29 Jul 2016

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...

Phil Gee > Aaron Morley

01 Aug 2016

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.

Christopher Huckel

25 Jul 2016

Consent wow this is absolutely a fraud perpetrated on the population of South Australia if they honestly believed in the core values of our Democracy we would be allowed to vote on the issue but this is not the case our corrupt politicians are trying to turn South Australia into the worlds nuclear waste dump without the public being allowed to decide their fate.

Naomi Commandeur > Christopher Huckel

30 Jul 2016

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?

Aaron Morley > Christopher Huckel

30 Jul 2016

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.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

01 Aug 2016

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.

Christopher Huckel > Christopher Huckel

01 Aug 2016

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.