Community discussion: trust

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

Comments closed

Jeffrey Frommelt

19 Sep 2016

Bophal -Union Carbide
15000 fatalities due to an insecticide leak. 15000!
The Union Carbide Management were fined $2000 for "criminal negligence". 15000 people dead!

Christopher Huckel

17 Sep 2016

Trust.......The Government does not trust the people to vote on this Filthy Toxic Proposal and the people do not Trust our corrupt inept bungling Government.

Jeffrey Frommelt

14 Sep 2016

Terrorism!
Imagine having an innocent little boat legally parked in Auckland Harbour and a bunch of very very sophisticated high technology foreign mercenary terrorists sink it. True!
Or a pair of 767s with 100 tonnes of kerosine travelling at 600mph crash into two towers within minutes of each other. True
Or 30 odd innocent people are blown up in a bar in Bali, Bagdad, Syria, etc, etc. True
Or an 18m tidal wave, or the Macondo fire or Bophal or .......
A truck purposely driving through a large crowd of happy families and killing lots of people on a National holiday? True

Lots of very large "accidents" lately? True

Risk Management?
"These risks were eliminated using Monte Carlo statistical modelling" is the fine print qualifying the "expertise" and knowledge in predicting any new risk.

Were any of these events predicted by any "experts" who "know" or any complex statistical Risk Analysis?
"Expert who knows" now produces a new three coloured computer generated graph showing no new hazards or risks and a new unexplained Acronym in the title (eg TBA or NA), but not any possible risks or hazards at all.

ELIMINATE the risk and the hazard is a very good idea for managing "potential terrorist attacks on SA nuclear waste dumps or depots" for the next two million years.
Risk managers using computers and gambling with Monte Carlo or a dice did not successfully predict any of these recent catastrophes.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Jeffrey Frommelt

16 Sep 2016

Hi Jeffrey, a risk assessment/management plan is associated with a specific proposal or project and would only come if the Government made the decision to proceed with next steps - we are not at that point. What we are currently doing is discussing the findings of the Royal Commission's report with the community to gain feedback on it's recommendations. The Government will respond to the NFCRC's report and make a decision at the end of the year. You will find more information about the risk assessment process in Finding 87, Chapter 5 on page 104.

Christopher Huckel > Jeffrey Frommelt

18 Sep 2016

What The government is doing is driving the final nail in the coffin of the Labour Party and helping the Nick Xenephon team to ultimately become the party of the future for South Australia.

Jeffrey Frommelt

13 Sep 2016

What was the life expectancy of the helicopter pilot who dumped an urgent load of wet concrete on Chernobyl? I believe it was measured in hours and minutes.
Or the Chernobyl clean up workers?
And Fukashima's long term effect on fishing is what?
When is the plutonium at Maralinga going to be safe?
Was the public lied to or was the expertise wrong or did politicians know the risk and ignore it?

Jeffrey Frommelt

13 Sep 2016

Who was the nuclear waste expert who advised a politician, a lawyer, a liar and an accountant that nuclear waste was "profitable"?
When is the Government going to tell the public that the contamination from Chernobyl, Fukashima, Maralinga is very long term and very very toxic and permanent.
Plutonium splattered across SA in 1952 was never cleaned up.
If the waste is not toxic, store it in Parliament House for a few years first.

Why is it that recent history often keeps showing politicians as liars or technically incompetent and capable of making uninformed decisions at a low cost.
Liquid Molten Salt Small Modular Reactors running on thorium consume nuclear wastes according to recent public domain research findings.

Another SA white elephant building a nuclear waste dump next to the SA 1965 ocean liner passenger terminal at Port Adelaide because politicians did not know people would fly in the future (1963).

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Jeffrey Frommelt

16 Sep 2016

Hi Jeremy, in regards to your comments/questions about the economic modelling and recommendations, Royal Commission considered data from a range of sources, including Jacobs and MCM and other experts. At all stages, key assumptions made in the financial analysis undertaken for the Royal Commission were corroborated by independent research undertaken by Royal Commission staff, evidence heard in the public sessions and through the oversight of two separate advisory committees - the Expert Advisory Committee and the Socio-Economic Modelling and Analysis Advisory Committee. The analysis was also wholly based on publicly available literature from peer reviewed sources and reputable international bodies.

In relation to your concerns around nuclear accidents and past events, the Royal Commission examined each of these to which you have mentioned to understand the learnings from each, and how risks are managed as related to nuclear activity.

Christopher Huckel > Jeffrey Frommelt

18 Sep 2016

Brooke do you actually believe the government could competently undertake this project given their atrocious record of Incompetance honestly Brooke.

Jeffrey Frommelt > Jeffrey Frommelt

21 Sep 2016

Obama spent USD3 billion researching a toxic nuclear waste dump at "Yukka Mountain" and then decided it was too dangerous!
Were any Areva experts used by SA Government?

Jeffrey Frommelt

13 Sep 2016

McArthur River mine site will cost $1 billion to clean up.
http://www.mining.com/mcarthur-river-mine-cost-1b-remediate/?utm_source=digest-en-mining-160821&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=digest

Steve Charles

13 Sep 2016

I suggest the real reason behind turning SA into a high level nuclear waste dump is that the SA Government knows that the submarines to be built in Adelaide are already a nuclear design and will need to be converted to diesel, but this is difficult and costly. Perhaps they are wanting to get nuclear submarines by stealth, but will need somewhere to dump the spent fuel. We cannot trust this government. See:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/dick-smith-questions-submarines-project-over-nuclear-power/7837946

JOHN CONNOLLY

05 Sep 2016

I think it is disgusting and dishonest that Kevin Scarce is speaking to children about nuclear waste. As a Commissioner he should have been impartial but we find he is one of the biggest supporters of having a nuclear dump in South Australia.

Jeffrey Frommelt > JOHN CONNOLLY

13 Sep 2016

Let us hope his great grand children never eat fish caught near Fukashima!

Mike Wilson > JOHN CONNOLLY

03 Oct 2016

Absolutely right. Can commissioners be impeached for this sort of behaviour?

Gary Fradd

04 Sep 2016

First, just let me say that your website denied me access to join and understand the facts and provide feedback in relation to the Royal Commission's report two months ago. There was a 'joining glitch'....great start.
Your state Your future Your say...pffft!

I do not trust the government (s) one bit on establishing a nuclear waste facility; purely because of the 'shambolic clean up of Maralinga'....which is still contaminated!!
Trust you say?
Burying tonnes of debris contaminated with plutonium and uranium just shows how irresponsible government can be.
Dilution is no solution to pollution. Stay out of my backyard.

Mary-Ann Lovejoy

27 Aug 2016

Brooke from the Consultation Team keeps stating, on the various boards:
"Chapter 6 of the Royal Commission Report looks at the need for social and community consent for any specific facility proposal to proceed. This includes addressing the importance of "ongoing" social consent through the many stages and gateways if this process was to go forward​. In this context, it identifies that a public vote on a proposal (at any one point in time) is not a reliable indicator of ongoing consent."
This is specious nonsense designed to airbrush the desire of all the commentators here (bar one notable exception) who desire to have a vote. It's my opinion a vote should have been conducted before the RC, to see if the citizens wished to even have this "discussion" at all. But never mind, too late for that. But now there is absolutely no excuse for the Premier not to put it to the vote, to see if citizens want to proceed further. Without such a vote, I believe achieving social consent will be impossible, as people will be suspicious of the government's actions. If the vote supports the RC's plan, then so be it. But the government's prohibition of a vote on such an important issue will always be suspect.

Noel Wauchope > Mary-Ann Lovejoy

16 Sep 2016

Of course - the matter must go to a referendum. But the nuclear lobby knows that the result would be a resounding"NO"

One must wonder who are the manipulators behind the scenes, talking the SA government into this nuclear waste folly.

Jeffrey Frommelt

25 Aug 2016

If the waste is low grade waste, where are all the jobs and profits from a toxic waste dump with a life of millions of years. Armed Guards for terrorists and specially built blast proof transit containers on armoured trucks that become toxic waste? And who guards this waste for the next million years? Let Scandinavian underground nuclear waste dumps in old mines have it, at least it is in glass containers, in high strength concrete kilometres underground in solid granite bedrock, not a shallow trench with a few "penalty for entering" signs near a sheep mesh fence in outback SA.
Maralinga had a few signs and it is contaminated forever. Who pays for new signs every thirty years? Trust who? The people who used explosives to spread weapons grade plutonium into the atmosphere and rain seeded by dust East of Maralinga forever. Trust?

Greig Ebeling > Jeffrey Frommelt

13 Sep 2016

Jeffrey, most of what you have said above is factually incorrect. "millions of years", "armed guards", "signs". "explosives", ... etc. If you could do a bit more research, provide more accuracy, your point about trust would have more relevance.

Jeffrey Frommelt > Jeffrey Frommelt

13 Sep 2016

Greig
Some of what I wrote was tongue in cheek.
In 1952, plutonium was used at Maralinga. The safety barrier so far as I am aware in the last say twenty years was no guards and a few 40yo signs in the middle of nowhere at 50km spacing. Are you aware of any security at Maralinga in 2010 that prevents cattle or sheep from drinking from puddles contaminated with surface plutonium? When was the last job as a security guard at Maralinga advertised?
Can that cow or sheep ever end up in an abbatoir or BBQ or rustler's flock on a semi?
Who dreamed of an 18m tidal wave hitting Fukashima within a human lifetime after construction? Trust! Who imports or eats Japanese fish today?

Jeffrey Frommelt

25 Aug 2016

In McLaren Vale wineries you will see the vineyard trellises being ripped up because it is toxic permapine from NZ. How does a politician think nuclear waste will be handled 10 years after they decide it was a dumb idea?

Jeffrey Frommelt

25 Aug 2016

Why are we discussing nuclear waste dumping in SA? Liquid molten salt reactors running on thorium apparently can dispose of nuclear waste. As most of the nuclear waste is a result of using reactors to produce weapons grade waste, it is a dead industry. Why not invite global nuclear waste expertise onto this forum, not just SA's ignorant. That is trust!

Greig Ebeling > Jeffrey Frommelt

13 Sep 2016

Again, Jeffrey, please research the subject, you really don't understand thorium vs breeders, etc.

Jeffrey Frommelt > Jeffrey Frommelt

13 Sep 2016

I believe the Thorium molten salt reactors were suggested for nuclear powered aeroplanes in the USA, but that the Chinese are currently IP ing the technology because of the potential and minimal waste.

Jeffrey Frommelt > Jeffrey Frommelt

13 Sep 2016

But no one would believe the USA funded nuclear powered aero plane research or that China is now researching thorium reactors for the possibilities of a zero nuclear waste green future. Is that correct?

Jeffrey Frommelt > Jeffrey Frommelt

13 Sep 2016

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx

I can only assume the world nuclear.org information on thorium energy is true and up to date, or at least factual and not misleading. I would comment the "current and future energy" has a shade of grey for the future, but thorium may be a game changer sooner than a politician can make a bad decision!

Jeffrey Frommelt > Jeffrey Frommelt

13 Sep 2016

This is very interesting reading about biased interests in Australia's nuclear past, present and future. Very interesting record, but I would prefer to believe the unbiased expertise of "www world nuclear . Org" rather than any biased politician or a biased nuclear waste dump investor or uranium industry lobbyist.
Nuclear energy which uses thorium and disposes of existing nuclear waste is a possible reality according to global expertise on nuclear energy. This would suggest nuclear waste disposal may be changing to a greener solution, soon and nuclear waste from thorium cycle reactors may be zero.

Greig, is the Greig in the discussion below from you?

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/talk.environment/YE8eOo_boqc/Fv4qL1wX6f8J

Jeffrey Frommelt > Jeffrey Frommelt

27 Oct 2016

Again, Jeffrey, please research the subject, you really don't understand thorium vs breeders, etc.

Oh! And you still believe in no earthquakes in SA and safe "spent fuel" with zero terrorism for millennium!
Do you know what WNA is an acronym of?
Quote

"Also, a spent fuel pool fire could reportedly make an area 60 times larger than that of the Chernobyl accident uninhabitable."
Explain why nuclear experts disagree with you often.

Katrina Kytka

15 Aug 2016

On the subject of trust... What is the current definition of "social license" which, according to the experts is essential for this project to go ahead? By whom and how will it be determined?

Christopher Huckel > Katrina Kytka

15 Aug 2016

The government don't trust the people to vote and the people don't trust our government Katrina.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Katrina Kytka

16 Aug 2016

Hello Katrina, we just responded to your question in the consent forum but will Hi Kartina, thanks for your question.

'Consent' is that the community is comfortable for the Government to consider the next steps; through to the next gateway and to the possible next choice we should consider as a state. There are two steps in this process – and it is something that may take decades; social consent from the broader South Australian population to consider any possible further steps, and then community consent (from a location/site) should they wish to proceed further along the discussions, into possible site selection and facility planning. The findings of the Royal Commission that relate to social and community consent focus on a specific proposal. We are not at that point yet - what we are currently doing is consulting with the South Australian community to allow people to understand the facts and provide feedback in relation to the Royal Commission's report - this feedback will be captured and provided to the Citizens' Jury to inform the Government's response to the report and decision on any next steps.

Claire Catt > Katrina Kytka

16 Aug 2016

In other words, we are asked to continue to spend money on a project which is so controversial an approval by the people is unlikely to emerge anytime soon, probably never.
The citizen's jury has been told site selection alone will cost a billion dollars. The jurors thought they'd had misheard - I was there to witness their astonishment.
Nowhere in the world, including 3rd world countries, has such a proposal been acceptable politically or environmentally for what I would have thought are very obvious reasons. The Australian people will reject this outrageous proposal just like all other nations have done. We will say NO THANKS!

Greig Ebeling > Katrina Kytka

13 Sep 2016

Claire, google Forsmark Waste Repository. The Swedes are really happy to have a facility there. They understand and trust the technology, and they want the jobs.

Are you saying Australians don't want jobs? Or that you don't understand the tech?

Christopher Huckel > Katrina Kytka

18 Sep 2016

Greig be honest and tell everyone of your association with the Pro Nuclear Lobby and the fact that your not even a resident of South Australia shame on you Greig.

Mike Wilson > Katrina Kytka

03 Oct 2016

Grieg, you betcha the Swedes 'understand the technology' of waste storage; they've been engaged in it for almost half a century, so far. If SA really wants the jobs, they should do what the Swedes are doing. Oh, yeah and as for CH's comment, are you actually associated with a pro-nuclear lobby? Aren't you a resident of South Australia? We are eager to learn so that we have the evidence to evaluate your advice - just as you exhort others to present evidence. So, yeah: C'mon, man.

Alec Stolz

12 Aug 2016

The Government/Royal Commission would like us to believe that we can be comfortable that the waste depository will remain safely managed and financed for thousands of years. Lets just think a mere 250 years in the future.
Who is game to predict what SA will look like then ? Perhaps to get an idea of how hard it is to make such a prediction we should look at SA 250 years ago.......
Imagine the group of locals sitting around the campfire under a canopy of stars after a successful day roo hunting.
One of the elders comments how good a day it was and how they have followed in the steps of their ancestors and that future generations will continue in the same way. A young wag pipes up from the other side of the coals. "Nah fellas! I reckon a bunch of pale-skinned aliens will invade our country, kill a big proportion of our people, steal our land, take our children away, dig up our ground, make a massive magical explosion using glowing rock then try to bury the festering remains of this same destructive rock under this very land". This left his mates rolling in the red dust laughing until the tears were flowing freely. A little later as they drifted off to sleep they still had smiles on their faces thinking of the fanciful story the wag had invented.

Greig Ebeling > Alec Stolz

13 Sep 2016

Then the wag explains how there are 7 billion people on Earth, need energy (low emissions preferred), produce a tiny amount of waste that needs to be managed, and SA is a great place to protect the world from this toxic waste. Later they drift off to sleep contemplating whether they can make a contribution to global ecology.

Christopher Huckel > Alec Stolz

18 Sep 2016

Greig Ebeling just another Pro Nuclear Stooge with an actual connection to the people behind this filthy plan and even worse Greig is not even a South Australian resident disgraceful Greig

Claire Catt

11 Aug 2016

Thank you Aaron Morley for your comment regarding terror risks. The long and the short of it however is simple. The terror landscape is evolving rapidly and unlikely to become manageable without large amounts of resources being spent on it.
Spent fuel rods, which make up high level nuclear waste, contain plutonium, a toxic material highly sought after by terror groups.
Fallout, by accident as happened in Chernobyl or by design as in potential terror attacks, is also a very real potential scenario.

This controversial and in my opinion extremely dangerous proposal is voluntary. The only benefit would be financial though that is very questionable too. Some things you do not do for any money. Importing nuclear waste and endangering your country in this way is one of them.

Aaron Morley > Claire Catt

11 Aug 2016

Thankyou for taking notice Claire, unlike someone else.

Spent fuel is not really the HLW as such, spent fuel is still 'hot' and stored under water - this is what you see in some of those photos of all of the rods stored in a pool you probably shouldn't consider going for a swim in. We can't really store this stuff here, for starters there is no acceptable method of transporting spent fuel in this form, keeping it and the water safe in transit is not just achievable.

There is little to no plutonium in the waste, plutonium being sought after as fuel in the reactor. Plutonium present will likely be removed during reprocessing, and re introduced to the fuel rods for the next cycle of operation in the reactor.

It should be noted that a fuel rod does not look like a bunch of uranium (or some other metal) bits and bunch of plutonium bits etc. They're chemically combined (kind of like being melted together), 'terrorists' trying to 'extract' the plutonium would be something like yourself taking a $2 coin and 'extracting' the nickel, like I said this effectively cannot be done. Certainly cannot be done without complex tools and machinery that you, me or a terrorist could buy or construct unnoticed - such a machine would be large and 'obvious'.

Far easier for a terrorist to simply source the plutonium or similar (via money) from one of those tinpot dictatorships I referred to.

The 'fallout' from Chernobyl cannot happen at a nuclear waste repository, I have said before, they are vastly different things. Power reactors have large amounts of high activity fuel more or less undergoing self sustaining reactions, these are 'controlled' by the rods you might have heard of which enable the reduction in speed (or complete stopping) of the reaction.

Within a waste repository, we're storing 'waste' it is no good for fuel anymore, there is insufficient activity left to sustain the reaction. Think of a used teabag, there's still 'tea' in the bag, but you're not going to much out of it by putting into cup after cup trying to make more tea...

Chernobyl was a problem because the water level in the reactor was allowed to get too low, the core got too hot, and basically there was a steam/hydrogen explosion, nothing like a nuclear bomb despite what people like Konstantin Checherov (a guy I kind of admire) might say.

The point is, in waste, radiated particles are produced at insufficient rate and absorbed by their containment before they can cause the reaction to accelerate. The heat produced is insignificant enough that we don't need water cooling (eliminating the link to 'Fukushima' - for Christopher), the whole system is passive, it barely needs a babysitter, certainly not a series of back up systems.

That's how we can be so sure 'it's safe'

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

12 Aug 2016

Your correct Claire it's not safe to store that's why the desperate attempts by overseas interests to coerce our inept government into accepting this insane proposal to turn us into the Worlds Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump.

Aaron Morley > Claire Catt

12 Aug 2016

Perhaps you could do something useful Christopher like tell us how a terror group might get their hands on plutonium (as if they even want to do that) from stored waste? If you can't do that, how about doing something easier, like going and chasing a parked car...

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

12 Aug 2016

Try putting the good of Australia ahead of your own self serving ambitions for a change Aaron I know you will find it difficult considering your lack of empathy but just try it Aaron.

Aaron Morley > Claire Catt

13 Aug 2016

I am putting the good of Australia first! That is precisely why I support the idea Christopher. ;-)

I have mentioned before, I don't have an ambition in the nuclear field at all. My interests in radiation lie elsewhere, specifically EM you should recall.

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

13 Aug 2016

Beautiful to watch Ben Duffield operate on Mr Morley in the Economics discussion like a skilled surgeon he cut straight to the point and if you check the feed you will see Aaron is missing in action or maybe he's still trying to come up with a retort that won't make him look stupid lol............

Mark Lambert > Claire Catt

27 Aug 2016

Aaron Morley.......such a fool for someone who states he's clever....

Jeffrey Frommelt > Claire Catt

26 Oct 2016

Quote
"Also, a spent fuel pool fire could reportedly make an area 60 times larger than that of the Chernobyl accident uninhabitable."

Spent fuel can go critical, just like Chernobyl and Fukashima did when fuel was not cooled sufficiently. Stored spent fuel can be very very dangerous.

Malgo Schmidt

08 Aug 2016

This was supposed to be CONSULTATION. What it is is INDOCTRINATION. And no way to track our feedbacks.
No trust whatsoever. NO NUCKS!!!

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Malgo Schmidt

15 Aug 2016

Hi Malgo, thanks for your comments. South Australians have an important decision to make, so what we're trying to do is present the facts from the Royal Commission report to the community to encourage people to learn more, discuss with friends and family, and decide where they stand. All feedback recieved will be taken into account to inform the Government's decision at the end of the year.

Christopher Huckel > Malgo Schmidt

15 Aug 2016

Thankyou Malgo keep up the good work it's appreciated.

Claire Catt

08 Aug 2016

Third spot on ISIS' hit list! Still our own Government is prepared to put the people in harms way literally for thousands of years. Huge amounts of taxpayers money is being spent on security. The risk is ever increasing. It would be beyond absurd to make the nation what would surely be a huge target.
To trust a Government prepared to do this, I think not.

Aaron Morley > Claire Catt

11 Aug 2016

I don't think ISIS are going to be able to do too much with the waste repository. For starters, they're a terrorist organization, they're far more concerned with activities that will scare 'westerners' in our day to day lives.

They're about committing acts in population areas, in terms of terrorism, it's likely far more dangerous to store the waste where we currently do. Populated areas in relatively low security hospital/university/public buildings is likely to be much more favourable than a bulk storage.

A cobalt source from an ex medical usage might weigh 10kg, including the relatively portable metal canister its contained in, 'accessible', transportable, potentially dangerous (ex medical cobalt sources have killed several people who stole them in mistake of scrap metal in a couple of third world countries).

If this source was stored in a large purpose built facility sealed into a container weighing in the multiple hundreds of kilograms, or even tonnes, it becomes remarkably less transportable.

Then there's some physics behind what would be required to make an 'effective' 'dirty' weapon. We talking about dense metals here, in the case of a dirty weapon, what the terrorists would want is a large quantity of small fragments, sticking an explosive next to a lump of metal isn't going to change its physical form too much. This stuff is dense, it doesn't break apart easily, it will most likely survive the blast as a single mass, 'pick it up' and the radiation is gone - hardly a lasting outcome for effort.

For effect, the material will have be broken into multiple fragments (the smaller the better) that will therefore hopefully scatter far and wide. This is going to require something a bit more sophisticated than an angle grinder and some tools from Bunnings. A terrorist organization is just not going to have these kinds of tools and facility here (or likely anywhere).

Couple those difficulties with the distance it'd have to be moved and we can be pretty sure its interest value to ISIS or similar is going to be low.

I don't mean to alarmist, but should ISIS or similar want nuclear product, there are likely several tinpot dictatorship type countries (or other 'black market' channels) out there who might be happy to hand it over for money. (Notably in this case at least not Russia, Putin is at least on the side of much of the rest of the planet when it comes to ISIS).

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

11 Aug 2016

Yes Aaron 3 wars just in the last 100 years but you believe Australia will be safe geologically and politically for the next several hundreds of thousands of years and your prepared to gamble with future generations. No wonder your in the minority and like the government seek to undermine our Democracy instead of blowing the trumpet for the Nuclear Propoganda machine try to respect those that fought and died for this country to protect our way of life and our Democracy Aaron.

Aaron Morley > Claire Catt

11 Aug 2016

Christopher, I don't 'believe' it will be geologically stable, I KNOW it will be.

Seriously, did you even read what I posted Christopher? Have you comprehended what I have said would be required to turn this stuff into an effective weapon? No you clearly have not.

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

12 Aug 2016

Aaron have you paid any Attention to the majority of those that are against this Filthy Toxic Insane Proposal I guess not that's why you continue with your incessant whining.

Aaron Morley > Claire Catt

12 Aug 2016

I don't think the majority are against it. And I only ever pay attention to people to people who know what they're talking about, or are genuine in their efforts to learn about what they do not understand.

I have told you this MANY times before!

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

12 Aug 2016

Fact the majority of Australians don't want to become the World's Nuclear Waste Dump, Fact if this was not the case our inept bungling government would have a referendum in a flash. Aaron if you believe you have the numbers contact your local member and demand a referendum on this important issue......yes just as I guessed..........you know the result...........

Aaron Morley > Claire Catt

13 Aug 2016

No actually, I had a bit of chat to the ladies on the stand at Marion today - they were of the opinion that they got more positive feedback than negative, not so sure you'd be right.

I won't trouble my local member(s) for a referendum for three reasons, at federal level one is not required, at state level the result is not binding so who cares, and thirdly, I have no idea who the members representing me are, I don't care much for politics.

Christopher Huckel > Claire Catt

13 Aug 2016

Politicians come and go but the damage they can cause while in office can last for years and if the clowns in office get their way the damage could last for hundreds of thousands of years.

Jeffrey Frommelt > Claire Catt

14 Sep 2016

Who is the idiot who knows it is "geologically stable"?

Is that the same guy who designed Fukashima for an 8m tidal wave and was hit by an 18m tidal wave a few years after construction.

The geological records for SA seismic activity span 1836 to 2016. In 1836 there were no ways to measure earthquakes and few people who cared or lived at Maralinga.

Japan had thousands of years of records and within 30 years of Fukashima being built, the people "who knew " were found to be very very wrong. Now Japan has to import eating fish forever due to nuclear waste spillage and listening to "people who know" but were WRONG!

Christopher Huckel

06 Aug 2016

Trust this Government is certainly lacking the public have lost any trust they did have in them and it's just a waiting game now until the next state election to remove them.

Mary-Ann Lovejoy > Christopher Huckel

27 Aug 2016

Steven Marshall's Opposition also seems to be supportive of the proposal, although he may change that view if there's massive lack of social consent:
http://www.stevenmarshall.com.au/nuclear_fuel_cycle

Louis de Villiers

05 Aug 2016

It is interesting to see that there is entirely no trust in this cynical process embarked upon by a government which is treating us as a bunch of stupid, scared, uninformed children. The arrogance and paternalism of this process which purports to attempt to "inform" us of the issues stinks to the heavens. It is clear that this is a frighteningly atrocious idea which government hopes to foist on the community, spending their hard-earned taxes on developing infrastructure for corporate mates who will be the only ones to benefit. The economic modelling does not stack up. And the bottom line remains that nuclear has been sufficiently seen to be dangerous, uneconomical and unnecessary. Stop the charade and get rid of this nonsense once and for all.

Aaron Morley > Louis de Villiers

05 Aug 2016

What economic modelling have you seen? There has hardly been any, if there were any I'd agree, it would likely not stack up.

A true economic model cannot exist until we have changed legislation to enable us to know what type of facility we can have, what type of material we can accept and how much we can accept.

Only after that information is known can it be determined what will be built where, and only then can a meaningful economic study occur.

If you don't know what you're going to store, where you're going to store it and how big you need to build it you cannot possibly know 'how much it will cost'.

Consider this, nuclear power plants are built by corporations who everyone complains about because 'they just want to make money' - if it were true that nuclear power was so uneconomical, why would these 'profit hungry' corporations build them? To lose money? Of course not.

Unnecessary? Perhaps you can be the first here to enlighten us as to what other energy sources can produce enough base load electricity for the planet.

Dangerous? Perhaps you can point out a serious injury or death that has occurred due to stored nuclear waste.

Louis de Villiers > Louis de Villiers

06 Aug 2016

Indeed Aron. The parameters are so vague that it is impossible to do any real modelling. But there have been reports on the expected benefits, and the costs that National and State governments would have to commit to to enable this plan. The corporations make their profit from the governments commit in these projects, on our behalf. Money which could every time be better invested in projects which would better benefit communities every time. As regards the dangers of nuclear, I am not going to try to summarise the story of the past 60 and more years. Suffice to say that the nuclear lobby always argues that no, or very limited, death and damage can be ascribed to them, where there is constantly evidence which manages somehow to reach the light that this is blatantly untrue. Like the industry figures of a very small number of deaths resulting from Chernobyl against medical claims of closer to one million having been affected and killed.

Aaron Morley > Louis de Villiers

06 Aug 2016

We can debate the consequences of Chernobyl if you wish, but I really don't see the relevance, for all the unknowns there are current attached to the NFCRC findings there are a few knowns. Those are that a waste repository needs no moderator, needs no active cooling, could never achieve criticality, and most importantly the most obvious thing we know is that irrespective of what it is that we build, it will not be a piece of 1970's era Soviet reactor technology...

Christopher Huckel > Louis de Villiers

09 Aug 2016

The only thing the Government is building is a growing level of mistrust and anger in the community.

Aaron Morley > Louis de Villiers

11 Aug 2016

Sadly, for all the efforts the other thing not being built is Christopher's meaningful comment count.

Colleen Roberts

05 Aug 2016

It appears the SA Liberal Party are possibly 'in principle' supportive of this waste facility. I recently read an article (unfortunately I cannot recall exactly where), that a SA Liberal Senator (male) was the first SA parliament member to push for this Nuclear debate and facility as a way forward in the future. Jay Weatherill then ran with it.

So, as I see it, the Liberal Party both State and Federal are essentially in favour of a Nuclear future. Which backs up why Steven Marshall is publicly sitting on the fence with an each way bet - at least to the public anyway. I would like to know what his personal view is but I guess he wont tell us that hmmm?

It is concerning that various forums and opinions 'around the traps' indicate that possibly as many as 85-90% of people are opposed to this, instead being infavour of developing more 'Green' energy technologies yet, the Advertiser state that a poll they conducted showed most people were in favour of a Nuclear waste dump. How can this be so conflicting?

Trust. Where and how can there be Trust? When the next SA Election comes we hope that there are many candidates to vote for who are not Labor or Liberal.

Si Coulls > Colleen Roberts

05 Aug 2016

I totally agree. That is exactly what it looks like. Federal Liberal are on board, partly I am sure because they are sick of propping up this state and of course they are looking for a solution to the Nation's low level nuclear waste and they want it in SA on their former Minister's land. Interesting ! Former Liberal SA Senator Sean Edwards is a mad advocate for nuclear, nuclear everything actually. He has done a lot of damage. I am sure Federal Liberal feel that they would like hypocrites if they didn't support Weatherill's push. They call him "brave", I think that is code for stupid. You should also know that Senator "Family First" Bob Day is also supportive of nuclear in SA.
State Liberal need to support their counterparts, therefore Marshall wont step out of line on nuclear and is pretending to be broadly supportive, pending further investigation... and of course BILLIONS of tax payer money spent on this. If he had any smarts he would step away from this now and denounce any support.
What in the hell are we supposed to do if all parties support it? Public revolt? The only possibility is Xenophon who is not pro nuclear and will be entering state politics next election. Other than that its Greens and not all their policies make sense.

Aaron Morley > Colleen Roberts

05 Aug 2016

I feel your pain guys, it must be hard when you want everyone to tow the 'NIMBY' line, and to say something like 'If the pollies want it stick it on North Terrace' etc. Then along comes a politician - from the opposite side of the spectrum to the original proponent of the idea, who puts up their hand and says 'Yup, okay in my backyard'.

Suddenly the 'if they want it they can have it' line doesn't seem to work, and now it's got to be a 'conflict of interest'. Yep, a member of the opposing political party, in a different level of government also thinks the idea is sound, that's not bi-partisan support, it's a conspiracy.

It must really suck getting your argument burned up like that.

Christopher Huckel > Colleen Roberts

09 Aug 2016

More attacks Aaron it might shock your narrow minded concept that anyone who is against turning our state into a Toxic Nuclear Waste Dump is not a NIMBY or NAY-SAYER but they are the facts it must really suck knowing your opinions are in the minority Aaron.

Mary-Ann Lovejoy > Colleen Roberts

27 Aug 2016

The Murdoch press is well known for its presentation of "facts" that suit Rupert's and the IPA's political and financial benefit. It's incredibly easy to rig a poll in a newspaper like that. No reliance could reasonably be placed on such a "poll".

Jeffrey Frommelt > Colleen Roberts

14 Sep 2016

For all the people who don't know Fukashima nuclear power station was a concrete structure designed as a "Hazardous Facility" by some of the world's experts to withstand an 8m tidal wave. Within a few years of construction it was damaged by an 18m tidal wave. Now Japan fish in the sea are not edible for a long time to come.
Don't listen to any "expert" that claims to "know"it is safe.
From memory, the statistical model for a flood at Woomera predicts 700mm of rain in 24 hours!
What if this is wrong?
I think Port Hedland has recorded 24" of rain in 24 hours.

Jeffrey Frommelt > Colleen Roberts

14 Sep 2016

100% of people surveyed agreed with tipping toxic nuclear waste in SA. Both of them had just completed a basket weaving class.

Mark Pawelek

03 Aug 2016

Renae Schmidt said:

... There is no telling of what could go wrong and how they would fix it, because there would never be a fix if something went wrong ...

That is nonsense. As I understand it SA is thinking of storing large concrete casks containing used nuclear fuel. These casks are resistant to aircraft and trains crashing into them at high speed (tests show). So nothing much can go wrong. Put them in a huge warehouse to sit, and they'll still be sitting there in 200 years time. Just because they have the word "nuclear" in their description does not mean they are a massive, incalculable, risk.

Christopher Huckel > Mark Pawelek

04 Aug 2016

Can you gaurantee nothing can go wrong for several hundreds of thousands of years because that is the time frame required to render this Filthy Toxic Legacy Safe then ask yourself what right do you or anyone have to put this Risk onto hundreds of generations to come. Then consider Australia generates a minute amount of High Level Waste by world standards so why should we become the world's Nuclear Waste dumping ground remembering the majority of waste is generated in the Northern Hemisphere why should it be Dumped in the Southern Hemisphere.

Aaron Morley > Mark Pawelek

05 Aug 2016

No what a half life is Christopher? With every year the outcome of 'the risk' decreases.

Aaron Morley > Mark Pawelek

05 Aug 2016

Gah! *Know...

Renae Schmidt

03 Aug 2016

As the government has stated they will consult with the Indigenous people, we all know this means they will tell, I agree with so many comments on here. If the government weren't so interested in doing this, why would they have spent so much money "Informing" us the public with their fairy tales of how it will run. There is no telling of what could go wrong and how they would fix it, because there would never be a fix if something went wrong. just the fact that they don't mention fault lines when "Educating" the public and show the Tectonic plates only, I assume that they think people will see that Earthquakes don't occur in the country. Anyone living there knows how wrong that is. if they can't show the whole picture, what else are they hiding?

Aaron Morley > Renae Schmidt

05 Aug 2016

Do you live in the country? Have you experienced an earthquake? Did your house magically become a pile of rubble? We can build structures to easily withstand earthquakes. Japan has a nuclear reactor capable of withstanding up to magnitude 8 (or maybe it's even 9) quakes.

Here's the real thing about earthquakes, they're unpredictable, that is indisputable, they do occur in central Australia that too is indisputable, but what also indisputable is that an earthquake will not damage a nuclear waste repository. We don't have to predict when 'the shake' will come, we just have to build the structure to survive the shake when it comes.

SA parked Flinders Hospital on a fairly major fault line, it matters not, there have been several small movements in the fault and the hospital is still there, the patients are no worse for wear and the nuclear isotopes the hospital holds for medical purposes were never in danger of 'escaping'. ;-)

The other simple fact is, the NFCRC never found that there were no earthquakes in likely sites, that frankly would have been foolish if they did. What the report actually said was central Australia experiences low seismic activity. - That's okay, we can build structures to cope with that. We can build structures to cope with high activities too, it's just harder and more expensive. Less complexity is always best.

Jeffrey Frommelt > Renae Schmidt

14 Sep 2016

A Senior Geologist on the worlds biggest gold and copper mine, once said to me "where there is copper, there are earthquakes". Where is the copper triangle, Mt Osmond, Kanmantoo, Carapateena, Roxby Downs, Burra, Moonta, Kapunda, Prominent Hill, etc, etc.
Any geologists reading this who can elaborate?

Si Coulls

03 Aug 2016

Trust, accountability and transparency. Hmmm, would we the public ever associate those words with the SA Government? I don't think so. The only "trust" I want is to allow me and every other South Australian a direct say in this matter. Hold a Referendum and you will redeem yourselves.

Christopher Huckel

02 Aug 2016

Our Government don't Trust the people to vote on the issue and the people don't trust the Government.