Share your initial thoughts on the Royal Commission's Report

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

Comments closed

Sandra baulderstone

18 Jul 2016

I am commenting on the issue of having anything nuclear in South Australia or anywhere in Australia. I would like to point out a fact that people seem to have forgotten... The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is STILL LEAKING. I would also like to point out that South Australia sits upon a Fault Line. How anyone can think that bringing nuclear power etc to South Australia is good, couldn't be more sadly mistaken. I pray that our politicians are smart enough to learn from mistakes from other unfortunate country's and stop anything nuclear being in our beautiful country. Have some pride in our country and protect it instead of any money making venture.

Aaron Morley > Sandra baulderstone

18 Jul 2016

Fukushima was taken out by a tsunami, can you tell us when the last tsunami occurred in central Australia? Can you name a power plant that has failed due to earthquake and a giant wave of water?

Do you realize that building a structure to survive an earthquake whilst not trivially easy is not the hardest part of the project either?

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Sandra baulderstone

18 Jul 2016

Hi Sandra, thanks for joining the discussion and sharing your thoughts. It is important to note that whilst the Royal Commission investigated four key areas of the nuclear fuel cycle, it was identified that the management, storage and disposal of nuclear and radioactive waste was the key opportunity that should be considered. It found that nuclear power generation would not be commercially viable in SA under current market rules at this point in time.

In regards to your concerns about seismicity, the Royal Commission examined this topic and you can read more on their findings from page 89 of the report.

Steven McColl > Sandra baulderstone

19 Jul 2016

Sandra then do not use your Sat Nav.

Steven McColl > Sandra baulderstone

19 Jul 2016

Sandra 02 May 2015 China’s Qianzhan newspaper published an article to bare the mystery of China’s most advanced 098 nuclear-fueled and nuclear-armed submarines.

The article says: Vice Governor Tan Zuojung disclosed that PLA navy has completed development of its fourth-generation nuclear submarine Type-098. At the same time U.S. satellite has confirmed two Type 098 fourth-generation strategic nuclear fueled an nuclear armed submarines.

It proves that China is developing effective second-strike capabilities. One Type-098 can carry 12 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) carrying 3 independently targetable warheads per SLBM.

For nuclear security, China’s SLBM carried by its strategic nuclear-fuelled submarines are hidden underwater.

In addition, China has built an underground base for its nuclear submarines to make it even more difficult for its enemy to detect and destroy them.

Sandra so how would South Australia's underwater tractors be any sort of deterrent (that do not even have the range to make it to the East China Sea and back again travelling at 10 knots) to the rise of China?

And China's belligerent attitude to the United Nations ruling this week that China's Island construction program is illegal and a violation of maritime law?

Why do you think the US Navy have the SSN and SSBN?

What is the SSN and SSBN dear Sandra?

No nuclear anything - then please you're ignorant on this topic. ..
.

What type of nuclear energy do you get under our Sun?

Steven McColl > Sandra baulderstone

19 Jul 2016

Dear Sandra and Aaron - your concerns regarding Seismic actions are valid (horizontal base shear (V)).

AS1170.4 (Loading - seismic actions) is where Structural Engineers do the Seismic analysis and design - if interested further.

Steven McColl > Sandra baulderstone

19 Jul 2016

Sandra your concerns regarding Seismic actions are valid.
I have some Seismic questions for you . . .

Does one design Structural Engineering structures such as:

1) Reinforced-concrete(to AS3600) Multi-storey car parks and
2) Reinforced-concrete(to AS3600) Hospitals,

a) Where they need to be to service the local community?

b) OR do these structures go only in the middle of nowhere (such as only far north-west of Ceduna) where the seismic Hazard factor (Z) is only *0.03?

b) AND, do these structures go only on (or deep inside), rock where the **Soil sub class (Ae) has best effects regarding the adverse Seismic-soil-liquification?
Ae=rock - best effects, Ee = very soft soils - worst effects due to liquification.

* Hazard factor (Z): Section three of AS1170.4 for the South Australian Earthquake hazard map Figure 3.2(B) if interested further.

** Soil sub-class: See section 4 of AS1170.4 for the determination of site sub-soil classes if interested further.

Sandra your concerns regarding Seismic actions are valid.

Christopher Huckel > Sandra baulderstone

20 Jul 2016

Sandra the majority of those that have responded in this forum are of the same opinion as yourself and I thank you for being against this toxic proposal hopefully we will all be allowed to have our say at the ballot box and not have a few corrupt individuals with vested interests force this Toxic Legacy onto us and many future generations to come.

Aaron Morley > Sandra baulderstone

22 Jul 2016

Care to take your corruption allegations to ICAC? Nah, didn't think you would...

Christopher Huckel > Sandra baulderstone

23 Jul 2016

Have you actually bothered to look into our ICAC here Aaron for an Expert you really need to do your homework we have the most corrupt ICAC in Australia just another thing South Australia can be so proud of.

C Roberts

17 Jul 2016

Sorry about the extra posts. A glitch with internet connection.

Aaron, that building closely overlooks our Parliament House, Government House, Festival Centre and its precinct and Adelaide Oval. Places of Governance and, where significant numbers of people gather.
Where in the world would you find a building like this high-rise sooo close to the Government buildings where the Parliament operates from?
There should be a significant, clear security zone around Parliament House and the Governors house.

Aaron Morley > C Roberts

18 Jul 2016

Brazilian National Congress? High rise (or two depending how you look at it) attached.

The Tokyo Metro Government building IS a high rise and IS pretty much surrounded by high rise.

That's just two that I happen to have seen, pretty sure there would be more.

Aaron Morley > C Roberts

18 Jul 2016

Just on the phone to my friend in Germany, she mentioned that the European Parliament building in Brussels has a high building attached to it.

C Roberts

17 Jul 2016

I'm eagerly waiting for the next State Election to boot this current Labor Government into orbit never to return.
In so many areas they have been incompetent and somewhat shady in their decisions.
The reforming of the Health system has been tragic in so many instances. The lack of consultation with the correct specialists and people at the coal face is arrogant and self serving but puts all the actual professional staff, doctors, nurses and, the patients in medically vulnerable and life threatening situations.
We won't forget the secretive land deal at Gillman, or the go ahead for the massive high rise on the festival plaza which, in my opinion is a major security risk in that position. I am astounded the Weatherill Government has allowed this despite much opposition from the South Australian public. No doubt very soon after the building will be sold to the Chinese.

Jay Weatherill, the people of South Australia are demanding a Referendum on the Nuclear debate. You are obligated to honour the wishes of the people of South Australia. The reasoning from Brooke that the Government insists it will make the decision simply does not wash with the good people of South Australia.

C Roberts

17 Jul 2016

I'm eagerly waiting for the next State Election to boot this current Labor Government into orbit never to return.
In so many areas they have been incompetent and somewhat shady in their decisions.
The reforming of the Health system has been tragic in so many instances. The lack of consultation with the correct specialists and people at the coal face is arrogant and self serving but puts all the actual professional staff, doctors, nurses and, the patients in medically vulnerable and life threatening situations.
We won't forget the secretive land deal at Gillman, or the go ahead for the massive high rise on the festival plaza which, in my opinion is a major security risk in that position. I am astounded the Weatherill Government has allowed this despite much opposition from the South Australian public. No doubt very soon after the building will be sold to the Chinese.

Jay Weatherill, the people of South Australia are demanding a Referendum on the Nuclear debate. You are obligated to honour the wishes of the people of South Australia. The reasoning from Brooke that the Government insists it will make the decision simply does not wash with the good people of South Australia.

Aaron Morley > C Roberts

17 Jul 2016

I am no fan of the current state government, but could you please explain how the 'massive high rise' (actually 24 floors - not that tall in the scheme of things) constitutes a 'major security risk'?

C Roberts

17 Jul 2016

I'm eagerly waiting for the next State Election to boot this current Labor Government into orbit never to return.
In so many areas they have been incompetent and somewhat shady in their decisions.
The reforming of the Health system has been tragic in so many instances. The lack of consultation with the correct specialists and people at the coal face is arrogant and self serving but puts all the actual professional staff, doctors, nurses and, the patients in medically vulnerable and life threatening situations.
We won't forget the secretive land deal at Gillman, or the go ahead for the massive high rise on the festival plaza which, in my opinion is a major security risk in that position. I am astounded the Weatherill Government has allowed this despite much opposition from the South Australian public. No doubt very soon after the building will be sold to the Chinese.

Jay Weatherill, the people of South Australia are demanding a Referendum on the Nuclear debate. You are obligated to honour the wishes of the people of South Australia. The reasoning from Brooke that the Government insists it will make the decision simply does not wash with the good people of South Australia.

the South Australian people

Aaron Morley

17 Jul 2016

I don't actually know Philip as such, but I know someone that does. Philip is not an engineer, but he has at least some knowledge in the area.

It's interesting to me that Philip manages to cite the Lancet paper which I am choosing to not dispute right here and now - I have not had the time to read it.

To the BEIR VII report, I will have to go back and recheck that report and some of the investigations done into that report, but I do recall that the VII report used some suspect data out of Canada, interestingly, even with this suspect data at the time incidence of Leukaemia was not increased in this group (most of which were workers in the nuclear POWER industry, hence my asking for a study on those from a storage facility). After the faulty Canadian data was excluded from the report data showed DECREASED RISK of mortality I think for all cancers INCLUDING Leukaemia, correcting the reporting errors made in the Canadian sites showed again that the workers in the nuclear facilities were at reduced mortality risk than their non nuclear industry employed fellow citizens.

The main fallout from the BEIR VII report was that the BEIR VII committee decided that such risk estimates for population risk were not a great idea and abandonned them from their further considerations. Further, many organisations have warned AGAINST using BEIR VII modelling for estimation of low dose radiation sourced cancers.

To Chernobyl, again notable as being a power generation site, not a contained storage facility, but anyway, science only knows what science knows, you cannot differentiate between cancers and discern where the source lies. Cancer is cancer, as Philip states, now you might criticise 'science' for "dismiss[ing] deaths that cannot be explicitly attributed to radiation exposure [at Chernobyl]" but we could be equally concerned about 'science' that supposed data that was not proven or evidence based was able to have conclusion drawn from it too.

Of further note on Chernobyl, is that whilst the initial report did state 4000, with a subsequent addition up to a total 9000 deaths, the statistic on the "credible figures" of 30,000, 60,000 and 90,000 are not stated with source. Further on the 'science' of those predicted numbers, if your data shows 30,000 with an error bar up to 90,000, you likely should go back and reinvestigate your data, that's a huge error and does not provide confidence.

I agree with Philip, we shouldn't trivialise the risk, but there ought to be no need to overstate risk either, especially not with a 'faulty' document like BEIR VII.

Christopher Huckel > Aaron Morley

18 Jul 2016

Wow Aaron has finally managed to regurgitate the pro nuclear propaganda machine rhetoric and he did this all on his own.

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

18 Jul 2016

Spamming my post Christopher? Nothing to say on the content of it? Didn't think so...

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

18 Jul 2016

That is not "pro nuclear propaganda machine rhetoric" Christopher, what you see there is the consequence of peer review on a poor piece of science used by the anti nuclear lobby that doesn't actually have any real data to support their position.

Steven McColl > Aaron Morley

19 Jul 2016

Christopher trolling again - getting quite boring never any thing constructive to put forward.
Aaron is making cogent and credible contributions here, get back in your box Christopher.

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

I see you managed to make some comments today Christopher but you didn't manage to post anything of note against my rebuttal of BEIR VII?

Come on Christipher, if this truly is regurgitated information you see from me then you MUST have seen it before and surely therefore have some sort of canned response to it? No? Because you've not seen it before? Before mentioned by someone else and highlighted for its downfall by myself you'd never even heard of the BEIR reports had you? You'd never have read VII, because it's well over 400 pages.

You don't have something to say about stochastic events? Something to tell us about probabilities and statistical predictions? Nothing to say about what happens to something in the world of science when non linearity is shown to occur in an alleged linear relationship?

What I posted was apparently regurgitated - care to demonstrate this by providing a reason for linking cancer (etc) diagnosis to a cause (like Chernobyl) instead of science's traditional 'null hypothesis' when there is no way of determining any such cause. You've mentioned Chernobyl many times, you must be pretty familiar with it, tell us why cancers with indeterminable causes should be automatically determined to be due to Chernobyl.

Stop merely calling for 'a vote' and instead TRY and demonstrate you have some vague understanding about what you're wanting to vote for or against.

Steven McColl > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

Well said Aaron.

Steven McColl > Aaron Morley

20 Jul 2016

1) We can see you have read the NFCRC report (unlike some others) and
2) Have additional rational knowledge on this topic.

Aaron Morley > Aaron Morley

22 Jul 2016

Yeah, about half my life on and off studying above average level chemistry and biology, with much higher level of study in serious physics and engineering.

Christopher Huckel > Aaron Morley

23 Jul 2016

I was correct you seem so full of something just need to work on the human side and empathy for your fellow man Aaron.

Philip White

16 Jul 2016

I would like to make a couple of comments about the health impacts of radiation, in particular exposure to low levels of radiation. I have no doubt that variations of the issues I raise below have been raised previously, but I want to ensure that these points are made clearly.

Nuclear proponents like to trivialise the health impacts of low levels of radiation. They frequently imply that scientific uncertainty means there is no risk. This is dishonest.

In regard to leukemia, an authoritative recent report, based on an international cohort of over 300,000 radiation-monitored workers concludes that their study “provides strong evidence of positive associations between protracted low-dose radiation exposure and leukaemia” (Leuraud, K, et al 2015, "Ionising radiation and risk of death from leukaemia and lymphoma in radiation-monitored workers (INWORKS): an international cohort study", The Lancet Haematology, Vol. 2, July, pp. 276-281., p. 276).

In regard to solid cancers, in 2005 the authoritative BEIR VII report of the US National Research Council "judged that the linear no-threshold model (LNT) provided the most reasonable description of the relation between low dose exposure to ionizing radiation and the incidence of solid cancers that are induced by ionizing radiation.” That means that in their assessment there is no level of radiation exposure below which there is no risk of developing cancer.

A classic example of nuclear proponents trivialising the effect of radiation is the 1986 Chernobyl accident. They claim that less than 50 people died as a result of the accident—28 reactor staff and emergency workers who died from radiation and thermal burns within four months of the Chernobyl accident and 19 more who had died by the end of 2004. Thus, with the stroke of a pen, they dismiss deaths that cannot be explicitly attributed to radiation exposure, even though it is well known from epidemiological studies such as those cited above that radiation induced cancers take many years to develop and cannot be distinguished from other cancers.

In 2005 the Chernobyl Forum (made up of international organisations including the IAEA) initially estimated that 4,000 people would die as a result of exposure to radiation from Chernobyl, but they were roundly criticised for limiting the population considered and were forced to issue a revised report which included “residents of other ‘contaminated’ areas”. They eventually increased the number of estimated fatalities by 5,000 to 9,000. This is still a much lower estimate than other surveys. Adequate health monitoring of evacuees has not being conducted so the full health impacts and the number of fatalities are inherently uncertain, but credible figures include 30,000 – 60,000 excess cancer deaths and about 90,000.

The debate about the risks of SA accepting a nuclear waste dump must be based on sound scientific studies such as those mentioned above. We must not allow ourselves to be hoodwinked by people who try to trivialise the risks of radiation.

Aaron Morley > Philip White

16 Jul 2016

Pretty sure I know who you are.

Do you have a link to study done on populations near a waste repository rather than power generation facilities, of which I know you know the significant difference?

I want to have more of a conversation with you, but sadly right now I don't have a moment. Hang around.

Steven McColl > Philip White

16 Jul 2016

So what are you planning on living down there?
-

So what? How may milliSieverts go into your mouth at the dentist?

-

So what? And you’re okay to drive on all Freeways having the densities of their deep compacted-fills measured with Nuclear densiometers (around 1800kg/m3) to AS1289?

-

Are you saying that the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command (NNPTC) is also misinformed and wrong?
World’s most powerful Navy.

-
Why do you think ever since SSN-577 (with its S2W reactor) Christened by first Lady Mamie Eisenhower 21 Jan 1954 - right through to SSN-775 (with its S9G reactor) that never needs refuelling!

No idea.

Ever since SSN-577 the US Navy has relegated Diesel boats never to be used again.

-

Even the Russians are smart enough to maintain the advantage in the Under-sea battle space with the pre-eminence of nuclear fuel - leaving their only Diesel boat for export.

-

And why is it that you are also choosing to ignore the Holtec atomic waste pre-fabricated storage modules?

Philip?

What is wrong with the Holtec atomic fuel waste modules?

Are you an Engineer?

Philip do you think you could design an atomic waste fuel module yourself?

Or just criticize?

-

Steven McColl > Philip White

16 Jul 2016

Philip both you and Aaron are each right, together forming cogent arguments and valid concerns regarding radiation.

RADIATION:
The term 'radioactive' is an adjective used to describe the atom.
The term 'unstable' is another name for 'radioactive'.
-
During decay the nuclei of the new atom formed, it either moves to the LEFT or to the RIGHT on the Periodic table, (but may still have too much energy so the atom can emit highly penetrating gamma radiation).
-
RADIATION- alpha decay:
What is an Alpha particle? A Helium nucleus (two protons & two neutrons).
Alpha particle shielding: A piece of paper.

Therefore an 'alpha decay' results in a move to the LEFT two places of the Periodic table losing the two protons, (the loss of two neutrons does nothing but makes the new atom lighter).

-

RADIATION – beta decay:
What is a Beta particle?
Beta particle shielding: Aluminum sheet.

From which direction does the new atom form when moving along the Periodic table as the result of a 'Beta minus' decay, causing a neutron to turn into a proton?

-

RADIATION – gamma rays.
gamma ray shielding.
Gamma ray shielding inside, (and surrounding) the *S9G reactor powering the U.S. Navy's latest fast-attack SSN-774 Virginia class submarine.
*S9G: Submarine platform, 9th generation, General Electric design.

According to the publication: "Over 151 million miles steamed safely on nuclear power' by the Dept. of Defence and the U.S. Navy as follows:
Personnel of the ten CVN and mix of the 73 SSN and SSBN in the U.S. Navy do not receive more than:
0.03 microSieverts/hour in 'general areas' and;

-

do not receive more than approximately:
0.3 microSieverts/hour directly inside the reactor compartment (but a function of how far the control rods are withdrawn for the particular power setting) regarding SSN-774 in this case.

-

And SSN-774 never needs refueling - ever.

'Good ideas are not adopted automatically they must be driven forward with courageous patience' - Admiral Hyman Rickover father of the nuclear-fueled Navy.

******

Philip and Aaron perhaps no Uranium-235 grand-daughter isotopes? or
no Uranium-235 great-grand daughter isotopes? or
no Uranium-235 great-great grand-daughter isotopes?
from Sydney's 20 MW reactor if we get cancer?

Regardless, both Philip and Aaron’s concerns regarding radiation (and its mitigation), is a topic we ought to be informed on - and learn about with regard to the NFCRC proposal.

/////.

Steven McColl > Philip White

16 Jul 2016

Revision A: SSN-774, not SSN-775.

Aaron Morley > Philip White

17 Jul 2016

I don't actually know Philip as such, but I know someone that does. Philip is not an engineer, but he has at least some knowledge in the area.

It's interesting to me that Philip manages to cite the Lancet paper which I am choosing to not dispute right here and now - I have not had the time to read it.

To the BEIR VII report, I will have to go back and recheck that report and some of the investigations done into that report, but I do recall that the VII report used some suspect data out of Canada, interestingly, even with this suspect data at the time incidence of Leukaemia was not increased in this group (most of which were workers in the nuclear POWER industry, hence my asking for a study on those from a storage facility). After the faulty Canadian data was excluded from the report data showed DECREASED RISK of mortality I think for all cancers INCLUDING Leukaemia, correcting the reporting errors made in the Canadian sites showed again that the workers in the nuclear facilities were at reduced mortality risk than their non nuclear industry employed fellow citizens.

The main fallout from the BEIR VII report was that the BEIR VII committee decided that such risk estimates for population risk were not a great idea and abandonned them from their further considerations. Further, many organisations have warned AGAINST using BEIR VII modelling for estimation of low dose radiation sourced cancers.

To Chernobyl, again notable as being a power generation site, not a contained storage facility, but anyway, science only knows what science knows, you cannot differentiate between cancers and discern where the source lies. Cancer is cancer, as Philip states, now you might criticise 'science' for "dismiss[ing] deaths that cannot be explicitly attributed to radiation exposure [at Chernobyl]" but we could be equally concerned about 'science' that supposed data that was not proven or evidence based was able to have conclusion drawn from it too.

Of further note on Chernobyl, is that whilst the initial report did state 4000, with a subsequent addition up to a total 9000 deaths, the statistic on the "credible figures" of 30,000, 60,000 and 90,000 are not stated with source. Further on the 'science' of those predicted numbers, if your data shows 30,000 with an error bar up to 90,000, you likely should go back and reinvestigate your data, that's a huge error and does not provide confidence.

I agree with Philip, we shouldn't trivialise the risk, but there ought to be no need to overstate risk either, especially not with a 'faulty' document like BEIR VII.

Aaron Morley > Philip White

17 Jul 2016

Steven, I don't know where you get the idea that I am concerned about the radiation dangers from a waste repository, I used to have cause to work with a gamma source, it was far from terrifying.

I live in the city, and knowingly assume more risk crossing streets filled with 'Adelaide drivers' or from the RF in using my mobile phone, than I ever assumed when using the gamma source.

Ian Pavy

15 Jul 2016

PINE GAP SUITABLE FOR NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE

Pine Gap, the USA communications base located in central Australia is secure and well managed. Along their military collecting comms and drone targeting data, the USA get free use of our land.

Seeing as nuclear waste is so very safe and according to some who comment, is not toxic, (is that right Aaron) then lets at least get some benefit back for Australia.

If we need to have a nuclear waste dump in our country lets put it somewhere that is already targeted by foreign forces hostile to the USA in the event of war. The citizens jury made note that a nuclear waste dump may be targeted in war and also by terrorists. Its a very secure base and would be perfect for radioactive waste.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/rare-glimpse-at-the-secrets-of-pine-gap-spy-base-20160226-gn51oa.html

Aaron Morley > Ian Pavy

16 Jul 2016

No, I didn't say it's not toxic, I said it's toxicity had never killed a single person. The toxicity of these metals and their compounds is only relevant if you consider their consumption as being a viable occurrence. No one who is trained enough to get sufficiently close to these products is uneducated enough to mistake consuming the products with a reasonable idea.

Pine Gap might be a reasonable place, the RC did make comment on specific location. It's been a while since I have seen Pine Gap, don't know what the water situation is there, if I remember properly it's near Ilparpa protected area so that might rule it out. Might also be able to find a place a little further from 'population' Pine Gap I am not certain is all that far from Alice.

Jess Hansen

15 Jul 2016

Put it back where it came from. An old abandoned uranium mine or disused parts of Olympic Dam.
It came from there.........put it back there and at least we would know where it is and that it is being managed correctly.
Surely our caring government would manage it correctly ??

Annette Kinnear > Jess Hansen

15 Jul 2016

You think?

Hanna Anderson

15 Jul 2016

This whole idea is madness and needs community concern. Money will not last long but toxic radioactive waste will be there basically for ever.

Brenton Scott

15 Jul 2016

If we get it wrong who takes the responsibility? Certainly not the government of the day or those in the jury. Remember, once the consensus was that the earth was flat and more recently that Thalidomide was a great drug.
Brenton

Aaron Morley > Brenton Scott

17 Jul 2016

Consensus might have been that the world was flat, but those were the days of pre science, it was religion (notably not a science) that concorded that the earth was flat, and notably science (specifically astronomy - as opposed to astrology) that supposed and proved that the earth was indeed not flat. Same story with the idea of the earth being the centre and the sun revolving around it. At least initially scientists that 'knew' these consensus to be wrong were in fact derided by the 'public consensus' even killed (especially by the religious) as well ... being blasphemous.

Consensus might be one thing, but both these 'consensus' were achieved by and within 'non science', it was through science and the 'consensus' of science that the correct situation came to be known.

In this regard, I suppose that the 'public consensus' on nuclear 'anything' will be shown to be something similar to 'flat earth' and 'sun orbiting earth' consensus - ie false beliefs. In time it will be widely demonstrated through 'scientific' consensus (which incidentally we pretty much already have) that fear of nuclear 'anything' is badly thought out.

Brenton Scott

15 Jul 2016

Thanks Brooke,
If what you say is correct we have nothing to worry about. My main issue is that the government is afraid to take the question to the people via a referendum. It knows what the answer will be.
Brenton

Annette Kinnear > Brenton Scott

15 Jul 2016

This is a matter for the people to decide not inept polititions who are only wanting to feather their own nest, and will be long gone whilst our children ,their children and generations to come will wonder at their stupidity!

Bianca R

15 Jul 2016

This is in regards to the high-level dump (I understand the necessity for a low-level dump storing our own medical waste).
I’m not going to get technical because really my say means nothing anyway and if they want to build a dump they are going to build a dump. In short, my opinion is NO THANKS! So much for our clean green image, it will be completely shattered by a world high-level dump no matter how far away we put it from life, transporting the waste across the state will always have risks and taking the world’s nuclear waste is such a terrible and degrading idea. It may be economically appealing now but do you think it will still be in 100 years, 1,000 years and many more years to come when we would still be managing the worlds waste (long after nuclear has been phased out). Especially in a time where we know we need to move away from nuclear as a part of restoring our planet and saving ourselves and future generations. We need to invest in sustainable industries, not nuclear just for a quick fix to our unemployment rate. Instead of encouraging the state to become a world nuclear dump we should be encouraging better, more ethical, less risky and sustainable industries based on our clean state image. A high-level dump will definitely change this image, especially now with the world-wide media surrounding it, even if other countries have managed to hide their nuclear facilities to continue their ‘green’ images. Please don’t do this to our state. Everyone I have spoken to doesn’t want it and I’m sure my ‘network’ isn’t alone. Even South Australian’s working on pushing this through would be feeling uneasy on supporting this dirty 100,000 year commitment. Let the people of this state decide! (And no offence but 400 South Australian’s is not going to cut it).

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Bianca R

18 Jul 2016

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

Christopher Huckel

15 Jul 2016

Just allow the people their Democratic right to vote surely the Pro Nuclear lobby would not be concerned about the Tree Huggers or Nay-Sayers or the Uneducated in having a proper democratic vote on turning Australia into the WORLDS TOXIC NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP.

Geoff Rayson

14 Jul 2016

The Royal Commission did a good job and I appreciated the opportunity to attend public meetings to learn more. A couple of comments:-
- I have used nuclear medicine and therefore left nuclear waste many times in my life. I don't believe storage of this waste at thousands of sites in cities across the State and Nation is the right method or place to store this waste. A proper repository is long overdue for low and medium grade waste nuclear waste. Nobody even knows where the waste is held now, let alone cares when they are near it. Why should they be more concerned that it is to be stored in a safe place? Get on with it Mr Weatherill

- High level waste should also be stored in SA. Proposed Regulations for a repository require lower background radiation than is found naturally in a number of parts of the State including Myponga. We dig it up for the world and use some in Australia. We have one of the most stable areas of the earth to bury it in; and near to where it came from. As for low and medium level waste, high level waste is also stored in many sub-standard repositories around the world. South Australia should show some leadership and build an underground repository for this waste (paid or unpaid). The fact that it is also able to make money for SA is a much needed further bonus but shouldn't be the reason for doing it.

Whether a low, medium or high level repository, it will have a minuscule impact on the land surface with an entrance no bigger than most industrial sheds. It will have much smaller and less toxic surface impact than many mines. There is no safer place than back in the earth from where it came. SA should lead the world in safe disposal of nuclear wastes.

Pam Kent

14 Jul 2016

The resistance and fear to the findings of the Royal Commission's Report are based on ideological platforms and uninformed views. Fear of the unknown is prevalent. A simple facts sheet that is widely distributed would help this debate.

Stephanie Johnston

13 Jul 2016

The Premier has been quoted in a couple of NewsLtd articles at these links:
You have to sign up to NewsLtd to read them though! (a) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/citizens-jury-questions-economics-of-sa-nuclear-dump/news-story/07e997242e2cb7e71daa0dd45d866a51?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=TheAustralian&utm_medium=Twitter
(b) http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/citizens-jury-on-sa-nuclear-waste-dump-releases-initial-report/news-story/e76096fa7ec07edcbe18ae0b989683dd

Stephanie Johnston

12 Jul 2016

Brooke, the Royal Commission says a referendum is unreliable for ascertaining "ongoing social consent" but does it explain how a 350 person random snapshot of the current population (the proposed 2nd citizen's jury) is more reliable? Surely multiple methods of measuring the community's view would be more informative, open and democratic than using just a single method, which is open to manipulation? So rather than a referendum (which ties the state to the result - as in the recent "Brexit" poll) would the government consider a plebiscite (which simply indicates the population's viewpoint at a particular time)? That would be a much more open proposal wouldn't it, that could help inform such an irrevocable decision? And if we are talking "broad social consent" we are talking more than just a 50% majority aren't we? Does the report tell us what it means by "broad ongoing consent"? Presumably "broad social consent" means a much greater number than 50% support of the population? I look forward to hearing the report's viewpoint on all this thank you Brooke.

Aaron Morley > Stephanie Johnston

13 Jul 2016

Stephanie, your statements on meanings of referenda in South Australia (and Britain) are incorrect.

Firstly, in South Australia the words referendum and plebiscite are interchangeable, they are the same thing. The positive result in a referendum DOES NOT mean the government is bound to follow the result - see the 1899 South Australian referendum for details.

Likewise, the so called 'Brexit' poll does not require the British Parliament to leave the EU.

Sure, once a government has seen a majority of the population's opinion (especially a 2/3 majority as required in SA) it would be likely politically dangerous to go against that opinion, but they are not bound to follow.

Aaron Morley > Stephanie Johnston

13 Jul 2016

2/3 comment was not meant to be there...

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Stephanie Johnston

13 Jul 2016

Hi Stephanie, thanks for your questions and interest. These are complex issues. The Consultation and Response Agency is undertaking a multi-phased community consultation process which involved a 50 person Citizens’ Jury, a state-wide consultation program, during which time Agency representatives will visit over 100 sites across the state to engage in a conversation with the South Australian community about the Royal Commission’s recommendations, and then the second 350 person Citizens’ Jury later in the year. Through these phases, the views of South Australian community members will be captured. They will provide Government with an important indication of community perspectives regarding the Royal Commission’s recommendations, but ultimately the decision as to whether there is sufficient community understanding and acceptance to proceed to the next step would be determined by Government.

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. The Commission found, however, that “a public vote on a proposal is not a reliable indicator of ongoing social consent: A vote for or against a proposal one day may not result in the same level of social consent one month later.” For more information, please see page 121 of the Commission’s Report.

Christopher Huckel

12 Jul 2016

Why don't they want us to have a Democratic vote on it.

Jeffrey Frommelt

11 Jul 2016

SA has an abundance of copper, which any geologist will note as also indicating high seismic activity. Are we so dumb as even consider putting nuclear toxic waste anywhere near a seismic fault line instead of destroying it in a Molten Salt Reactor or sending it to the designed operating Scandinavian solid granite tunnel for permanent safe disposal. If it is so safe, store it in Parliament House seats in a lead/ glass box first for a few years. Then do a survey on MSRs and seismic risk in the Northern Flinders Ranges?

Aaron Morley > Jeffrey Frommelt

11 Jul 2016

Copper borne in porphyry is evidence of fault line, that's how the porphyry forms, but it's not necessarily evidence on recent fault/seismic activity.

In the Olympic Domain the rock age spans 1575-1860Ma. The Pandurra formation from about 1575Ma to Donington Suite about 1860Ma. Pretty old rockage, don't think much has been happening down there recently. Oddly that's what the RC concluded too.

Aaron Morley > Jeffrey Frommelt

11 Jul 2016

Christchurch is recently famously seismically active, I have never seen a copper mine there - why? Because millions of years have not passed for it to form yet.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Jeffrey Frommelt

12 Jul 2016

Hi Jeremy, thanks for joining the discussion. An assessment of seismicity was undertaken by the Royal Commission, which found that although South Australia is the most tectonically active in Australia, on a global scale that activity is very low. It's also important to note in you reference to the Flinders Ranges, that the Federal Government's decision to identify Barndioota Station as a site to store low level waste is completely separate to the SA process we're discussing in relation to the Royal Commission Report.

Christopher Huckel > Jeffrey Frommelt

12 Jul 2016

Well put Jeremy the EXPERTS say it's safe who are we to judge aren't the EXPERTS always correct and when a problem comes up well they will just shrug their shoulders and say we didn't think that would happen just like Fukushima one chance in a million wow did they strike it lucky.

Ian Pavy > Jeffrey Frommelt

13 Jul 2016

MAGNITUDE 5.9 QUAKE MAY 2016

How quickly and conveniently some of us forget that Australia even in the empty central spaces has damaging magnitude earthquakes.

Australia is still seismically active, some areas more than others, (Flinders Ranges). Don't be mislead into thinking the proposed toxic nuclear waste dump will be situated in a quake free zone. Any site is vulnerable to the forces of nature.

https://www.rt.com/news/343821-australia-quake-alice-springs/

Aaron Morley > Jeffrey Frommelt

14 Jul 2016

Ian, if you want to be smart, and demonstrate you can learn from fact and are not just an emmotive person, stop using the word toxic. I have provided you with sufficient information on the correct use of this term. Do you remember the exact number of deaths worldwide due to the toxic effects of both uranium and plutonium is PRECISELY ZERO? These metals and their compounds are toxic, but no one who works with them is sufficiently stupid to consume them!

To your real point, a magnitude 5.9 quake need not pose a threat to a waste facility - it wouldn't even need threaten an energy production facility. The commission didn't find the region to be seismically inactive, it merely found that the area is sufficiently seismically stable. I have told you before, it is relatively easy to build structures to survive millennia and to survive quakes well into magnitude 7 and even into magnitude 8. Two to three magnitudes above the quake you're mentioning.

A 5.9 quake need not be regarded as being a problem. Adelaide was built before the 1954 earthquake with hardly a second thought given to earthquakes and yet survived the M5.6 quake with little damage. If we actually plan for a structure to survive a quake it will cope just fine during one.

Jeffrey Frommelt

11 Jul 2016

I believe a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor is capable of disposing of nuclear waste. As the Chinese possibly intend using nuclear power possibly in SMR (Small Modular Reactors) similar to the FSU but Thorium powered, perhaps it may be wiser to dump wastes into reactors until all the waste is gone. I believe thorium MSRs have no wastes and will dominate future nuclear power, but who do you believe when you don't know. Food for thought.

Gordon Penhall

11 Jul 2016

A great idea and a lot of videos, how can I download them to watch offline like I do with podcasts on Apple.

Ian Pavy > Gordon Penhall

11 Jul 2016

Watch them on YouTube and use the down-loader link below to save them for off-line viewing.
http://en.savefrom.net/1-how-to-download-youtube-video/

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Gordon Penhall

12 Jul 2016

Hi Gordon, hopefully Ian's suggestion has worked for you, but if not, let us know and we'll help with an alternative.

Robyn Mitchell-Porteous

11 Jul 2016

I agree with Rory Duffy
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report (NFCRC), clearly favours paving the way for storage of spent uranium in South Australia (SA). This government appears to be pushing this proposal based purely on financial grounds.
Yet the waste in question will remain dangerous for as much as the next 10,000 years. We can’t guarantee that not a single waste container will leak, nor geological movement precipitate a failure that may then enter the subterranean waterways and flow on to places like the Great Artesian Basin.
It’s a quick fix with potentially devastating long term effects.
How much has mining already destroyed our earth and ecosystems. Happy to take the money but to hell with the consequences.
If it’s so safe why are other countries so keen to be rid of it and dump their nuclear waste here.
Solar and wind energy are becoming more efficient and are being improved constantly, this could also increase employment if taken seriously and invested in further.

Peter Lewis

11 Jul 2016

I think the Jury has done very well but they were not permitted to do the one thing that most people believe a jury does - look at the evidence and make a yes or no decision. The next stage I guess is going around to a lot of country towns (maybe the smaller and poorer the better ?) and present the info then that response goes back to the State Government who actually makes the decision. Does it all seem very reasonable, responsible and objective?.
BUT the idea of bringing toxic radio active waste from overseas to this State and the people of this State being responsible for, accountable for and take the consequences of this waste material that has the potential to be deadly for 1000s of years can't be just an objective decision-making process. That is not the usual sort of decision people make. It takes on a moral aspect. It is a forever decision.
I look at the recent Federal election decision particularly in the Senate. I cannot help but think distrust of the 2 major parties was at the basis of the voters decisions. So I don't think I or most people will really trust either the State Government or the scientific elite or the few businesses that may benefit from the proposal and certainly not for the next 1000 + years.
I don't think we the people will trust those who support this proposal. It will be irrelevant what these vested interests say, doesn't matter how safe they say it will be, or how much money will be made by this, or how many jobs will be created, they will not be believed. And don't reduce this to a "well just look at the facts" process, there is emotion in this proposal which cannot be argued away.
Also I think people will say we don't have and will never have nuclear power stations in this State or in the rest of Australia so why take other countries radio active waste? And this is the point, this State has no obligation to go down the nuclear waste dump path, we don't have the need to go down this path, and we don't want to go down this path. It's not a good thing to get into this because of the risks no matter what the scientific experts say there are always risks. And do we want to burden the many future generations in SA and Australia with this waste dump.
I really wonder what history will make of Jay Weatherill holding a Royal Commission and all this expensive consultation process into trying to get an international radio active waste dump in this State. Why? is this State so desperate? are the politicians so desperate? I don't think the people are or maybe I have more confidence in this State and the people of this State that Jay Weatherill and the other politicians. Hopefully the State election comes along and we get a new breed of politician

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Peter Lewis

12 Jul 2016

Hi Peter, we appreciate your contribution to the discussion. It's important to note that the Citizens' Jury were not tasked with providing a 'yes' or 'no' answer - their role was to assess all the information and hear from a range of witnesses to identify which parts of the Royal Commission Report South Australians need to discuss over the coming months. In October, there will be a second jury who will review community feedback from the state-wide consultation program, in addition to finalising their own perspectives from examining the Royal Commission’s Report. The Jury will provide another report to Premier Jay Weatherill as a key input to the Government’s decision-making process.

Christopher Huckel > Peter Lewis

12 Jul 2016

Well spotted Peter the whole process is just smoke and mirrors to give the Government a rubber stamp of approval so they can then tick the box we consulted the people, but they are not game to allow the people a vote can't allow democracy to get in the way of a quick buck.

Ian Pavy

11 Jul 2016

IS ABOVE GROUND WASTE STORAGE OPEN TO TERRORIST DRONE ATTACK?

I direct this question to the citizens jury and anyone else who may have knowledge in this area. I understand above ground storage is the preferred option for SA and will be used for approx 30 years.

Drones are being reported flying over nuclear sites in the USA and are raising concerns. Have the citizens jury considered this in their acceptance of above ground storage for toxic nuclear waste? http://theantimedia.org/drones-spotted-over-us-nuclear-site-8-times-in-less-than-a-month/

Drones are readily available to anyone and are now being used by ISIS and other terrorists in Syria. These drones are being fitted with explosive devices and hit their targets with pin point accuracy.

Aaron Morley > Ian Pavy

11 Jul 2016

Drones might be readily available, but drones that are able to carry decent payload (i.e. for an effective bomb) are not readily available.

There is a huge difference between carrying a 'go pro' and carrying enough explosive to do meaningful damage to even something as flimsy as a sheet metal tool shed.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Brooke > Ian Pavy

12 Jul 2016

Hi Ian, terrorism is an important topic to consider, with Chapter 8 of the Royal Commission's report examining security, starting from page 145. The Commission identified that Australia has demonstrated a successful approach to managing security risks at its existing nuclear fuel cycle facilities. It found that the country is involved in several international measures to promote the importance of nuclear security, with the Nuclear Threat Initiative ranking Australia as first in the world based on the security measures in place to protect its nuclear materials and facilities.

Christopher Huckel > Ian Pavy

12 Jul 2016

We should be as safe as eggs Ian the Experts said so.

Aaron Morley > Ian Pavy

12 Jul 2016

No Christopher, even I blinkered laypeople should be able to understand the difference between a glorified remote control helicopter and a military drone. They would also be able to understand the explosive difference between a firecracker and a military weapon. The latter in both cases are known to be NOT readily available.

Ben Heard > Ian Pavy

14 Jul 2016

Hi Ian,

The official response there from the consultation team is a bit too official for my liking!!!

Assume a drone were able to get to the location, which I don't consider likely but assume it.

The casks are so damn tough that nearly nothing crack them. They might be knocked over, but would be unlikely to blow up.

See this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4 and this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBp1FNceTTA . They are epic in toughness.

If at the end of the day someone launches enough explosive at us to matter, well, we would be facing bigger problems than the initial target, don't you agree?