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

Dean Money

13 May 2016

If we mine yellow cake and store waste we are exposing ourselves to minimal risk, just as we are with actually generating nuclear power. How many people are killed by transport accidents every year?Nuclear containment works, except when humans take shortcuts!! With new rectors being developed to use mineral sands and fusion reactors, having hte sotrahe facility would supply a saleable asset, as the wast from a Fission reactor can be used in a fusion recator. I respect freedom of the press but if our press insists on not printing balanced and factual arguments maybe its time to regulate the press after all. Chernobyl happened because it was built from stole plans to a design rejected by the west and an employyee who ignored safety protocols yet it has done little real harm.A once in 10,000 year event in Japan froma Tsunami coud not even produce a major incident at a reactor. Waste stored in deep underground bunkers in the middle of a desert is hardly going to irradiate the population to mutate future generations en masse. In fact its safer than going out in the sun! (NB I am a skin cancer patient of 20 years of surgical removal!) The current and future benefits of nuclear power and nuclear waste outweigh the critics. Ive got another suggestion, lets just store it in the shafts over at Broken Hill, they are plenty deep enough and we don't have to dig the hole its already there!!

Dean Pontifex > Dean Money

16 Jun 2016

the particular tsunami at the location of a coastal nuclear reactor should according to your stance have killed a million people. the science has limited the damage.

How many reactors in the world, how many accidents how many deaths per annum? There are risks in every choice. Flying is un safe driving a car is unsafe. Living on a fault line (LA and Adelaide) is unsafe. Mt Fuji Mt Vesuvius Mt St Helens are more powerful than atomic bombs and we still arent good at predicting eruptions, or earthquakes or tornadoes.
We need to measure the REAL risk of the proposal and if we trust the mathematics that has taken us to the moon and beyond, the balance of probability is the risk of storing the waste underground is minimal. I don't like to gamble, but there is great likelihood we'll be sitting on a store of the fuel for future clean reactors before any health is endangered by the facility. That is my view based on a lot of reading over almost 20 years. I wont say I'm right but I do say it is a reasonable conclusion from the available information.
This state needs to do something to modernise, it seems a reasonable way to promote SA to the world and demonstrate we invite innovation with acceptable downside risk and near unlimited upside potential.
Anyone with alternative proposals to restore economic prosperity will receive good hearing. Australia's days as the lucky country are gone. SA's Old school industries are almost dead. Doing nothing won't reverse that, taking the odd calculated risk just might. Being too risk averse comes with missed opportunities, being too keen to take on risk leads to catastrophic failure. This opportunity to me looks like its pretty risk neutral.

Amy Mead

13 May 2016

Despite some missteps, it has been somewhat fortifying as a South Australian to have a non-Liberal state government amidst the Abbott/Turnbull chaos, yet last year the Weatherill government seemed to take a turn for the worse, firstly with the useless O-Bahn extension, and now the looming spectre of the proposed nuclear waste dump. It seems such a baffling political move of Weatherill to initially foster so much positive development in Adelaide - the new RAH, Adelaide Oval and the Riverbank precinct - then to leave such a dreadful legacy for rural South Australia - skyrocketing unemployment and an unwanted nuclear waste dump. Given the recent closure of the Port Augusta Alinta power station, and Whyalla's Arrium plant going into voluntary administration, wouldn't it make more sense to for the government to invest in renewable energy and position South Australia as a leader in sustainable environmental practices, while also generating much needed employment in rural centres?

One of the most depressing factors in the discourse surrounding the possible nuclear dump is the complete absence of consideration towards the First Nations communities in the area. As the custodians of the land, they should be primary stakeholders in the decision making process, and their views should be made public. Please ensure that this "community consultation process" is not just a farce. It needs to be more than a social media style commenting system - where are the town hall meetings, even a referendum? Transparency must be tantamount - demonstrate that this is not just lip service when the deal has already been done.

Janelle Brown

13 May 2016

It amazes me that the government is looking at this plan which will affect water tables, humans, animals and plants - everything - for 100s of thousands of years to come, however cannot put together a 10/20/30 year plan for health, education, housing, infrastructure, transport etc for the state.
I understand that this plan may bring many jobs for many different people, and bring in an income from taking waste from other countries, however I do not believe that it will have a positive effect on the state. We may infact see a reason not to live in SA, and there are already enough reasons to move interstate at the present moment.
I really do not understand how, if the waste will be with us for 100s of thousands of years, that we can make that decision to risk future generations. I agree with Amy Matthews - "We're not taking the waste - we're giving it to future generations, along with all the risks associated." To me this violates every moral code on every level.
I also truly believe the rest of the world sees Australia as a joke, and a waste dump - we are decades behind in infrastructure and transport. There are other options to look at to improve not only SA but also Australia to be more lucrative. However, the government needs to ensure they bring investment to the state, not to sell the land or housing or infrastructure, but to lease it out and ensure that international companies pay their tax debts in full.

Michael Hornsey > Janelle Brown

17 May 2016

It will stored above ground
It wont make any difference to us. Being stored so far in the SA desert is the same as it being stored over the border in another state - wouldnt make a difference and we wouldnt have a say. Might as well get our taxes and debt down and turn it into an opportunity and lead the world in this field. It can be refined later on for re-use and leased back to countries. SA has been a very conservative, scared state of doing anything and thus one of the poorest states. We need to be the smart guys in energy and nuclear - it will always be used for energy.

mike coates

13 May 2016

Ask your selves this: If nuclear waste is so safe to store why are other countries willing to pay millions to get rid of it?

Dean Money > mike coates

13 May 2016

If it was dangerous would they happily transport it through their countries to send it offshore? How much waste do we ship to China for re processing and the removal of precious metals? Its a matter of economics. The cost of building storage facilities by each nation is far more expense than shipping it elsewhere to a central facility. They have chosen to invest in power generation rather than waste processing. A Fission reactor is only a controlled nuclear explosion they are not fearful of the risk!

mike coates > mike coates

13 May 2016

Of course some counties would take the short term risk to ship it out of the country rather than the long term risk of storing it permanently. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given 60 years as the safe time for storage in dry casks after the rods come out of the cooling ponds. But the spent rods and eventually the dry casks themselves remain radioactive for thousands of years. There have actually been "incidents" where dry casks have failed during transport resulting in radioactive material leaking into the environment. There is no guarantee that it won't happen while casks are being transported through our country. Your comment about shipping waste to China is entirely irrelevant of course. We're not talking about domestic waste here - this is high level radioactive waste and it is very dangerous. Finally I found interesting your comment about shipping radioactive waste to a central facility being economical. This is true, so do you envisage Australia as being a central facility for the worlds radioactive waste? I find this an unacceptable proposition given the risks. Finally I would add that Finish law says that their nuclear waste must be stored in Finland. This is a law based on moral responsibly.

Daniel Brown > mike coates

15 May 2016

It's very simple, the countries paying to get rid of it have no where to put it.

Look at India, the country uses huge amount of nuclear energy but everywhere you look theres a city with hundreds of thousands of people. Australia has uninhabitable desert larger than the entire country of India. It makes sense to put the waste far out into the desert where it will never come into contact with a water supply ever.

Its the same deal with european countries and Japan. There is literally no where to put it.

mike coates > mike coates

17 May 2016

Countries are producing radioactive waste with nowhere to store it? Is this not irresponsible behaviour? I don't think we should condone such behaviour much less encourage it by taking their waste for them. I feel no moral responsibility to help countries that have gotten themselves into this situation. But I do feel a moral responsibility to do what I can to look after our land and our people.

Amy Matthews

13 May 2016

I don't see how we can make the decision in good conscience. If the waste will be with us for hundreds of years, how can we make that decision in the name of generations to come? We're not taking the waste - we're giving it to future generations, along with all the risks associated. I think it would be trading short term gain for the health and wellbeing of the land and our children and their children. And then there's the question of how we continue to impact upon land we took from the original inhabitants. This feels like a further violation in that respect too.
I am firmly against SA taking nuclear waste, for many reasons, including those above.

Trish Hansen

12 May 2016

I am speaking entirely as a citizen ONLY - not representing the views of any other organisation or affiliation.

I think a nuclear dump in SA is really sad.
I think it will destroy our identity.
I think it will destroy our pride.
I think it will destroy our place.

We do not have the economic estimates associated with losing these things - the loss of identity, civic pride and our sense of place .... and there's more, the economic costs to our other industries.

A nuclear dump is likely to destroy many SA industries that we have worked so incredibly hard to build - including our renewable energy sector, our clean, green food and exceptional wine, our excellent arts and creative industries, social innovation, our remarkable natural marine and bush environments - the industries that genuinely reflect our values, morals and ethics.

Adelaide and SA can continue to reflect all that is good for people and the planet.

However, I think we are essentially clinging on to the Death Star if we divert investment away from renewables and towards nuclear - yet another industry with a VERY limited lifespan.

It would become what we/ SA are known for "FLUSH TWICE FOR SA".

The site of world's nuclear waste - with a half life of 100,000 - 250,000 years.

It is my view that a nuclear dump represents 'old boys club' thinking - the very thinking that has created the current Adelaide/SA economy and undermines our capacity to build a contemporary, new economy that we are all proud of.

If $5billion and 5,000 jobs are what we are aspiring to (described as the desirable economic aspiration/potential of a nuclear dump) let's deeply and genuinely explore 'how might we' achieve this? Then put all of our collective efforts into this.
We have not attempted to do this - not even close.

I suspect a new economy will have a lot to do with attracting young people to Adelaide and SA and enabling them to prosper, irrepressibly.

One moral argument for a nuclear dump is - if we sell uranium, we should store it's waste. My long line of wise ancestors taught me "two wrongs don't make a right" - so let's explore and debate the markets beyond uranium.

Resilience is complex - one idea is not going to create a resilient future.

Speaking of resilience ..... I think we should be listening to our Aboriginal elders on this issue - our planet's oldest living culture has wise an interesting views on this matter.

I love Adelaide. I love South Australia.
I think we are incredibly lucky to live here.
For me it's that simple.

Dean Money > Trish Hansen

13 May 2016

I agree with looking at the arguments , and that includes about Fusion reactors using nuclear waste as their fuel. Imagine the benefits of having the worlds biggest readily available store of fuel for clean fusion !

Michael Hornsey > Trish Hansen

17 May 2016

It wont make any difference to us. Being stored so far in the SA desert is the same as it being stored over the border in another state - wouldnt make a difference and we wouldnt have a say. Might as well get our taxes and debt down and turn it into an opportunity and lead the world in this field. It can be refined later on for re-use and leased back to countries. SA has been a very conservative, scared state of doing anything and thus one of the poorest states. We need to be the smart guys in energy and nuclear - it will always be used for energy.

Andrew Coulls

12 May 2016

Wow, how can our politicians miss the obvious time and time again? It doesn't matter if we can store this waste safely and it doesn't matter how much we get paid to do it. What matters is the image of South Australia to the rest of Australia and the world. How can anyone begin to measure the damage storing this waste will really cause to the image of producing clean and green produce that our farmers try to export. Just look at the debate over the health effects of genetically modified crops as an example. Peoples ignorance over the nuclear topic will cause them to always take the safe option and we can't educate the world, jeez I doubt you could educate and convince the majority of South Australians. It will effect our tourism and the worlds impression of all our produce such as wine, livestock, wheat etc. Just because we might be able to store this product safely and make millions for doing it doesn't make it a smart thing to do. There is an obvious reason why others are prepared to pay us so much. If your store this stuff for one day and then change your mind the damage to our image will last for as long as a nuclear fallout.

Carol Faulkner > Andrew Coulls

17 May 2016

Well said. There is precedent for contamination of image by association with nuclear. Look at what happened to wine growers of the Tricastin appellation in France:

Jay Morrison

12 May 2016

I do not think this nuclear dump should go ahead for the following reasons:
1) The nuclear industry has shown time & again that it is incapable of managing the risks associated with nuclear power generation and radiation dangers in general.
2) After building South Australia's image over the last several decades as a place that leads in arts, wine, etc it is incongruous and a step downward to become known as the radiation dump of the world.
3) I do not think waste should be stored above ground. This exposes waste to a lot more dangers (weather, possible attacks from the air - sorry but we are living in a world where this is a consideration now) and highlights the cavalier attitude towards nuclear waste already endemic in Government.
4) Any economic benefits will no doubt go either directly to the company contracted to do this or to fill Government coffers where they will melt away and will not be felt by the average South Australian.
5) Going ahead with this dump is tacit approval & encouragement for nuclear power proliferation, which I do not agree with in principle due to the risks above.
6) Solar recently equaled coal in terms of the least $ per kilowatt to produce, is poised to be approx. 10 times more efficient than it currently is and is 100% clean energy. Germany recently paid industry to use more power because they had a sunnier day than usual and generated an excess of solar power. These factors make it a no brainer that we should be investing in renewable energy in a huge way, not go back to the dark ages with the promotion of nuclear power and it's subsequent waste.

I'll be interested to see how the Government forces this through after this 'consultation' process despite the overwhelming majority clearly not wanting it.

Robert Crawford > Jay Morrison

19 May 2016

"The nuclear industry has shown time and again that it is incapable of managing risks associated with nuclear power generation" - Are you referring to more than 300 active plants, working for more than thirty years, and only have THREE "accidents"?
One contained
one caused by untrained employees doing a test,
and the third caused by a double NATURAL threat (earthquake followed by Tsunami).
Then there's the storage. There hasn't been a single storage containment accident that's caused any radiation in the last thirty years.

I think that says the reverse. Using your argument, that means you've never flown in a plane, or driven a car, because the risk of doing either is phenomenally higher than any nuclear waste management accident.

Gavin Hedrick > Jay Morrison

20 May 2016

So these two leaks don't count?

Jay Morrison > Jay Morrison

04 Jun 2016

@ Robert Crawford - No, I am not referring to the 3 'accidents' that you heard about Robert, I am referring to the fact that 'As of 2014, there have been more than 100 serious nuclear accidents and incidents from the use of nuclear power.' In the last 2 years!
Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and about 60% of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.' - Source: Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia.

I am also referring to the over 12,000 deaths that have occurred directly related to nuclear incidents since the 50's. I don't call this chump change - I value our planet & human life too much to be swayed by the cost/benefit analysis in nuclear, especially considering that solar and electrical power storage advances are now beating coal for $/watt and it won't be long before it overtakes nuclear (well within 10 years by the smart money), at which point hopefully many people will look back realise how insane it was to propagate such a dangerous, toxic energy source as nuclear.

Moving on to the storage issue, the 3,500 gallons of leaked radioactive waste in Washington state only a couple of weeks ago should highlight how well we deal with nuclear waste using the latest technology & safety innovations. Also the fact that many other tanks storing nuclear waste are corroding at a 'much higher rate than was anticipated'.
Which is exactly the point - we fallible humans, with our politics, greed and guesswork are not capable of handling highly toxic/radioactive waste byproduct of nuclear energy, full stop.

Investing in solar, wind & tidal power - endless natural clean sources of energy - is the only sane, practical response for future energy needs.

Dan Venning

12 May 2016

I am very pro a nuclear storage facility. It needs to be funded however in large part by a consortium of countries that wish to store the waste there. Up front costs to be borne or guaranteed by the tax payer would be too risky given the potential for rapid shifts in energy usage.
Build it and they'll come---NO..They pay, we build it, then they come!

Dean Money > Dan Venning

13 May 2016

I think and International Joint venture to pay for the build makes the most sense and the State gets paid for the lease of the land ongoing and an annual environmental protection premium.

Dylan Read

12 May 2016

I think the opportunity to store spent nuclear fuel in the South Australian outback should be seriously considered. What concerns me is the media keep referring to this as a "nuclear waste dump", like it will be a collection of 40 foot containers stacked in a carpark up the street from peoples homes. The govt has not done a very good job of explaining that this will actually be a high tech nuclear storage facility 600m below ground in bedrock as well as explaining all the safeguards around the actual storage.

A simplification of language for the general public and some artist models of what the facility might look like as well as explaining the safety precautions I think will mitigate a lot of the negative unrest by most of the detractors to date.

Andrew Coulls > Dylan Read

12 May 2016

What is the likelihood of getting these facts out to every potential tourist or purchaser of our products? and to keep sending the message and convince people "its OK, its safe here, our food is safe our water is safe" for the next 500 years and beyond.
Its probably safe to stand 50 kms from Fukushima but how close would you go? I wouldn't even go to Japan in case some restaurant in Tokyo dishes up fish that came out of the waters near Fukushima. Most people wont take the time to educate themselves and learn it is safe, they will just choose somewhere else to holiday and eat/import someone else's produce.

Dylan Read > Dylan Read

13 May 2016

Thanks Andrew. Three points.

Firstly do you realise currently the one of the largest radioactive storage facilities in South Australia is actually sitting in the catacombs underneath the RAH right in the city? Hardly a high tech storage facility which has not had negative impact on tourism or every day South Australians for that matter.

Secondly, one of the proposed sites is within the Woomera military test range. Off limits to the public, hundreds of kilometres from any town. So I don't think this will have any effect on tourism at all. If it can be stored safetly, hundreds of miles in the back of beyond why not?

Thirdly the South Australian economy is shot so I don think we have a choice - we simply need the money. We can try and pat ourselves on the back and sugar coat it but the reality is we have the largest unemployment in mainland Australia, the govt coffers are dry and large businesses which inject large amounts of money into the economy are leaving the state. We don't have enough small businesses to fill that vaccum.

We can try and take a political stance against this facility to make ourselves feel better. But that would be economically signing a death warrant for the state for the next 50 years.

Andrew Coulls > Dylan Read

14 May 2016

Hi Dylan
I don't think I disagree with anything you have said, but I think there is a big difference to knowing that major hospitals around the world are storing such waste and becoming known as a central depository for it on behalf of many countries. My point I guess is that the risk of being known as a major dump site will cause so much damage to our reputation and image it will negate what we get paid for storing this stuff.
I am no expert on nuclear waste but I am told hospital waste is low level and any risk attached to it comes from moving it. It is safer to leave it stored in the basement than it is to truck it across the State.
Imagine if a truck load of it smashed and burned on the way to the outback dump? Let alone such risks if we start dealing with more higher level nuclear waste. As I mentioned earlier I just don't think any of us can begin to calculate what impact being known as the nuclear dump site of the world will have, this is the real risk. Many focus on an accident of some sort and others argue about the safeguards which is all scary enough for me. If it was a no brainer many other poorer countries would have already jumped on the opportunity. Stick it out in the Sahara I am playing the nimby card sorry.

Carol Faulkner > Dylan Read

17 May 2016

Reply to Dylan Read - first transfers of nuclear waste to the underground repository wouldn't happen for about thirty years after the waste arrives. It will be stored above ground in a location close to the seaport it arrives at (probably near Whyalla). I note the government consultation team member didn't point this out.

Si Coulls

12 May 2016

I don't believe that the drivers for this commission are based on merit at all but stem from desperation. We already know enough about the safety issues for nuclear waste, we do not need to know any more or continue to waste tax payers money finding out more. I want to live in a country where I feel safe, where my children and their children feel safe and that wont be the case if we are the world's or even just Australia's dumping ground.

Yes we have to deal with our own waste appropriately, but wherever possible we should be trying not to use this dangerous product at all. Relocation of waste, even our own, adds additional risk to the community. We should be considering the pros and cons of this carefully as well as the risk of leaving it close to the source.

If South Australia is no longer going to be a place where I or my family can feel safe then I will have to find another place that doesn't put my safety and my families future before the almighty dollar. I guess in the scheme of things that won't make any difference to this State or Country, there is always another immigrant waiting for a place, but I will feel better knowing I am not giving you my tax dollars to pay for Nuclear Storage.

This matter CANNOT be decided by a Citizen's Jury. Show some respect to the people of SA and put it to a Referendum.

Tomi-Jay Szabo

12 May 2016

"Although South Australia is the most tectonically active
state or territory in Australia, on a global scale that activity
is very low. This is especially when compared to countries in
the Pacific ‘Rim of Fire’, including Japan and Indonesia, and
in zones in parts of Asia, such as the Himalayas, Iran and
Turkey, which are located on active plate boundaries.
A prominent fault system extends from the Mt Lofty Ranges
to the Flinders Ranges, and remains active. The highest
risk area in South Australia is the Adelaide Geosyncline (the
Adelaide Hills and Flinders Ranges). The largest magnitude
earthquake in South Australia was 6.5 in 1897 at Beachport
near Mount Gambier. The state has recorded about
40 earthquakes over a magnitude of 4.5 since 1872.
By way of comparison, Japan routinely records more than
ten of these magnitude earthquakes in a month." - Page 109, Sec 73.

Comparing our own geology to that of the most active Volcanic and seismic zone is ridiculous, we've seen first hand what a serious seismic event can do by way of the Fukushima incident; which is still leaking radiation into the pacific ( .

Returning closer to home: In the last 12 months there has been 18 Earthquakes in the area of varying severity, the worst being measured at 2.7 in July 2015. The most recent quake was just 2 days ago, measuring 2.3, about 100km south of the proposed dump site. In the last 50 years the largest quake in the area was magnitude 5.5 on the 18th of April, 1972.
This poses the question: how can any citizen make an informed decision on this matter when no seismic modelling appears to have been undertaken?
Where's the costing on a facility capable of with-standing a worse case scenario earthquake?

My other concern is the lack of appropriate consultation with the Adnyamathanha people. The proposed site is of significant cultural importance and they have voiced strong opposition as has many South Australians. I personally know of a social group comprising of 5000+ members who are avidly against any nuclear proposal for the Flinders and have assembled in just a fortnight.

I understand that this Royal Commission is a broad enquiry into the nuclear industry as a whole and whether or not it's viable in SA, but it's release coincides with the Federal Governments decision involving the location.
South Australia's future should rely on innovation, I do not see how us becoming the nuclear toilet of the world is innovative in any way shape or form. I am very disappointed that Nuclear has progressed beyond a thought bubble in this state.

(Map of quakes can be seen here:

ALbert Amilio > Tomi-Jay Szabo

17 May 2016

so... should the people around Maralinga worry?/ I think not...

so I guess we have an area that is VERY geologically stable.....

Matthew Woosnam > Tomi-Jay Szabo

25 May 2016

Hi Tomi-Jay Szabo,

I agree whole-heartedly with this statement below!

"South Australia's future should rely on innovation, I do not see how us becoming the nuclear toilet of the world is innovative in any way shape or form. I am very disappointed that Nuclear has progressed beyond a thought bubble in this state."

Many small waste facilities are much safer than one large one. Maybe you should ask the traditional land owners of Maralinga if they would be ok if the UK dropped some Nuclear Bombs again. I assure you that, the people around Maralinga do worry and these are the people of South Australia.

Lori Smith

11 May 2016

I am appalled and distressed at the prospect of such an irresponsible undertaking as a nuclear waste dump in SA. I will be moving interstate if this eventuates.

ALbert Amilio > Lori Smith

17 May 2016

so ... do you worry about Maralinga??? and the use of that for nuclear tests I the past by the UK??? Guess maybe you for got about that one...

Matthew Woosnam > Lori Smith

25 May 2016

We haven't, but we expect less of the same and more consideration to the environment. That is why we are leading the way in Carbon Free Energy with Wind and Solar. Otherwise people will leave South Australia. How do you think the public would respond to Nuclear tests today being as informed as we are, if the UK wanted to drop some more. South Australians have worked hard to over the last 10 yrs to be in the position of a Global Clean Energy Leader. I feel that we would not be impressed if this were to go ahead. I certainly wouldn't be.

Geoff Russell

11 May 2016

I got feedback from the "Consultation Team" saying to email them at but mail to that address bounces.

Brian Selby

11 May 2016

The Scarce report is as comprehensive and informative as possible.....unbiased, and after 12 months in the making, is the cornerstone to go on with and implement the world's best practice model for future nuclear waste storage here in South Australia...

Matthew Woosnam > Brian Selby

25 May 2016

Biased or Unbiased we are heading in the wrong direction walking backwards. If we were going to make a dollar out of a Waste Facility Safely we would have done so decades ago when the regulations were less restrictive. Nuclear Energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy and is it about to be a declining industry as Solar, Hydro, Wind and Wave Energy provide lower costs on operations, low capital and quicker turn around from construction to production. Also its not a Scarce Report there were a panel of people who put the Royal Commission Report together. Nuclear Energy is on the way the time we build a Waste Facility to receive waste, they will be able to use the existing Nuclear Power Stations that are in care and maintenance to store the waste. Were talking 10yrs from now, there is a lot that has to go just right, that are out of the control of any Government.

Des Menz

11 May 2016

I have been trying to discover why my submission on the Tentative Findings was not made public; it is not shown as one of the many listed at the Tentative Findings submissions page. I consider that the points I raised are very pertinent to the public understanding of the current legal framework, sustainability, risks, and ethics of the proposal for medium and high level nuclear waste storage. Some of the issues I raised were not countenanced by the Royal Commission. I will be devoting further time to the main Report and will be expanding on my earlier comments, so for now if anyone wishes to read my early submission it is here -->

Des Menz > Des Menz

12 May 2016

A request to any of the "Government agency" representatives here. Please give me an answer why my Tentative Findings submission has not been made public.

Matthew Woosnam > Des Menz

25 May 2016

Dear Consultation Team,

Why was this not published initially? There is a strong sense from reading people posts that they are skeptical of the agenda behind the findings of the Royal Commission. As a Resident of South Australia could you please offer and explanation in a reply to this post in public? What is the need to be operating behind the curtain so to speak?


Matthew Woosnam

Kate Marshall

11 May 2016

I can't believe we are considering a nuclear waste dump. Go and read Ben Elton's "Stark!". It's all there. The only reason for it seems to be that we need the money. We need our clean/green food and wine reputation so much more than a radioactive dump label. Don't do it Jay Weatherill. Listen to us.

ALbert Amilio > Kate Marshall

17 May 2016

yes listen to us and the land... and that Maralinga has been a place that is a radioactive waste for many many years.....

Helen Stone > Kate Marshall

23 May 2016

Do we really want to be known as the worlds nuclear dump site? Let's all look at the future of our state not the money we could be getting for having a nuclear dump for every other country to dispose of their radioactive waste. If it is so safe why doesn't every body else want it?

aaron barrett

11 May 2016

put it in maralinga as a power station. after atomic testing killing aboriginal communities it is a baron wasteland. nothing grows there now. hydro water plant near darwin and ceduna sucking and filtering water into pipelines, then over various lengths pumping and airation systems to the maralinga site. then same back to hydro plants. this would increase employment and not damage current ecosystems. why damage or distroy any other aboriginal land?

Rich Guerin > aaron barrett

11 May 2016

Kevin Scarce whilst Governor of SA, handed back the deeds to the Maralinga Tjarutja for their land. It would be caustically obvious, if as Commissioner he was to be responsible for the process that took it back. I agree no Aboriginal land should be considered.
Aaron, the material they would be bringing into Australia is nuclear waste. It is not a fuel for any commercial reactor. They just want to use SA for a dump

Dean Money > aaron barrett

13 May 2016

Their are nuclear reactor designs that can use the waste as fuel, they have not progressed yet to commercial production and I suggest mainly because they don't produce weapons grade plutonium for the military !
What no politicians the world over have ever revealed is we have the reactors we have not because they are the best or the safest its mainly been about bulidng bobmbs!

Robert Crabbe

10 May 2016

The Riyal Commission appears to have completed some excellent work which has led to a recommendation to proceed with a nuclear material waste repository. We export the uranium oxide and we also use nuclear material in industrial and medical applications within Australia and indeed south Australia. The waste from these local uses is stored in hundreds of locations around Australia which leads to poor control and in due course no doubt seriously problems. Australia needs to properly store/process our own waste (at least) and it would be sensible and appropriate stewardship to have a central facility. Like it or lump it we do need to look after our own steadily increasing amount of waste at the very least so why not turn that to commercial advantage?. Provided we build this facility with the best possible safety standards and protections I would be supportive of the exploit. If in time nuclear power can be provided as well and at very low cost so that SA is not reliant on Victoria's and in fact might reverse this so that we satisfy other States peak demands I'd say that's a great deal for SA too.

Andrew Birve

10 May 2016

South Australia is seen by the industrial world as a vast waste land that can be used as an experiment.
Lets look at some historical examples.
During the 1930's it was decided that the river Murray water could be controlled with a series of locks and dams. Today we see that retarding the river flow leads to a gradual decline of river heath. South Australians have yet to come to terms with this experiment.
During the 1950's it was decided that South Australia would be an ideal location for testing a nuclear bomb. 50 years later it was decided that the contamination needed to be cleaned up. Today there remains contamination from this experiment.
Will time reveal that a nuclear waste dump was also a failed experiment.
Projecting forward to the future, there may well be a time when it is not possible to burn fossil fuels.
The largest source of energy on this earth by far is solar radiation. Nuclear fuels contribution to human energy need is minuscule.
If we have a nuclear waste dump the site will not be suitable for harvesting solar energy.
In summary, most ideas that look good at the time, turn out to be completely retrograde with the passage of time.
Finally, if we must have a site for nuclear waste, I am led to believe that there are areas in the world including Australia where there is a high degree of natural background radiation. Would it not be better to choose these sites as a location for waste storage?

Deet Ejay > Andrew Birve

13 May 2016

So what you're suggesting is that if we accept waste in the form of a high level repository there will be absolutely no room anywhere in the state for solar? Seems a little flawed to me... Have you not considered that this might provide the financial vehicle for the state to provide RnD funding to enable us to embrace and move toward 100% renewable power?

'Ideas that look good at the time turn out not to be' so Medicare was a rubbish idea with that broad-brush logic... Starting to sound too steeped in NIMBY emotion to be taken seriously in what should be a measured debate. By your logic of background radiation being a logical store place for it that kind of makes Olympic Dam a logical choice...

Jackie Fairlie

10 May 2016

I attended a meeting at Port Pirie which broadly announced the reports findings. Fear and speculation were predominant amongst the participants present on the day. I am a grandmother who must make decisions for my grandchildren, therefore I believe I must be fully informed and free of emotion and speculation. Unbiased information and open and transparent conversation must be the priority as we discuss South Australia'sfuture involvement in the Nuclear storage waste discussion. Is it too hard to get all of the information for and against? I have a lot of reading to do, I want to actively participate not be actively ignorant.

Geoff Russell

10 May 2016

It would have been nice to have a report that could actually be read on a computer or tablet. The choice of fonts and colours would have to rank as the worst I've seen since the 2005 CSIRO Balancing Act report. Who employs the designers that come up with such atrociously unreadable designs? Is it a deliberate ploy to sell more paper copies? I spent a great deal of time contributing submissions to the report. Can somebody please reformat it so that it is readable with a modern electronic device. Please note. The report is beautiful to look at, but I actually want to READ it!

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Sam > Geoff Russell

10 May 2016

Thanks for your feedback. Great that you are interested in reading the Report. Sorry you are having some difficulties viewing it. Email us at and we can assist with alternative options.

Liam McDevitt

10 May 2016

We shouldn't sell our land, our future, potentially our health, our childrens health, and our national image for money! Money is the root of all evil and we, as a community need to realise this! We need to step away from being owned!

Of course this will go ahead! If business wants it business gets it! If there is money to be made greedy people at the top will make it!

We need to treat our land and earth with respect! Keep our air clean and our land nuclear free! I DO NOT WANT THIS DUMPGROUND HERE!!!

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Sam > Liam McDevitt

10 May 2016

Thanks Liam. We know that some people are worried about the environment and have safety concerns and others see potential economic benefits. That's the reason we are having a community conversation and considering the choices ahead.

Alec Stolz

09 May 2016

I am unhappy with the report. I believe it is too heavily biased towards the arguments of the pro-nuclear lobby.
I am concerned that, even though there needs to be a site for safe storage of low level nuclear waste generated in Australia for medical purposes, the State Government and it's pro-nuclear advisors will use this as an excuse to expand it to take overseas waste. I am strongly opposed to SA accepting waste from overseas for a number of reasons.
Firstly I believe nuclear power is too risky and too expensive to be a viable power source. I believe the true costs and risks are consistently understated. By giving power generators an easy disposal option away from their home markets we will be encouraging the nuclear power industry. Safety of nuclear power generation relies on theoretical situations and analysis of past accidents. Prediction experts will tell you these approaches regularly get it wrong. With nuclear waste we have a tiny margin for error and this is also glossed over. Geological stability is one thing but predicting political stability is another thing altogether.
Taling about bipartisan support is very naive as the party in charge in 150 years is almost certainly going to one that has not even been thought of today and may have policies far more radical than we can now predict..
Transporting the waste from an overseas reactor requires multiple steps which each have their own multiple variables, many of which we will have only marginal control over. At each step there is risk of accident or sabotage. Accident at sea where the spill could not be easily controlled would be particularly dangerous.
Alternative sources of power such as solar and wind can be more quickly and cheaply escalated and brought on line, and it is well recognised that we need to act now on climate change and cannot afford to wait the decade or more to bring nuclear power online.
I also think desperation for money is too influential in this Royal Commission. I think it is a bit like someone who has been declared bankrupt and being faced with losing their house being given a gun to play Russian Roulette, and told if they survive the shot then they can keep the house. The difference is, the commission and state government are holding the gun at our heads. Please listen to those of us that do not want this to go ahead.
Think about the tourist dollars lost because no one will want to visit the nuclear waste dump state. Think of the alternative promotion of solar and wind that could make us a world leader in safe renewables.

Government Agency

Consultation Team - Sam > Alec Stolz

10 May 2016

Thanks for taking the time to share your views. Many of your key points were raised during the Royal Commission's investigation and it's important that South Australians now have the opportunity to consider the evidence and take part in the conversation.

Victor Dickens > Alec Stolz

11 May 2016

The Royal Commission report provides the basic scientific facts. Thar those facts disagree with your opinion does not make the report biased. I hope that South Australian's are smart enough to read the real story rather than listen to emotive, scaremongering, e.g. russian roulette comments. I think the greater challenge will be for you to listen to the majority that understand this is incredibly safe.

Alec Stolz > Alec Stolz

11 May 2016

The Royal Commission set out to make a case for the nuclear industry and I believe as such starts from a biased position. The nuclear lobby has poured in massive amounts of money into research to back it's position, and as such the "scientific facts" that you talk about are not balanced.
Most South Australians are not going to read the report or look into the background themselves. Thus when the media and both main political parties are pushing the pro case, too many people get influenced in that direction. Just because one side can procure some sort of numerical advantage in supporters does not mean they are in the right.
As far as your emotive/scaremongering comments go, radiation is very dangerous, especially when large amounts are stockpiled in one place over thousands of years. Any small accident may have long lasting catastrophic consequences. Thus it is our responsibility , now, to make sure we make it 100% safe, and not just for the next 100 years. The nuclear industry has shown that it does make mistakes. So called experts repeatedly made inaccurate predictions after Fukushima despite them having the "scientfic expertise".
This is a huge decision that has massive consequences for our state for thousands of years. "Incredibly safe" is not good enough.
This debate needs to be emotive.

Victor Dickens > Alec Stolz

15 May 2016

The Royal Commission actually sets out to discover and present the facts. There is no pre-determined position. If what you claim was true then the Royal Commission would have agreed with you. They didn't. That leaves two options, call them biased or reassess your opinion. I do wonder if you've read the report yourself based on the comments here.
There are a couple of examples where you don't seem to understand the basic physical process. Radiation does not get stockpiled, It is impossible to stockpile radiation. While large amounts of radioactive material might be dangerous, it is also easy to control that radioactive material so that it isn't dangerous. In precisely the same way that lots of dangerous chemicals are controlled everyday. Just imaging if a petrol tanker exploded. What about the Bhopal disaster?

Emotive debate destructs lives. We only need to look at Fukushima, where no one died because of radiation exposure, 16000+ people died from a Tsunami. Hundreds of thousands of people are suffering mental health break down because of the emotive, scaremongering that anti-nuclear lobbyists spread to further they selfish agenda. Many people in Japan have died because of the emotive fear mongering. The people responsible for the emotive dis-information need to hand their heads in shame.
Incredibly safe is most definitely good enough.

Gary Spindler > Alec Stolz

19 May 2016

I haven't read the whole report yet, just the summary, but it's shaping up to be like the DDT of the 60's and early 70's , when our governments were showing television commercials of trucks and tractors driving around spraying the crops and median strips while children played and danced around in the DDT spray. Dioxins were another one. We have a government that is solely focused on money and not on the welfare of its people nor its land. We were never going to get an objective , unbiased report that anyone could make an educated or informed decision on, just sunshine and lollipops for all, or beer and

John Craggs > Alec Stolz

21 May 2016

Everybody is talking so broadly on the issue, what about discussing some specifics like,
where do you think the nuclear dump will be ? Port Augusta, Whyalla, Flinders Ranges ? or in the far top corner of the state bordering NSW and Queensland where a leak would involve them also.
What about the port for incoming ships ? Port Lincoln, Port Augusta ?
You will need security all along the chain, including security for ships approaching by sea, there is not one warship in Adelaide.
As far as revenue goes there may not be much left over,the Federal Government will want a cut. Aborigines will get a cut , security will cost a fortune, the whole project in the end may not be financially viable.
There is no permanent high level waste dump anywhere in the world, that as got to tell you something.

Claudio Pompili > Alec Stolz

28 May 2016

Victor Dickens re there is no pre-determined position

I refer you to the Terms of Reference:
B. Detailed consideration and analysis is required to be given to the potential of South Australia's further participation in the nuclear fuel cycle…

Exploration, Extraction and Milling
1, The feasibility of expanding the current level of exploration, extraction and milling of minerals containing radioactive materials in South Australia…

Further Processing and Manufacture
2. The feasibility of further processing minerals, and processing and manufacturing materials containing radioactive and nuclear substances…

Electricity Generation
3. The feasibility of establishing and operating facilities to generate electriCity from nuclear fuels in South Australia…

Management, Storage and Disposal of Waste
4. The feasibility of establishing facilities in South Australia for the management, storage and disposal of nuclear and radioactive waste from the use of nuclear and radioactive materials in power generation, industry, research and medicine…

Some expert critics have called this a 'feasibility study' for the nuclear industry, funded and paid for the SA's taxpayers.