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

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.