#NuclearCommissionSAust might crash and burn, judging by these submissions
CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING ENERGY UNION excerpt…
bureaucratic, indicates that the views that they consider relevant are extremely limited. For example Aboriginal representatives, who have stated that the difficulty in translating the papers alone is going to prevent many of their communities from participating in this process at all.
URANIUM FREE NSW ISSUES PAPER ONE: EXPLORATION, EXTRACTION AND MILLING The first 6 questions seemed to be aimed at industry to easily to enable their argument for expansion. They are akin to the Royal Commission/Government asking “how can we facilitate the expansion of the industry?” UFNSW is opposed to the expansion or the nuclear industry in SA or anywhere, hence has not answered these questions………
- Only deals with economic viability, but even then ignore issues of reparations, compensation, or insurance costs in the event of exposure, spills, accidents, or even routine emissions.
- The paper quotes the International Energy Agency (IEA) as saying that the expansion of the nuclear industry “depends on listening to, and addressing public concerns, about the technology.”
- Doesn’t address fundamental question of should uranium be mined at all. The entire process is underpinned by an assumption that uranium mining is good and looks at the supposed best ways to go about it.
- Nothing regarding keeping profits in Australia
- Environmental impacts are minimised to native vegetation, water is not separate. Scope very narrow • Minimisation of environmental impacts is not a good enough aim given time of radioactivity, it is unmanageable and difficult or impossible to remediate or rehabilitate sufficiently • This Issues Paper does not provide information regarding direct or indirect Government funding of the nuclear industry, in the past, present or potential future.
- No mention made of the social or environmental costs of Radium Hill, Roxby Downs, Honeymoon, Beverley and Four Mile. Traded price of uranium is provided in a graph, but not costs
- Paper states that international demand for uranium is primarily driven by its use in electricity generation, however it is undoubtedly influenced by the supply and demand for uranium to be used in weapons. Market is influenced by uranium from dismantled nuclear weapons is released onto the uranium market, which is presumably harder to predict
- The issues papers seem to ignore the impacts of radiation on health • No mention of ionising radiation
- The issues papers questions ask about economic and some environmental impact, but completely ignore any cultural or social impacts • No mention on the length of time materials are radioactive and need to be managed for
- Seems to treat uranium like coal or iron, materials that have far lesser risks The questions seem to be written in such a way as to set up opposition to nuclear expansion as emotional and hence discredit it.
Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust addressing questions of WATER
ANNIE MCGOVERN Excerpt …
this writer has witnessed a declaration by on station owner to the North declare that their borefloqw had been significantly depleted by Roxby’s misuse and phenomienal extraction rate of Great Artesian Basin (G.A.B.) water. The people of the Marree region where this extraction occurrs, have been actively engaged in objecting to the Borefield activities for the past 32 years.
1.10 Any further developments to mine and mill Uranium would further compromise both the environment and the people of S.A. Roxby is already depleting the G.A.B. to the detriment of all in the vicinity, plus those dependant on its waters in both Queensland (Qld.) and New South Wales (N.S.W.). The draw-down effects of the 42 million litres/day licence has depleted the basin to its furthest extremities with little thought given as to why places like Longreach (Qld.) are in almost permanent drought despite rainfalls recorded in recent years that should have been able to sustain some productivity. This is the single largest body of water in S.A. and is no longer sustainable…..where is there water for any expansion?
1.11 The flow of water beneath the mine at Roxby Downs is part of an underground river system which flows to the top of Lake Torrens and empties into the underground sytem of Lake Torrens….to where does this highly contamminated water ultimately flow? The answer is unknown. Mining activities at every level contamminate the surrounds. Underground blasting, mining and fracturing destabilises fault zones that are prominently featured in this landscape. 10% of S.A.’s available electricity is designated for the production of the industry. Where is the room for more?,
Some top submissions to #NuclearCommissionSAust on Issues Paper 1
PAUL HARRIS – EXCELLENT OVERALL submission covering all 4 Issues Papers and ULRIKE HECK Also very good overall
GLADSTONE UNITING CHURCH SA Response to Issues Paper One…Exploration, Extraction & Milling ” Excerpt..….
- As responsible Australians we request an explanation as to why our government did not advertise more widely about the Nuclear Royal Commission as many people were unaware of this very serious issue.
- The safety of uranium exploration hasn’t been proven to be 100% safe in the world.
- Will SA Emergency Services be supported adequately by our government for the events of accidents, spillages or radioactive fall out similar to Marralinga?
- How would the finished product be transported?
- Major concerns are…underground water/soil contamination which will effect farmers etc & our environment…therefore touching every person’s life & for every generation to come in our area.
- Huge concerns also for our native wild life as well as farm animals. This can also contaminate the animals making them unsafe for human consumption.
Vested interests in pro nuclear submissions to #Nuclear CommissionSAust
So far, I have been able to read only the 28 submissions published by the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Commission on Issues Paper 1. Exploration, Extraction and Milling. (All published submissions can be found here )
Of the 28 submissions, 13 are pro nuclear expansion, 12 against, and 3 appear to be sitting on the fence.
The pro nuclear ones come almost entirely from nuclear industry sources and pro nuclear agencies ANSTO, ARPANSA, and the AWU a long-time pro nuclear union, Of course some industry submissions are not being published.
Individual pro nukes are :
- Professor David Bowman, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania. (a surprise, but perhaps co-opted by Australia’s top nuclear promoter Barry Brook)
- Mark Chalmers – Senior Vice President of Heathgate Uranium
- Colin Durbridge (possibly Managing Director & Proprietor at Product Services Ltd, formerly of Integrated Electronics Ltd, Atlas Electronics Bhd., Atlas Electronics Ltd)
- Professor Stephen Grano is the Director of the Institute for Mineral and Energy Resources at the University of Adelaide
- Richard Yeeles -Corporate Affairs Manager at BHP Billiton
Antinuclear 