#NuclearCommissionSAust – a preliminary analysis of submissions
Companies and individuals who sent in submissions (as published so far at http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/submissions/?search=Submissions)
I am concluding that the RC is either deliberately or ineptly making it difficult for people to analyse the submissions.
These are my reasons:
- they bundle people’s submissions together under whatever heading (i.e Issues Paper number) they feel like.
- If separate submissions were sent in, as I did – sending 4 separate, they don’t necessarily all appear, or if they do appear, not under the heading they were intended for.
- While companeis and agencies like ANSTO are listed alphabetically, individuals are listed under their first name, not surname – alphabetically. (makes it hard to find e.g if you looked for Dr Diesendorf)
- It is difficult to work out how many individuals and organisations actually sent in submissions, as many people have put in several. My list below is just of those who sent in submissions, whether they sent in just one submission or several, I have counted each only once.
- Anti -nuclear total 75
- Pro nuclear total 66
My list of those who submitted pro nuclear is not complete. There would be plenty of nuclear/thorium companies who would have submitted ‘commercial in confidence’ – not to be published.
It will be interesting to compare the motivations for the submissions pro and con.
So far it is looking like a clear contrast between:
- Pro nuclear – something to gain – business, career,and
- Anti nuclear – for the public good
No comments yet.
Antinuclear 
Leave a comment