Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Holly-Kate Whittenbury finds the Nuclear Royal Commission UNETHICAL

What is also extremely unethical is how the Commission has twisted the words of experts in favour of the dump; an example of this would be its claims, in tentative finding 78, p. 16, that the proposed areas are seismically suitable.

Scarce poisoned chaliceSubmission response to ‘Tentative Findings’ – Holly-Kate Whittenbury

“……The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Tentative Findings Report contains many generously overstated ambitions, almost no analysis of the environmental, tourism or agricultural consequences with its focus on narrowly supported economic benefits. The media has claimed that there is ‘scientific consensus’ on supporting a waste facility for South Australia, despite there being many scientific professionals disagreeing with it.

Advocates for the facility have stated that as a state which supposedly ‘benefits’ from uranium mining in its far north, shipping the extracted products out to other countries, that we have a responsibility to deal with the waste created from such products. I disagree; it is questionable whether South Australia actually has benefited from mining as much as we are led to believe, with 83% of all mining profits going to overseas companies according to the Australian Institute’s paper #7, ‘Mining the Truth’ (Richardson, D. Denniss, R. 2011, p. 17).

This is a topic that we recently explored at University during our Environment: A Human Perspective course; it is what is known as ‘Privatizing profits, socializing losses’. Continue reading →

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | Leave a comment

Graham Glover scrutinises the language of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

scrutiny-Royal-Commission CHAINTentative Findings Response – Graham Glover http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/04/Glover-Graham.pdf

Item 73 The risks associated with storing nuclear waste for many hundreds of thousands of years cannot be adequately assessed, considering the potential changes in geological, political, social, economical, environmental and global issues.

 

Item 78d  How can we predict a mature and stable political, social and economic structure over hundreds of thousands of years? In the last century we had two world wars. We already have economic inequality, some rogue regimes and terrorism impacting around the world. With mass migration of refugees and the effects of climate change having major impacts, initially on third world countries, how can we assume that South Australia will remain isolated from these events?
Item 83b Australia will only have a limited influence on maintaining the security of nuclear materials in its supply chain. Australia cannot guarantee the standards adopted by other countries in other industries, eg, there is considerable concern about food quality regarding pesticides, contamination and radiation from overseas countries. There will be no difference in the nuclear industry with potential disasters possible.
Item 88 How can financial assessments based on operating over about 100 years be relevant when the storage is required over many hundreds of thousands of years?
Item 91 Economic modelling makes lots of assumptions so that you can come up with whatever you want to. As time goes by, predicting economic outcomes over long periods of time becomes more and more erroneous. As an aside, in 1962, a careers adviser suggested that I “stop studying ‘bookkeeping’ because computers were coming in and when you have computers you won’t need accountants.” How wrong can you be!
Item 103 Social and community consent is critical. However, the process needs to be open and transparent and not whitewashed by lobby groups. What the community needs is the truth and not “spin” as is often demonstrated by politicians and “lobbyists”.
Item 119 How can anybody make this statement when operators (and some countries) have a vested interest in minimising any fallout from adverse findings or accidents? You make reference to the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi disasters in Item 123. In relation to Chernobyl, particularly, there have been stories of cover-ups and minimal public release of the full impacts from this disaster. Remember how the “smoking lobby” lied to everyone in relation to the risks associated with cigarette smoking.
Item130 How can anybody make the statement “Those risks are, however, manageable and well-managed” when we have had major disasters? Over the never ending life span of a nuclear waste dump how can we be sure that security risks such as terrorist attacks, weapons proliferation risks or increased tensions/sanctions with neighbouring countries do not eventuate.
Item132 The development of a new port and railway infrastructure adds significantly to the risks. Transporting nuclear waste has inherent risks. These activities are likely to be provided by or leased to the private sector, which will in turn require more risk management by the Government.
Item 150 The Federal and State Government will have to underwrite the risks if the project goes ahead, which will require taxpayer funds. In the event of a disaster the Government (and therefore, the taxpayer) will be required to sort out the mess.
Item 155 Any chance of South Australia being regarded as the “Clean & Green” or the “Carbon Neutral” State will be overshadowed if this proposal goes ahead. Impacts on agriculture, tourism and the renewable energy sectors could be significant, irrespective of whether a major nuclear accident has occurred or not. South Australia could be known as the “Dumb” or the “Dump” State.

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | Leave a comment

A not particularly anti-nuclear Submission still objects to #NuclearCommissionSAust ‘s bias

Scarce thanks experts 1Response to Tentative Findings of Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle Submission by Gary Rowbottom,

“…….there is very little information on ILW [Intermediate Level Waste] presented in the Royal Commission Issue Paper (No.4) on the hazard level and required safe containment/storage method or duration required for ILW.

During the tentative fmding delivery by Mr. Kevin Scarce in Port Augusta in February, the day following the release of the tentative fmdings, I asked Mr. Scarce of the SA Government Royal Commission, “how long ILW was dangerous for, and needed to be stored safely for” – he replied “hundreds of years”, but one of his advisors piped up at that point & said, “No, there is no specific figure, it depends on the specific radionuclides involved etc., but is generally in the thousands of years”. The FederalGoverment National Radioactive Waste Management Project information indicates hundreds of thousands of years.

I am very concerned at this disparity of information. I think that whole ILW question needs better thinking and collaboration between the SA Government and Federal Government investigating agencies on this issue, to establish the truth and to then represent this true story to the public…….

I am further a little concerned too that Mr. Scarce, in his delivery of the tentative findings, a mere day after the release of these findings, seemed to be critical of any comments made in opposition to deepening Australia’s involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, often citing lack of evidence for viewpoints expressed. ……

I would have to say that it seems there is a fair bit of evidence that the commission members themselves are in the majority, clearly quite pro nuclear. I am not happy at the lack of subjectivity that may have brought to the findings, particularly on the waste issue. Whilst Mr. Scarce did say that they did look at the negative sides of all the Issue papers, there is not much evidence of that in the Tentative Findings Report…….http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/05/Rowbottom-Gary.pdf

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | Leave a comment

Mothers for a Sustainable South Australia outline 8 risks of #NuclearCommissionSAust

Mothers for a Sustainable South Australia:  Our Response to the Tentative Findings of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission • Maureen Graney • Mary Houlahan • Tracey Kermond • Michelle Parsons • Barbara Pocock 18 March 2016

wobbly nuke words“……..Language We understand from public hearings and the text of the Tentative Report that the Commission does not like the word ‘dump’ and would prefer the language of ‘waste disposal’. We believe that language is important: it needs to reflect reality, not cloak it in a preferred – or deceptive – ambiguity. The Oxford dictionary defines a dump as ‘a site for depositing rubbish’ and, more specifically ‘A place where particular kind of waste, especially dangerous waste is left: a nuclear waste dump’. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dump…). In this light, in the interests of clarity, we deliberately use the word ‘dump’ in responding to the recommendation that South Australia should build one for high-level nuclear waste.

Risks and Evidence Our central concerns about this proposal fall under two headings:
• safety risks and
• economic risks.
We believe that the evidence provided in support of the Tentative findings is inadequate in relation to the environmental, health and economic risks that the recommendations create for the future of South Australia and its citizens.
Accepting waste that – in the Report’s own words ‘requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years’ (p 16) requires a very high-level of confidence that the risks associated with the location of such waste in our state are very low.
The Tentative Report does not provide a level of evidence that can give confidence about these risks. Unfortunately the nuclear industry and its proponents have a long record of over stating the benefits of the nuclear industry and understating its risks – to the cost of citizens’ in terms of health, community stability, and economic outcomes.
We are asked in the Tentative Report to take these recommendations ‘on faith’ given that the proposed high-level waste dump is not operational anywhere on earth – and, further, that the dump proposed for our state is twenty times larger than that planned (not actual) for Finland.
We are not willing to support this, given the long history of risk, accidents, and economic disasters that have distinguished the nuclear industry internationally.
The case needs to be water tight, if a large nuclear waste dump is to be part of our State’s future. It is far from it, as set out in evidence of the Tentative Report, and in the contestable assumptions that underpin many of its statements.
Specifically, we are concerned about the following eight issues:  Continue reading →

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | 2 Comments

Abandon all thoughts of this nuclear waste import scheme – Ngoppon Together


The Commission states that there ‘is no existing market to ascertain the price a customer may be willing to pay for the permanent disposal of used fuel’ so such estimates are simply conjectures with no genuine basis in reality

we repeat the admonition of Dr David Suzuki in this regard: ‘No government can ensure that any (new) nuclear activities would be undertaken safely. ‘It is impossible.’
Ngoppon Together warns that to attempt to assure any community Aboriginal or non- Aboriginal, that the reverse is true is a deprivation of the human rights of such families and their future generations. It is a severe breaking of trust with our obligations to our own country and environment.
Our members consider that any attempt of a proposal to place this site on Aboriginal lands in SA will be a blatant disregard for the Custodians of their lands already so long disregarded.
These particular Findings of the Royal Commission (including their many subclauses, not included), which note expressly Aboriginal Communities and specifically those communities deeply affected by the British nuclear tests at Maralinga, ring immediate alarm bells for our members. 
heartland-2Our members plead with Commissioner Scarce and the members of the Royal Commission, with Premier Weatherill and all Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly: for the sake of our common humanity abandon all thoughts of this scheme. As fellow South Australians, Australians and as fellow human beings together, the implications and consequences of importing the world’s radioactive waste in its highly toxic form is indeed terrifying; and, it must be said, a totally irresponsible legacy, for our generation to leave to the grandchildren, great grand children and every generation to come in our state of South Australia

Ngoppon Together Inc. (Walking Together Reconciliation Group Murray Bridge SA)  RESPONSE to the NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION TENTATIVE FINDINGS – due March 18th, 2016

We believe that the Royal Commission has got this wrong and that South Australia should not use part of its land mass as a dump for highly radioactive ‘used fuel’ from overseas nuclear reactors (called “high level waste”) which, in the Royal Commission’s own words, “requires isolation from the environment for many hundreds of thousands of years”. (#73)
We ask the South Australian government if they intend to act on this recommendation of the Royal Commission’s Tentative Findings- What Duty of Care to its citizens is being exercised?
Our members view with deep apprehension the sections Social and Community Consent and Law, Heritage and Respecting Rights particularly #110, #111 and #115 with their many subclauses.
We put the following warning to the Commission and consequently to the State Government. No matter how culturally correct are its procedures in dealing with an Aboriginal Community in our state – to succeed in the Commission’s recommendation to establish there, a site for international high-level radioactive waste will be an ultimate betrayal of a Government’s responsibility to their citizens and their future generations. The means fail to justify the end.
‘We don’t want the nuclear waste to be on our lands. Long ago our people didn’t have any rights and went through the bomb. That’s why we haven’t got any Old People today. But these days we have our legal rights. How many people do they want to die like what we seen?’ Mima Smart OAM immediate past Chairperson. Yalata Community Inc. October 2015
According to the wishes of the Commission, Ngoppon Together responds to a number of its TENTATIVE FINDINGS directly and in order. We will deal with the issue that the Royal Commission is recommending to the South Australian Government: INTERNATIONAL USED FUEL (HIGH LEVEL WASTE) AND INTERMEDIATE LEVEL WASTE
NB Ngoppon Together calls upon the Commission in its final Report due to be released on May 6 to abandon the ‘framing’ of essential concepts into words which downgrade risks and are therefore likely to be more acceptable to the general public.
We cite the words ‘used fuel’ as a primary example of this practice which we warn needs to be named continually and clearly for what it actually is – ‘high level radioactive waste.’

Continue reading →

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | Leave a comment

South Australia’s wine industry is worried about #NuclearCommissionSAust’s plan

SUBMISSION OF: SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WINE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED This submission is specifically focussed on the key issues of brand value, reputation and recognition, with further consideration of the impacts on tourism, regional infrastructure, natural resources, and legacy issues.

SAWIA notes with interest the high level of detail in regard to the technical aspects of the possible involvement of South Australia in the global nuclear fuel cycle as presented in the Tentative Findings. However, it was disappointing to note that, in contrast, “Impacts On Other Sectors” was given relatively little attention and it would be desirable to understand this in more detail to better evaluate the potential risks and benefits. The potential impact on the wine sector is the basis of our submission, for which the Tentative Findings provides insufficient information on which an opinion can be formed.
wine threat
SAWIA notes that its members have genuine concerns about the potential risks to the reputation of the South Australian wine industry in the event of a nuclear accident occurring on South Australian soil.
Such a risk would also have the potential to harm the State government’s economic priority of ‘Premium Food and Wine produced in our Clean Environment and Exported to the World’ …….http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/04/South-Australian-Wine-Industry-Association-SAWIA.pdf

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | Leave a comment

No confidence in economic projections of #NuclearCommissionSAust

Extract from – Mothers for a Sustainable South Australia:  Our Response to the Tentative Findings of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission • Maureen Graney • Mary Houlahan • Tracey Kermond • Michelle Parsons • Barbara Pocock 18 March 2016
Scarce wastes moneyEconomic risks: ‘Trust me I’m an economist’
Applying a range of assumptions, the Commission suggests the dump could generate $51 billion for the state. The economic modeling for this conclusion is based on a set of heroic assumptions, given that there is no actual market for high-level waste, no price for it, and no way of predicting real costs including the costs of actual construction or possible accident remediation. A cost-benefit analysis for this proposal requires predictions for long periods (at least centuries), well beyond the capability of existing economic modeling.
We do not have confidence in the economic projections in the Tentative Report, especially given the impossibility of predicting the costs of possible future leaks or problems with a long-term waste dump, or the impact of new entrants to the waste disposal industry. If the financial benefits are large (and the technical possibilities achievable), they will certainly attract new entrants. However, new entrants raise the risks that, having received large quantities of high-level waste, we are left holding it in temporary storage, without a means to recover the costs if things go wrong (as discussed above). The risk of such costs exists for ten, twenty or tens of thousands of years ahead. In the event of some kind of accident, spill or new market conditions and entrants, future Australian generations would have to meet the cost, while the countries that generated the waste will have no interest in the liability or uneconomic nature of the industry.
Our state has taken decades to recover from the last great risk taken by a small group of bankers with the collapse of the state bank. We cannot risk a further economic disaster – potentially much larger in its economic effects – with its possible long-term, sizeable additional impact on future employment, liveability and our environment.
What are the economic risks to the state?
8. This is not the solution for disposal of high-level nuclear waste
The planet needs a solution for this dangerous waste. However, we are concerned that proponents for this proposal are looking for a ‘quick fix’ for South Australia’s economic problems, when safe storage of nuclear waste demands a globally considered solution.
Conclusion We support opportunities for growth of our state and future generations. But these need to deliver real, reliable benefits – not introduce new incalculable risks for our economy, health and environment. The creation of a high-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia is a decision that will be with us – and the children of the future – forever. Given the paucity of evidence that such a dump will not create unacceptable health, environmental and economic risks, we oppose its construction.
No amount of money can offset the potential risk of significant damage to our state, its citizens, our economy, and the lives of future generations – a risk that will persist for over a hundred thousand years.
We are reminded of the prophesy of the American Indian Cree elder who said:
‘When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money.’  http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/04/Mothers-for-a-Sustainable-South-Australia-MOSSA.pdf

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | Leave a comment

A farming perspective on the Nuclear Royal Commission waste import plan

South Australia nuclear toiletNuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Submission. Patricia  and Maxwell Jones

After having many years of dealing with Uranium Exploration on our Property, we feel we know more about Uranium than miners know about farming.

1* Uranium storage (dumping) LOW waste or HIGH waste, will have an effect on neighbouring properties. Just the name Uranium puts fear in people, had great effect on sheep sales from our property, people did not want to buy glow in the dark sheep. Did lower the value of our Merino wool, dust, (not Uranium dust) have had trouble getting through to miners that we are talking good old
fashion dust that is stirred up every time a vehicle passes by, caused lower yields in our wool, therefore devalued it. Lowered our returns.

2* The uranium waste will come via ship we assume, if ship is lost at sea, what happens to our seas. Once on land it travels by road or rail. There is only one highway across Australia, if an accident, will Highway be closed, Kimba, Low level waste is half way across Australia. Small towns have been totally closed
by paint spills before.

3* If it is as we are told very safe, why then is it not possible to store it in Adelaide? Lots of land there close to the sea not being used. Plenty of workers going to be needing jobs soon in Adelaide.

This is the only State not allowed to grow GM crops, because it could contaminate other crops (see court cases in WA etc;) and the stigma attached to GM, which upsets our Politicians. So what would South Australians and the rest of the world think is worse? The answer is obvious.

If in the polls or Royal Commission were to ask the South Australian people in their individual areas eg; (5th East, Riverland, Adelaide etc/) did they want a Uranium waste dump, we are sure the answer would be NO, not in our back yard.
If it’s so safe why, does it have to be sent to our Farming Land?  The only safe
place for URANIUM, is LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND.

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | Leave a comment

Nuclear Commission’s recommendations – a poisoned chalice for South Australia?

As a South Australian citizen, I am very concerned by what appears to be a disregard for the rule of law. This is particularly concerning as the nuclear industry across the world has a somewhat tarnished reputation when it comes to transparency and compliance with legal requirements. Any lack of confidence in the rule of law (whether perceived or real) will be extremely detrimental to this project and to South Australia as a democratic state. 

A high level nuclear waste dump is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Voluntary importation of one of the deadliest substances known to humanity, with all of its intransigent problems (which no country in the world has yet managed to resolve) may indeed prove to be a poisoned chalice. Indeed, the x billions anticipated as revenue are minor in global economic terms, and definitely insignificant given the 240,000 year time frame of the proposal. 

Scarce poisoned chalice

Response to Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s Tentative Findings, Trisha Drioli  http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/04/Drioli-Trisha.pdf   I have a large number of concerns arising from a proposal that seeks to store highly toxic waste in my home State for a period longer than the entire existence of the human species. Never-the-less, I restrict my submission to my some key points: Continue reading →

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | Leave a comment

No true transparency in the machinations of the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission

secret-agent-Aust “Transparency” is a term when used in such context, makes a mockery of public consultation and decision-making. In an industry that is hidden within Legislative Agreements that prohibit “freedom of information” and with information locked up in inter-departmental exchanges that circumvent any public disclosure, there is no transparency. Local get-togethers do not equal public engagement. These are serious matters which are of National concern

Response to “Tentative Findings”  – Anne McGovern

Overview The subject of Nuclear Fuel production has been a matter of National discussion and investigation for the past 60 years in Australia. The people of this country have emphatically rejected the development of Nuclear Fuel production, from every stage of mining, milling, fuel fabrication and power generation, to any involvement in the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world.
The Nuclear Power proponents, have at every stage despite persistant resistance, continued to force the Australian Public to defend the non-nuclear position. Here, we find ourselves again defending the right of our country to remain as Nuclear-Free as possible, considering we have already be encumbered with the legacy of numbers of Uranium Mines past and present, for a clean future in Australia.
These are serious issues which the Public does not take lightly. It is plain to see from these “Tentative Findings” that minimal consideration has been given to the concerns and objections raised in a range of submissions received.
The subject matter which the Commission has been charged to investigate, has been studied in a less than thorough or in depth manner.
The following comments are responses based on first- hand knowledge of the actions of the Nuclear Industry in South Australia as was my Submission.

Continue reading →

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | Leave a comment

Meg Backhouse’s fine Submission to Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

submission goodRE: HIGH LEVEL and INTERMEDIATE WASTE STORAGE  http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2016/05/Backhouse-Meg.pdf Meg Backhouse 
My major concerns are:  if Australia takes HLW from other parts of the world, that HLW will continue to be produced and that a safe answer to its disposal will be postponed by another 60 years or never be adequately addressed.  That the money to be spent over the 11-15 years to set up the repository, would be better spent on becoming leaders in the renewable boom that is taking place Worldwide.  That the eventual cost will fall in the taxpayers’ laps when/if an unforeseen incident occurs.
Previous attempt In 2001 Russia made it legal to import radio-active waste for storage, with the govern-ment citing hopes to generate $20 billion from importing spent fuel. Large scale move-ment of waste did not occur, and in 2006 Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom announced it would not proceed with taking any foreign-origin used fuel. “If Russia, with vast territory, a mature nu-clear power industry, and experience with their own stockpiles of waste, could not establish a waste dump for profit, what chance does Australia have of succeeding in such an enterprise?” http://www.tai.org.au/system/files_force/P181%20SA%20nuclear% 20royal%20commission%20submission%20FINAL_0.pdf?download=1. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/ International-Nuclear-Waste-Disposal-Concepts/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/apr/19/russia.ameliagentleman
CONTAINERS:  Both Finland and Sweden have been unable to arrest corrosion of containers to be buried in the deep geological repositories.

Continue reading →

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | Leave a comment

Catholic Religious South Australia express duty to oppose Nuclear Commission’s import waste plan (extracts from Submission)

church-&-radCatholic Religious South Australia – response the the nuclear fuel chain Royal Commission’s ‘Tentative Findings’

Inline image 2

Inline image 1

Inline image 2

Inline image 3

 

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | Leave a comment

Major financial risks for South Australia are ignored by Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

scrutiny-Royal-Commission CHAINThe proposal has major financial risks to taxpayers that have been ignored or played down in the Tentative Findings. These are sufficient grounds to reject the scheme. However, if the Royal Commission is determined to ignore or downplay the risks and recommend the proposed project, it should also recommend that 5 the substantial financial risks be taken by a private corporation or consortium, not Australian taxpayers
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
submission goodDiesendorf-MarkComments on the Cost Analysis, Business Case and Risks of Management for Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste in South Australia
Dr Mark Diesendorf Associate Professor in Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences UNSW Australia 18 March 2016
Introduction One of the Key Tentative Findings of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission (2016, p.3) is that:
The storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel in South Australia is likely to deliver substantial economic benefits to the South Australian community. An integrated storage and disposal facility would be commercially viable and the storage facility could be operational in the late 2020s.
The Tentative Finding summarised above is given in more detail in Findings 81- 94 on pp.17-20. These findings appear to be based to a large degree upon a report by Jacobs MCM (2016) that had not been available for public scrutiny until February 2016, around the time of the release of the Commission’s Tentative Findings. The following comments examine critically some of the assumptions underlying the Tentative Findings and Jacobs MCM (2016), especially the latter’s Paper 5. They also discuss the financial risks of the proposed project. The comments focus on the storage and management of high and intermediate level wastes.
Understanding the scenarios Continue reading →

May 6, 2016 Posted by | significant submissions to 6 May | 3 Comments

South Australia’s dubious Nuclear Royal Commission hands in its pro nuclear report today

Royal Commission tentative findingsSA nuclear royal commission report due AAP on May 6, 2016, Yahoo 7 News South Australia’s nuclear royal commission has completed its final report, paving the way for a decision on a controversial nuclear dump proposal. Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce will on Friday deliver the report to Governor Hieu Van Le, who will then hand it over to the state government.

The report’s recommendations will be made public on Monday afternoon once Mr Scarce has briefed state cabinet.

It is expected the report will recommend SA hosts the world’s high-level nuclear waste, in line with tentative findings released in February. The government will consult with the public and is not expected to decide whether SA should become more involved in the nuclear fuel cycle until year’s end.

Environmentalists have promised to campaign strongly against a nuclear dump.

“There is a massive difference between a royal commission and South Australia’s permission,” the Conservation Council SA said. “The South Australian community must now be given a genuine opportunity to have their say, with enough time to fully consider the ‘forever’ nature of their decision, and ultimately, to say ‘no’ if they don’t want a global nuclear waste dump in SA.”……

The royal commission found in its interim report that a high-level dump could generate more than $257 billion in revenue over its 120-year lifespan.

Anti-nuclear campaigners have argued the findings were based on dubious economics and a dump could have massive costs for the state.

The commission heard from 132 expert witnesses, including 41 from overseas, and received 170 direct responses to its tentative findings. https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/31531286/sa-nuclear-royal-commission-report-due/

May 6, 2016 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Aboriginal award winner calls on Premier Weatherill to save Flinders traditional land from nuclear waste dumping

Weatherill glowPremier silent while Flinders Ranges threatened, INDAILY, 6 May 16 One of the traditional owners of the Flinders Ranges land earmarked for a low level nuclear waste dump, Regina McKenzie, writes about the significance of the site and why Premier Jay Weatherill should intervene…….

Last year I was awarded the SA Premier’s Natural Resource Management Award in the category of ‘Aboriginal Leadership − Female’ for working to protect land that is now being threatened with a nuclear waste dump.

But Premier Jay Weatherill has been silent since the announcement of six short-listed dump sites last year, three of them in SA. Now the Flinders Ranges has been chosen as the preferred site and Mr Weatherill must speak up.

The Premier can either support us ‒ just as the SA government supported the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta when their land was targeted for a national nuclear waste dump from 1998-2004 ‒ or he can support the federal government’s attack on us by maintaining his silence. He can’t sit on the fence.

Regina McKenzie is a Yappala Station resident and member of Viliwarinha Yura Aboriginal Corporation. http://indaily.com.au/opinion/2016/05/06/premier-silent-while-flinders-ranges-threatened/

May 6, 2016 Posted by | politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries