Could there EVER be an ethical argument for Australia to import nuclear wastes?
If indeed, the waste importing idea were conditional on a Japanese plan to close down the industry, and help Japan overcome its very serious dilemma, this could be one big move towards halting the global nuclear industry juggernaut, with its undoubted connection to nuclear weapons. Japan could pay a reasonable amount to the waste host country, without being ripped off, without that country expecting to become mega wealthy. That would be one circumstance in which it would be an ethical choice for South Australia to import and dispose of nuclear waste.
“Pie in the sky!” I hear your cry.
Yes, sadly so. Is there any chance that such an ethical decision would ever be made? I doubt it. The Nuclear Citizens’ Jury is left with the question of whether or not to support the NFCRC’s plan for a nuclear waste bonanza, or to risk possible State bankruptcy in the event of it all going wrong. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18603
Nuclear Citizens’ Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes, Online Opinion, Noel Wauchope, 25 Oct 16 The South Australian government will call another Nuclear Citizens’ Jury, on October 29 – 30. This time the jury must answer this question:
Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?
That set me thinking. The main “circumstance” for recommending this “opportunity” is the State Government’s plan to eventually bring in a pot of gold for the State. There really is no other argument for this project in the Report. In the 320 page report any arguments about Aboriginal issues, safety, environment, health, are aimed at rebutting criticism of the plan. They provide no argument on the plan actually improving health or environment, and are in fact quite defensive about Aboriginal impacts. Continue reading
The pretense that medical waste is the same as high level nuclear reactor waste
The Adelaide Advertiser in its usual role as mouthpiece for the nuclear lobby, published an article by Jim McDowell (24 -10-16) . I presume that it was the usual glowing endorsemnet of all things nuclear – I was unable to read it, as I am not a subscriber. But, strangely – they let us read the comments! And here are a couple of them:
Whine about environmental groups bringing money into Australia whilst mining companies underhandedly rip off our country without fair payment! Not even completing remediating the damage done. Wake up to what you are saying!
Australia’s nuclear industry is hardly paying it’s way either. For all the mess uranium miners leave, we make more money exporting cheese!
The dump is an economic basket case that is so flawed they have to compromise safety at every step for it to possibly break even. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/jim-mcdowell-conversation-about-the-merits-of-establishing-a-nuclear-waste-industry-in-south-australia-is-worth-continuing/news-story/277c34a9d4c1c8f520431a8ce44837ca
Confusion in the wording of the South Australia Nuclear Citizens’ Jury question
The question has been worded in two different ways in the Juror’s materials. The two versions were:
(1) Under what circumstances, if any, should SA pursue the storage and disposal of high level nuclear waste from other countries?
(2) Under what circumstances, if any, should South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?
Differences are (1) inclusion of the word “opportunity” in second version and (2) removal of the words “high level” in the second version.
Antinuclear 
Is there a reason that Jim McDowell feels the need to blur the line and pretend they are the same? Is it
a lack of knowledge on his part? Surely not! It is his field, he shouldn’t be making mistakes here. Why would he be misinforming us, is he afraid to be honest? Why?
Why is he coming here if he is unable to discern the difference? Is it to try and sway the Citizen’s Jury?