Australian news, and some related international items

Citizens of Australia demand action to enforce South Australian Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000

sign-thisOnline Open letter requesting ACTION. Dear Commissioner of Police,

We are citizens of Australia who want action taken to enforce the law, including the South Australian Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (abbreviated herein as the NWSF(P) Act 2000).

We are sick and tired of being threatened with illegal importation of nuclear waste.

We are sick and tired of public money being spent illegally to plan and promote illegal importation of nuclear waste.

We want action now to stop current threats of illegal importation of nuclear waste. We want action now to deter future threats of illegal importation of nuclear waste.

It is clear that the NWSF(P) Act 2000 has been breached.

During 2015 and 2016, s13 has been breached by spending of public money on many promotional and planning aspects of illegal nuclear waste importation, as briefly described in Appendix A.

Since early 2016, there has been an open conspiracy to breach s8 and s9, with planning and promotion of importation and storage of nuclear waste into South Australia, as briefly described in Appendix B.

There are ten year imprisonment penalties and multi million dollar fines for offences – these are very serious penalties, in accord with the gravity of the threat.

As well as these offences against the NWSF(P) Act 2000, there are also other offences, including fraud, which may become more apparent as your investigation proceeds.

Please act now to enforce the law.

Please act now to end this illegal threat.

Please act now to “protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live”. (Quote from s3 Objects of Act of the NWSF(P) Act 2000)

Appendix A Continue reading

November 25, 2016 Posted by | ACTION | Leave a comment

New Nukes Make Global Warming Worse

nuclear-magicianNuClearNews No 90 3. 26 Nov 16 

The kind of analysis pioneered by No2NuclearPower in 2005 on the contribution nuclear power might make to tackling climate change (1) has been updated by Fairewinds Associates.

The World Nuclear Association industry trade group estimates that an additional 1.1 Gigatonnes of CO2 would have been created in 2015 if natural gas plants supplied the electricity instead of 438 nuclear stations. That’s 1.1 additional Gt out of 36 Gt – only a 3% difference. Put another way, each of the 438 individual nuclear plants contribute less than seven thousandths of one percent to CO2 reduction. (2)

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) has a plan to build 1,000 new nuclear plants by 2050 (1,000GW) – that means commissioning a new plant on average every 12 days for the next 33 years. It says this is what we need to mitigate global warming. MIT says annual emissions will increase to 64Gt per year by 2050 even if Paris is implemented successfully.

If we build 1,000GW of nuclear capacity we could decrease CO2 emissions by 6.15%

For humanity the $8.2 trillion represents an opportunity cost. Precious time and money wasted. CO2 concentrations will grow by 34ppm in the atmosphere by 2050 while we’re waiting for those nuclear plants to come on line. The 6.15% offset will never be enough to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by 34ppm. Solar costs have dropped from about 7c/kWh to 3c/kWh since 2013. Electricity from Hinkley Point C will cost about 12c/kWh

Constructing these reactor would cost $8,200,000,000,000 = $8.2 trillion

For humanity the $8.2 trillion represents an opportunity cost. Precious time and money wasted. CO2 concentrations will grow by 34ppm in the atmosphere by 2050 while we’re waiting for those nuclear plants to come on line. The 6.15% offset will never be enough to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by 34ppm.

Solar costs have dropped from about 7c/kWh to 3c/kWh since 2013. Electricity from Hinkley Point C will cost about 12c/kWh

Lazard Financial Advisory and Asset Management, with no dog in the fight, says the $8.2 TRILLION could be better spent on less expensive alternatives to get more bang for the buck! Lazard also estimates that solar or wind would be 80% less expensive for the equivalent amount of peak electric output. (3)

November 25, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2 Dec Adelaide – Put a nail in the coffin – Bury the Dump

Although Stephen Marshall has said the NFCRC Dump proposal is “dead and buried”, Jay seems to think there’s still some life in it if he waits a bit longer, for bipartisanship and community consent.

We need to tell him that this is a pipe dream, that “No” means “No – not now, not ever.”

We need to make sure that this proposal is indeed dead and buried, by giving it a good funeral – burying it deep so that it never again raises its ugly head.

Put a nail in the coffin – Bury the Dump
Parliament House steps,
Friday 2nd December, 5.45 (for 6 o’clock start)
Wear black, or yellow No Dump t-shirts. Bring black flags. Drums and bodhrans would be good, and any instruments that can play a funeral march. We will probably have a funeral procession afterwards – still to be arranged.

Obviously, we know that the proposal is not really dead – Jay has just taken the heat out of the situation for now. We know:
· the proposal is still on the table and there will be very strong forces pushing it behind the scenes;

· the Government has accepted the RC recommendations to encourage the expansion of uranium exploration and mining in SA, and to promote further investigation into nuclear power;

· the Federal Govt’s proposed dump at Barndioota is still on the agenda, despite the opposition of the Adnyamathanha people, and other local residents. Although the Federal Govt calls this waste “low and intermediate” level, there is doubt that this is accurate by international standards, and what it means in terms of toxicity.

But we want to strike another blow- shown our anger and show that we haven’t been deluded into thinking that it’s all over and we can pack away our banners and placards and go home.

This is not a celebration – we know we have limited cause to celebrate – but a chance to show convincingly what we want – the Dump dumped!!!

NOTE: Uniting Church Know Nuclear forum rescheduled for Nov 25th, now cancelled.

Anti-Nuclear Coalition SA – Individuals and organisations united to oppose the nuclear fuel cycle, with a focus, in the present context, on nuclear waste dumps in SA.


· Email:

November 25, 2016 Posted by | ACTION | Leave a comment

Uncontrollable climate change could be triggered by Arctic ice melt

The report, billed as the first comprehensive study of ecosystems and societies in the region, found: “The potential effects of Arctic regime shifts [or tipping points] on the rest of the world are substantial, yet poorly understood. Human-driven climate change greatly increases the risk of Arctic regime shifts, so reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is crucial to reducing this risk.”

ice-sheets-meltingArctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level
Scientists warn increasingly rapid melting could trigger polar ‘tipping points’ with catastrophic consequences felt as far away as the Indian Ocean,
Guardian,  , 25 Nov 16Arctic scientists have warned that the increasingly rapid melting of the ice cap risks triggering 19 “tipping points” in the region that could have catastrophic consequences around the globe.

The Arctic Resilience Report found that the effects of Arctic warming could be felt as far away as the Indian Ocean, in a stark warning that changes in the region could cause uncontrollable climate change at a global level.

Temperatures in the Arctic are currently about 20C above what would be expected for the time of year, which scientists describe as “off the charts”. Sea ice is at the lowest extent ever recorded for the time of year.

“The warning signals are getting louder,” said Marcus Carson of the Stockholm Environment Institute and one of the lead authors of the report. “[These developments] also make the potential for triggering [tipping points] and feedback loops much larger.”

Climate tipping points occur when a natural system, such as the polar ice cap, undergoes sudden or overwhelming change that has a profound effect on surrounding ecosystems, often irreversible Continue reading

November 25, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

South Australian Labor voters to vote Liberal because of the nuclear waste issue?

text politicsHere’s what one Labor voter thought, and wrote: 

To: South Australian ALP Members of State and Federal Parliament

Dear Sir/Madam

Note that this issue is one of the few issues that would induce me to preference the Liberal Party over the Labor Party. I have never preferenced the Liberals in my life and do not wish to start now, but I feel I would have no choice if the South Australian ALP continues with the Premier’s current stance. I am therefore writing to you in the hope that you will persuade him to publicly reject an international nuclear waste dump, or oust him as Premier and leader of the South Australian ALP.

I was grudgingly willing to cooperate with the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, even though I believed it was biased, in the hope that it would kill off once and for all the push for nuclear energy, uranium enrichment, etc. To a large extent it did that. Despite its strong pro-nuclear bias, the Royal Commission was still unable to recommend that SA pursue these nuclear activities.

I was grudgingly willing to cooperate with the nuclear waste dump debate, which I also believed was biased, in the hope that South Australian citizens would reject the proposal. They have done that, despite the bias and the fact that the question posed to the Citizens Jury was loaded to produce a conditional go-ahead. Insider reports and the Citizens Jury’s official report suggest that the facilitation of the jury process was also biased in that direction.

Unfortunately, this consultation process has down grave damage to the Premier’s own push for participatory democracy, including deliberative tools such as Citizens Juries. I supported the Premier in this, but the way this process was conducted and the Premier’s response have given Citizens Juries a bad name. Nevertheless, despite these flaws, ordinary citizens gave clear and independent voice to their views. The democratic process was thus enhanced in spite of attempts to manipulate the outcome.

But the Premier’s response to the Citizens Jury’s verdict, and to the results of the wider consultation, has pushed me over the edge. I cannot support a party that will take South Australia down this track. I will preference Liberals at the next state election unless the South Australian ALP reverses direction on this issue. I imagine that I am not alone in this. With the Premier’s foolhardy policy you are risking dislodging rusted on Labor supporters.

Please take action so that I and many others like me do not have to preference the Liberals at the next state election.

November 25, 2016 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

France’s nuclear crisis

EDF faces a seemingly impossible financial equation. It has colossal debt of €37 billion; it must deal with the complex €2.5 billion takeover of Areva; and find the money to extend the life of its 58 reactors at costs estimated between €60 and €100 billion up to 2030. (8)

Meanwhile EDF has been accused by Greenpeace France of grossly underestimating the cost of nuclear electricity.

Greenpeace claimed that if EDF disclosed the true cost of running its fleet of reactors in France while financing two new ones in the UK, it would be declared bankrupt.

“In summary, the French nuclear fleet is at the end of its course, dilapidated and dotted with deficient parts. At the same time, the finances of EDF are in such a deplorable state that the company could soon join Areva in bankruptcy, and is in any case unable to properly maintain its reactors.”

AREVA EDF crumblingNuClear News No 90 , 26 Nov 16  Problems discovered at Areva’s metal forge at Le Creusot have been growing over the past six months and are now even threatening to derail EDF’s takeover of Areva’s reactor business.

Last spring when Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron visited to tell the workers at Le Creusot that he had every confidence in the nuclear sector, despite the difficulties, 400 files which were being examined for suspected “anomalies” had to be hastily moved out of the meeting room. Now, six months later a crane has been moving prefabricated office buildings into position so that 6,000 records concerning nuclear components – 2.4 million pages – forged at Le Creusot over the last 60 years can be re-examined. Areva has had to accept that the original 400 suspicious files are just the tip of an iceberg and not the only ones containing “irregularities”. 50 people are now trawling through the paperwork and as many more are being recruited for a job that will take at least another eighteen months. Continue reading

November 25, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How radioactive is the nuclear waste we got back from France?

radioactive trashSteve Dale to Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 26 Nov 16 

How radioactive is the waste we got back from France? From the Greenpeace investigation we know it is 1.1Giga Becquerels per gram. To put it more simply, the waste from France is:

44,000 times more radioactive than the Uranium Yellowcake we export

13,750,000 times more radioactive than typical Olympic Dam ore

(Yellowcake = 25,000 Bq/g, Olympic Dam ore = 80 Bq/g)
Greenpeace report_BBC Shanghai and its nuclear waste cargo report.pdf,

November 25, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Federal government bribing Aborigines to accept nuclear waste dump?

The feds are offering Traditional Owners trips to France, Spain and to Sydney ….. hmmm this sounds like another form of bribery to me, another form of trickery and I think a waste of tax payers monies, why????

November 25, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Prime Minister Turnbull out of step with Australian public on environment

Env-AustNew poll shows Australians are greener than the Turnbull Government, Independent Australia Leon Moulden 26 November 2016,  The latest Essential Poll shows a wide gulf between the Turnbull Government and the public on the role of green groups and proposed changes for the EPBCA. Leon Moulden reports.

ONCE AGAIN, a new poll draws attention to the widening chasm between the Turnbull Government and the Australian public. Last week’s Essential Report poll on environmental groups uncovered a wide gulf between the Turnbull Government and the Australian public over the role of green groups.

As a consequence, the Turnbull Government’s renewed interest in implementing the previous Abbott Government’s policy of silencing green groups by amending the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is in stark contrast to views held by the majority of Australians.

The Essential poll found high support amongst Australians for the role environmental groups play in society when it asked:

“Currently, donations to charities, including environmental protection, social welfare and religious organisations, are tax deductible. Donations to political parties are also tax deductible.  Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?”

Australians then responded positively to all four statements on environmental groups posed to them in the poll. With more than two thirds of voters supporting each statement.

The first statement that participants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with, was:

Environmental groups should be able to publicly criticise the government if it makes decisions that cause environmental destruction.”

Their response was considerably positive with 74% of participants agreeing with the statement, while only 11% disagreed.

Then, when asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement:

“I should be able to make a tax deduction for donations I make to environmental groups such as WWF and ACF.”

Again a large majority of 70% agreed with the statement, while only 13% disagreed.

And when asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement:

“Environmental groups play an important role to play in holding the government to account for environmentally destructive decisions.”

A majority of 69% of participants agreed with the statement, while only 14% disagreed.

Finally, when asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement:

“Environmental groups should be able to take the government to court if the government makes a decision that does not comply with environmental law.”

More than two thirds or 67% of participants agreed with the statement, while only 16% disagreed…….,9774

November 25, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Renewables – Britain’s cheapest way to decarbonise

NucClear News No 90, 26 Nov 16 

poster renewables not nuclearflag-UKA new report from a think-tank called E3G, which aims to accelerate the transition to a lowcarbon economy, says the Government needs to deliver new low carbon generation capacity as cheaply as possible. The UK will need new capacity capable of producing around 150TWh (terawatt hours = 1,000 million kWh) per year of electricity by 2030 – around half of all current output. All plausible scenarios imply that this can only be achieved by deploying a significantly increased volume of renewable generation – likely to be around 50GW, predominantly from a combination of onshore and offshore wind and solar PV.

The E3G report says there is an increasing body of evidence that the system integration costs of renewable generation are low and that the power system can operate securely and at least cost with more than 50% of electricity demand being met from variable renewable sources. System integration costs are predicted to remain less than £10/MWh which means that not only is it possible to securely operate the power system with high levels of renewable generation, but it also represents the cheapest option. E3G shows that under the current trajectory onshore wind will be at least 22% cheaper than nuclear with offshore wind and solar PV providing savings in excess of 4% and 8% respectively, and savings will probably be even greater as the flexibility of the electricity system improves.

The important conclusion from this E3G study is that the cheapest way to decarbonise the power system involves large volumes of variable renewable generation even when taking system integration costs into account. (1)

Renewable costs keep falling

In fact researchers at Citi, a global investment bank, think that paying for energy could soon become a thing of the past. Cheaper storage and smart data analytics may soon make solar and wind energy available to consumers in some parts of the world – completely for free. (2)

Even the government now expects solar and wind power to be cheaper than new nuclear power by the time Hinkley Point C is completed. And Business Secretary, Greg Clark, has admitted that fears that intermittent renewables would jeopardise Britain’s ability to keep the lights on have been overblown. (3) An unpublished report by the energy department shows that it expects onshore wind power and large-scale solar to cost around £50-75 per megawatt hour (MWh) of power generated in 2025. New nuclear is anticipated to be around £85-125/MWh, in line with the guaranteed price of £92.50/MWh that the government has offered Hinkley’s developer, EDF. On previous forecasts, made in 2010 and 2013, the two renewable technologies were expected to be more expensive than nuclear or around the same cost. This is the first time the government has shown it expects them to be a cheaper option. The figures were revealed in a National Audit Office (NAO) report on nuclear in July. “The [energy] department’s forecasts for the levelised cost of electricity of wind and solar in 2025 have decreased since 2010. The cost forecast for gas has not changed, while for nuclear it has increased,” the NAO said. (4)

Onshore Wind Costs Continue reading

November 25, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear power plans in South Asia winding down. ASEAN shifting focus to renewables?

ASEAN’s Nuclear Power Race: Winding Down For Renewable Energy? – Analysis  As the world’s fastest-growing economic region, Southeast Asia’s energy demand will increase to drive this growth. While Vietnam’s push towards nuclear energy may have started a regional race to develop nuclear power, this may slow down somewhat now that Hanoi has decided to freeze it. ASEAN should shift its focus to developing renewable energy.

By Cung Vu*    On November 22, 2016, the National Assembly of Vietnam ratified their government’s decision to hold off the building of its nuclear reactor. Cost was cited as the main reason. Another possible factor could be the unfolding lessons from the event of Fukushima, and the safety and security of nuclear reactors in cases of intentional attacks such as cyberattacks or terrorism still need to be assessed.

This is good news for the region. A possible regional nuclear energy race would now be avoided, and Vietnam’s neighbours would not have to brace themselves for a potential nuclear fallout. The region should now focus on developing renewable energy to meet its energy demand…….

ASEAN Power Grid

To meet electricity demand to stimulate economic growth, ASEAN needs to have a reliable and cheap source of electricity. ASEAN plans to construct a bilateral cross-border power grid, then expand to a sub-regional and finally to a total integrated regional system. This would serve to meet the electricity demand as well as to provide access to some of the 50% of the population which currently has no electricity……

November 25, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wrapup of Australian climate and nuclear news

a-cat-CANMuch as I would love to completely ignore the Trumpomania that now grips the media, and at the same time, seems to paralyse political action, I just can’t – because climate and nuclear policies worldwide now stagnate, like  ships in the doldrums, waiting for the new wind – of Trump’s inauguration on January 20 2017.

The Marrakech climate talks, (follow-up to the 2015 Paris climate summit)  produced the “Marrakech Action Proclamation”, and some ambitious national programmes, but were described as producing  “defiance towards Trump, but little else”.  Global green movement prepares to fight Trump on climate change. Trump’s climate denial is just one of the forces that points towards war.

Unease amongst world leaders over Donald Trump’s nuclear policies, and appointments.

On nuclear weapons, the UN General Assembly First Committee voted on Resolution A/C.1/71/L.41 (L.41) States adopted the resolution to hold negotiations on a nuclear ban treaty in 2017. Here at least, some ray of light regarding Trump’s attitude of wanting to negotiate with Russia and North Korea.  –Perhaps Secretary General Ban Ki-moon can leave his office with an important victory at the end of his term by seizing this opportunity and encouraging the ‘deal maker’ in Trump to move forward with a US-Russia rapprochement, clearing a pathway for the elimination of nuclear weapons as well as putting an end to the hostilities on the Korean peninsula.


CLIMATE. Turnbull govt – hails climate accord while rejoicing in coal industry!  Trump plans to scrap NASA climate research: Australian scientists support NASA. NASA politely debunks Australian climate denying crank Senator Malcolm Roberts. Missy Higgins urges us all – read Naomi Klein’s “This Changes Everything”. Australian doctors warn about climate change and health.

NUCLEAR. Australian uranium fuelled Fukushima. Now about to fuel dangerous Ukraine nuclear reactors.

South Australia. The saga of the South Australian nuclear waste import plan continues – Michele Madigan. Michael West casts a satirical searchlight on South Australia’s nuclear waste import plan. Scarce and his pro nuclear Royal Commission not looking credible.   Sunday Mail survey reveals opposition to nuclear waste dump. Political mystery of South Australian Labor tying the State’s prosperity to a nuclear waste toilet. Solar thermal plant is the best solution for Port Augusta.

Western Australia Labor, likely to win State election, opposes all new uranium projectsAnti-uranium crusaders win top conservation award .

Victoria to ban fracking.

November 25, 2016 Posted by | Christina reviews | Leave a comment

Australian uranium fuelled Fukushima. Now about to fuel dangerous Ukraine nuclear reactors

Earlier this week without fanfare, a group of federal politicians gathered to take a very quick look at an issue with very long consequences. As far as ideas go, a uranium sales deal between the country that fuelled Fukushima and the one that gave the world Chernobyl doesn’t sound like a good one.

And it’s not. There are serious and unresolved nuclear security, safety and governance concerns with the plan and putting more unstable nuclear material into a deeply politically unstable part of the world is force-feeding risk.

There is a lack of detailed information to support the safety and safeguards assumptions underpinning the proposed treaty action, and DFAT’s National Interest Analysis of the plan is deeply deficient, especially in relation to key safeguards and security concerns and the implications of the Russian conflict.

The NIA’s under-stated noting ‘that political tensions currently exist between Ukraine and Russia’ completely fails to recognise or reflect the gravity of the situation. Continue reading

November 25, 2016 Posted by | politics international, uranium | Leave a comment

Mystery of South Australian Labor tying the State’s prosperity to a nuclear waste toilet

South Australia nuclear toiletNuclear Poker: The Premier declares his hand, but who will win?, Adelaide Review, John Spoehr, NOVEMBER 24, 2016    You Don’t generally establish a Royal Commission on a major economic question unless you have an answer in mind. Tom Playford initiated a Royal Commission into the Electricity Industry in South Australia to bring the industry under greater public control. He was fed up with the privately run Adelaide Electric Supply Company (AESC) and was open to radical change. By the mid-1940s, most states had nationalised their electricity industries…..

It is against the weight of this history that the Premier and the State Government push. They also push against great disappointment – disappointment that the state’s prosperity should, in any way, be tied to becoming a nuclear waste dump. Surely we can do better than that, many South Australians are saying. More than 3000 protestors on Parliament House steps made it clear that a dump was not an option.

What frustrates many about the latest twist in the nuclear waste dump debate is the apparent abuse of process when the State Government didn’t get the result it wanted.  It has created an expectation that the Citizens’ Jury would guide the decision. When the Jury came out against the dump, the Premier had a plan B – put it to a referendum.

The election of Donald Trump sharpened views about the political cost of not listening to the Citizens’ Jury. While the Premier was prepared to take the risk and face accusations of having a tin ear, Opposition Leader Steven Marshall made a captain’s call to oppose the dump on economic grounds. While the Premier alienated many in his traditional support base by being the architect of the impossible, he won new friends on the other side of politics by daring to do what they would not have done themselves. Whether this translates into Labor votes from disgruntled Liberal voters at the March 2018 State election is difficult to know.

Having criticised the Opposition Leader for abandoning bi-partisan support, the Premier has few cards left to play in his game of nuclear poker. There has been talk of trying to lock in a customer nation to demonstrate that there is real demand for the dump, but customers will remain cautious, preferring not to declare their hand. Steven Marshall has laid his cards on the table and so too has the Premier. Their parties are divided on the stance they have both taken. …..

Just why the development of a nuclear industry in South Australia should be so attractive to some is a fascinating question. Those who support a waste dump generally also support the enrichment of uranium and nuclear power generation. Some also see merit in South Australia manufacturing nuclear-powered submarines. I doubt that the pursuit of a dump will satisfy the ambitions of the nuclear lobby.

November 25, 2016 Posted by | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

South Australian government herded Citizens Jury towards a “yes” vote on nuclear waste importing

Citizens' Jury scrutinyEP citizen juror loses trust in state government on nuclear process, 14 Nov 2016,  CLEVE resident Deb Carlaw, who was one of 10 Eyre Peninsula representatives on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle’s Citizens’ Jury, has returned from her time on the jury, with a “strong feeling” of distrust in the state government.

“We felt we were being herded toward making the middle vote (go ahead with investigations into the facility) and I was horrified by the manipulation and subterfuge underway – it really opened my eyes,” Mrs Carlaw said.

The jury was a collective of 350 people from across the state which Mrs Carlaw said did not include many regional or rural people.  Two thirds of the jury voted to not go ahead further with the waste proposal, with economic benefits, trust, safety and lack of indigenous consent key points in their decision. Mrs Carlaw said 100 per cent of the EP representatives voted a strong ‘no’ to the proposal.

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has now said the discussion should continue on the proposed facility, which will only be achieved by political party bipartisanship and a state wide referendum.  Mrs Carlaw said she was disappointed but not surprised Mr Weatherill was continuing on with the proposal, regardless of the fact the jury was “supposed to be the voice of the state”.

“Fuorteen million dollars down the drain because the government won’t accept the verdict we came up with,” she said.

Mrs Carlaw had used social media as a platform to ask what people on Eastern Eyre felt regarding the nuclear proposal before she attended the jury, with the majority saying ‘no’ to the idea.

“We had people stand up, including a representative from PIRSA, who advised the jurors that country people wanted this facility, which I couldn’t believe, as from the information we had received from community members, this was not the case.”

She said the responses to any questions regarding nuclear accidents were met with a blanket statement of “there will never be any”. Mrs Carlaw said the facts she received while on the jury firmly made her mind up to not support the proposed facility.

She said the experience had been challenging, physically and mentally and had missed out on important family events, because she wanted to be able to see the experience to the end.“I wanted to be able to devote myself to this responsibility – I studied, I talked, I listened and I learnt,” Mrs Carlaw said.

November 25, 2016 Posted by | Nuclear Citizens Jury | Leave a comment