South Australia’s No Dump Alliance sends a powerful submission opposing Federal nuclear waste dump plan for Flinders Ranges
The project has been framed by the government since its inception as a project where only local communities will be consulted.
Such an approach is untenable as this is a federal government initiative to develop a purpose built facility for the disposal and storage of Australia’s radioactive waste. This is a national issue that demands national attention and assessment. While it may be politically expedient, it is neither credible nor responsible for the federal government to treat this issue as a local government or community matter.
“The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association remains totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallerberdina”
There is a strong risk that the waste could become stranded and forgotten about should future governments fail to find the finances or political will to dispose of the waste deep underground.
the residents who are in favour of the proposal have not been given full, complete and unbiased information to inform their decision.
No Dump Alliance submission into the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility Introduction .” Vince Coulthard, CEO of the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association. (Submission No. 45)
The No Dump Alliance is a broad cross-section of South Australian civil society, including Indigenous, public health, trade union, faith and environment groups, academics and concerned individuals that formed in response to proposals to open South Australia up to international high-level nuclear waste importation and dumping. The Alliance also opposes the federal government’s continued push to establish a national nuclear waste dump and store in regional SA.
The No Dump Alliance supports local communities to voice their concerns, welcomes state government legislation that prohibits a nuclear waste dump in SA, and calls for a better process for the management of Australia’s nuclear waste. The No Dump Alliance welcomes this inquiry and the opportunity to contribute this submission. The Alliance also encourages the Committee to hold hearings in the regional areas of Hawker and Kimba to hear firsthand from the communities on the front line. The Alliance also welcomes hearings in Canberra to consider the views of national and state stakeholders and groups. This is a national project and is of national concern.
Spokespeople for the Alliance include Vivianne McKenzie from the Flinders Ranges and Peter Woolford, No Radioactive Waste Dump on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA President and Jamie Newlyn from the MUA SA Branch.
The radioactive waste to be disposed and stored is both “low level” and “long lived intermediate level”. The latter must be managed safely for many thousands of years and current best practice to realise this is by deep geological disposal.
No Dump Alliance members have been closely involved with the current federal waste plan and process and concluded that the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia is flawed and neither appropriate nor thorough. We maintain that the current project should be discontinued.
The following specifically addresses the terms of reference.
- a)the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;
We believe that inviting private landowners to nominate their land for financial gain far in excess of the land value is a non- scientific way to determine a location for a national radioactive waste facility. We also believe that a single party nomination model cannot be credible considered to represent a ‘volunteer’ process.
- b) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:
- i) The definition of ‘broad community support’
Since May 2015 the federal government and its DIIS representatives have consistently refused to define “broad community consent” in both public meetings and in writing. Members of our organisation have been told different definitions but none have been able to be confirmed in writing.
The figure 65% has been mentioned and we believe this figure was determined by the result in the flawed Orima telephone survey which purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process.
A postal vote of Kimba council residents resulted in a 56.5% positive result to proceed to Phase 2, which is well short of the 65% previously mentioned. We reject the claim that this is broad community support, rather it is a sign of a much-divided community.
- ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage. The figure 65% has been mentioned and we believe this figure was determined by the result in the flawed Orima telephone survey which purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process. A postal vote of Kimba council residents resulted in a 56.5% positive result to proceed to Phase 2, which is well short of the 65% previously mentioned. We reject the claim that this is broad community support, rather it is a sign of a much-divided community. ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage.
The NRWMF Community Sentiment Survey purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district (Hawker, Quorn and Cradock) wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process.
This telephone survey was incomplete and inadequate because it did not survey the entire population of the area and was biased because it only surveyed residents with landline telephones. The flawed survey only asked residents if they wanted to proceed to the evaluation of the site and not actually build a facility. Flinders Ranges council residents have not had an opportunity for a complete postal vote conducted by the AEC.
The Adnyamathanha people are the Traditional Owners of the Barndioota site and their representative body the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) has repeatedly expressed clear opposition. The No Dump Alliance believes that it is critical that the views and position of the overwhelming majority of Traditional Owners are listened to and respected in relation to the appropriateness of a site.
A postal vote was held for the Kimba council region and resulted in a 56.6% positive result to proceed to Stage 2. This survey did not include the views of the Traditional Owners from the area who must be consulted and should have been consulted at the initial nomination.
We believe that both survey results were influenced strongly by the offer of $2 million to be spent in the community, and that this was an intentional and deliberate inducement to sway the community opinion towards a positive result.
Despite seeking clarification, we have not been able to ascertain what the procedure and process will be to evaluate whether there is broad community consent should the government wish the project to proceed from Phase 3 to construction.
- c) how any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;
The federal government has stated that no individual group will have a right of veto. The Citizen’s Jury into the former Weatherill state government’s international radioactive waste facility proposal found overwhelming support for the right of veto for Aboriginal people. Former Premier Weatherill wrote to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on 24 October 2017 outlining concerns about a national nuclear waste dump and store plan and recommending that local Aboriginal people should have the right of veto over any dump being built on their lands. The relevant quote from Mr Weatherill’s letter is as follows:
“I recently met with Traditional Owners of the Adnyamathanha community who expressed deep concern about the proposed site at Hawker, and the potential impacts on Adnyamathanha Cultural Heritage”…….” This engagement process was insightful and highlighted the need for a bigger conversation about how Aboriginal people want to be seen, valued and recognised and on ‘unfinished businesses from the past. In particular, Aboriginal people’s history with the nuclear industry demonstrates a need for significant healing. In recognition, the South Australian government committed to provide a local Aboriginal community with a final right of veto over any future facility proposed on their lands. I recommend that the Commonwealth Government now consider adopting a similar policy position as part of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility process.”
In the NRWMF community sentiments survey by Orima Research released in April 2016 it shows on page 60 of the report that 97% of Indigenous people opposed the facility at Barndioota.
The Orima report did not table any views of Indigenous people in relation to support for the project to continue.
The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA), composed of 23 different organisations and interest groups released a statement in May 2016 opposing a nuclear waste facility.
Recently on March 24, 2018 the ATLA board reaffirmed opposition with the passing of this resolution:
“The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association remains totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallerberdina
This is our land, our culture and we must have veto over this toxic waste being dumped in our country. Udnyus come and go but we will be here forever. We say NO to the waste dump, for our grandchildren and their grandchildren and many generations to come.”
In the 2016/2017 ATLA annual report stated: “The National Waste Dump continues to be an issue and ATLA remains totally opposed to the waste dump at Wallerberdina. ATLA has been treated very poorly in this whole process and it has been a real struggle to ensure our voice is heard.”
The No Dump Alliance understands that ATLA was not approached or engaged until the NRWMF project was into stage 2.
Surveys are not assessing the views of Adnyamathanha people who live outside the region; with a significant part of the community living in Port Augusta and Adelaide.
- d) whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;
We believe that the government has linked the project to the promises of jobs and community grants as an inducement to deliberately influence community consent. We believe this is intentional and deliberate, and designed to sway the community into returning a positive result towards the project.
There have been many discussions and assertions by local residents that they have decided to be in favour of the facility by the mere fact that the government says it will bring jobs and money. This is despite scant detail being provided by the project proponent about the employment and economic impacts of the planned facility.
- e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring; and
The project has been framed by the government since its inception as a project where only local communities will be consulted.
Such an approach is untenable as this is a federal government initiative to develop a purpose built facility for the disposal and storage of Australia’s radioactive waste. This is a national issue that demands national attention and assessment. While it may be politically expedient, it is neither credible nor responsible for the federal government to treat this issue as a local government or community matter.
The community to be consulted for the Barndioota facility was originally designated at a 50km radius around the dump, which was then extended to include Quorn and the whole Flinders Ranges council.
The community to be consulted for the Kimba facility was designated as residents of the Kimba council on the electoral roll.
The construction of a facility could have a significant impact on the reputation of either community, with a detrimental impact on the tourism and farming industries upon which the communities depend.
- f) any other related matters.
The radioactive waste facility is intended to dispose and store both “low-level” and “longlived intermediate level” radioactive waste.
The facility is intended as an “interim” location for the “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste, as world’s best practice currently views deep geological disposal as the preferred management option. The waste would be stored above ground, as the current government does not have a site or a process to determine a site to build its final deep geological burial facility. There is a strong risk that the waste could become stranded and forgotten about should future governments fail to find the finances or political will to dispose of the waste deep underground.
Our members and colleagues have attended many of the federal government’s presentations and have found them biased and flawed towards focus on the “low-level” waste, and with no attention given to the extremely long-term risks involved in the storage of “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste.
The presentations have also failed to acknowledge any terrorism risks of creation of a “dirty bomb” from the “intermediate” waste.
We therefore believe that the residents who are in favour of the proposal have not been given full, complete and unbiased information to inform their decision.
A decision this serious to accept the so-called “interim” storage of “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste that has implications for the future security of South Australia and should not be solely or primarily made by the small community of people who currently reside in the districts of the Flinders Ranges and Kimba councils. Such an approach also deeply disenfranchises communities along the extensive transport corridors any such facility would require.
Conclusion
The members of the No Dump Alliance maintain that the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia is flawed, and neither appropriate nor thorough. We share the view held by many civil society groups that the current project should be halted whilst a thorough national audit of radioactive waste is conducted with an independently assessed review of the range of options available to best manage Australia’s waste. Our members and spokespeople continue to witness and seek to highlight the high level of stress and pressure this plan is causing in the communities of Hawker and Kimba. In December 2017 the No Dump Alliance supported a ‘Don’t Dump on SA’ rally on the steps of Parliament House in Adelaide. Invited speakers made the following statements about support for the National Radioactive Waste Management Project:
“I was the member of parliament that tried to get the last dump on the road at Woomera. The Kimba experience has taught me a very great amount. Quite frankly, the government and ANSTO cannot be trusted with this job. They cannot be trusted with the management of nuclear waste.” Barry Wakelin, former federal Liberal politician. “
Last year we voted as the Uniting Church in SA to stand in solidarity with the Adnyamathanha people in opposing the placing of a nuclear waste dump on their land. We are here today renewing our commitment to that solidarity and to join with you as fellow South Australians in this resolve.” Dr Deidre Palmer, former moderator Uniting Church (SA)
“The Flinders Ranges is not the right place for any nuclear waste facility. The purported benefits of this dump, if realised, will equal only 1% of jobs in tourism and just 2% of one year of tourism income for the Flinders Ranges and outback. Any drop-in tourism will wipe out any possible economic benefit. Everyone, including the government and ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation), agree that the Flinders is not suitable for long term disposal of intermediate level waste, but that is where it will be stored until another site is proposed, accepted and built. This may take decades or centuries and may never happen. We are creating a toxic legacy for our children and grandchildren. Safeguards and legislation put in place today will be brushed aside when it’s convenient for future governments. This can never be the right place to bring intermediate level waste.” Dr Susi Andersson, Hawker resident and local GP. “
We stand with Traditional Owners of this land, we stand with the farmers of this land”. Jamie Newlyn, Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia SA Branch and No Dump Alliance spokesperson.
“The Flinders Ranges is an iconic area, people come from all over the world to visit. I’m saddened to hear that the government wants to spoil this beautiful, pristine area with a devastating piece of junk. We certainly understand that there has to be somewhere they can store it, but you don’t take a pristine area and destroy that. We ask that the state government stand with the Adnyamathanha community to stop this waste dump
Donald Trump’s failures in international negotiations bring America’s reputation into disrepute, and lead the world towards war
Trump’s nuclear failures from Iran to North Korea
In just over a year, Donald Trump has managed to nudge the world closer to conflict on both ends of the Asian continent. Aljazeera, by Richard Javad Heydarian, 25 May 18
The American president vaguely cited North Korea’s “open hostility” and “trail of broken promises” as a pretext for calling off the historic meeting. Not short of bluster, he warned the North Korean regime against committing any “foolish or reckless acts”.
Trump has placed the American military on alert, signalling its readiness to engage in another round of brinkmanship with nuclear-capable North Korea.
And just like that, both protagonists are now back to square one. If anything, the American president may have snuffed the life out of an unprecedented opportunity to end the Korean conflict.
Just weeks earlier, the US unilaterally withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal – a binding international agreement supported by all major powers, except Trump. To careful observers, both decisions were shocking, yet far from surprising.
The Trump administration simply lacks the basic strategic understanding and diplomatic finesse to cope with perplexing foreign policy challenges. When confronted with difficult geopolitical realities, Trump seems to prefer turning things into reality show episodes.
An unreliable superpower
Trump’s announcement was met by a melange of puzzlement, outrage and profound anxiety across the world. South Korea responded in total confusion, struggling to find a way out of the latest plot twist in the Trump-Kim saga.
South Korean presidential spokesman Kim Eui-kyeom admitted, “We are attempting to make sense of what, precisely, President Trump means.”
The visibly flustered South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who played an instrumental role in facilitating the summit, was confessedly “perplexed“. He described Trump’s decision as deeply “regrettable”.
……. Moon staked his presidency on unlocking the Korean conflict. In an event of actual war, Seoul, which lies within the range of North Korean artilleries, would likely be the first and biggest victim.
…..frustration is running high among allies. In recent days, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the de facto leader of the “free world”, went so far as stating that Europe can no longer rely on the US as a source of protection.
One by one, the US’ most important allies have openly questioned the Trump administration’s capacity for global leadership. For them, Washington is an increasingly unreliable superpower, which is beginning to threaten the existing international order with “Trump-style” leadership.
Edging towards conflict
Interestingly, North Korea responded with uncharacteristic restraint, expressing its continued “willingness to sit at any time, in any way to resolve issues”. All of a sudden, Pyongyang looked like the adult in the room.
Yet, it’s hard to imagine that the regime would maintain its equanimity for long………..
The upshot is that both Iran and North Korea now feel betrayed and increasingly outraged. And they will likely up the ante in response to Trump’s perfunctory decisions.
A year into power, the controversial American president has nudged the world closer to two potential conflicts on the opposite ends of the Asian continent.
More fundamentally, countries around the world, both friends and foes, are wondering whether the US is a country that can be negotiated with at all. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/trump-nuclear-failures-iran-north-korea-180525102228377.html
Seventy Years After Korea’s Division, Women Lead Push for Peace
Truthout, May 25, 2018By Jon Letman, Truthout | Report When scores of Korean women representing a coalition of some 30 peace groups and NGOs entered South Korea’s National Assembly on the banks of Seoul’s Han River, they weren’t alone. This week, the Korean peace makers were joined by an international delegation of women peace activists for a symposium focused on ending the Korean War. A women’s peace walk along the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is scheduled for May 26.
For the fourth time since 2015, these activists gathered to strategize how to most effectively advance peace on the Korean Peninsula and support diplomatic efforts to that end. #WomenPeaceKorea delegates’ efforts include engaging with South Korean government officials, foreign diplomats and US embassy officials.
Most of the international delegates are members of Women Cross DMZ and the Nobel Women’s Initiative who have traveled to Seoul to lend their support and raise awareness of the vital role women play in ending conflict.
Multiple studies have shown that when women participate in negotiations, the likelihood of achieving peace increases substantially and that peace lasts longer.
Ahn Kim Jeong-ae, one of the symposium’s organizers, said the diplomatic thaw between North and South Korea makes this week’s events even more crucial.
Ahn Kim noted that 2018 marks the 70th anniversary of the establishment of separate governments in Seoul and Pyongyang. This spring was also the 70th anniversary of the April 3 incident in which some 30,000 civilians on South Korea’s Jeju Island were massacred over a seven-year period when US military-backed right-wing forces violently purged opponents of a divided and occupied Korea.
“We want to commemorate these historical facts on May 24, International Women’s Day for Disarmament and Peace,” Ahn Kim said, noting that because women suffer disproportionately in war, they have a critical role to play in conflict resolution.
A Change in Tone
Christine Ahn is the international coordinator for Women Cross DMZ, which crossed from North to South Korea in 2015. She said the fact that this year’s symposium was held at the National Assembly (the South Korean equivalent of the US Congress), was “hugely significant.”
Unlike in 2015, when Women Cross DMZ was barely acknowledged by South Korea’s Ministry of Unification, this year’s symposium was financed by the South Korean Ministry of Gender, Equality and Family, Ahn said.
The difference reflects a dramatic change from the administration of deposed South Korean President Park Guen-hye to the progressive administration of current President Moon Jae-in, who favors engagement with the North.……..http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/44590-seventy-years-after-korea-s-division-women-lead-push-for-peace
How EVs will fast-track Australia’s shift to 100% renewables — RenewEconomy
Ten million electric vehicles in Australia will provide enough storage to power the country for a day – helping fast-track the transition to 100 per cent renewable energy.
via How EVs will fast-track Australia’s shift to 100% renewables — RenewEconomy
Adani’s desperate bid to sell Carmichael coal to Vietnam — RenewEconomy
Adani’s attendance at a Hanoi “energy roundtable,” facilitated by the Australian government, signifies the desperate challenge it faces getting Carmichael coal project off the ground.
via Adani’s desperate bid to sell Carmichael coal to Vietnam — RenewEconomy
May 25 Energy News
World:
¶ BYD landed its first SkyRail contract in South America with a deal with the Brazilian city of Salvador that will see a twenty-kilometer stretch of the overhead light rail system running over the water. The $689 million project is broken up into two phases, with construction on the first phase to begin in the last quarter of 2018. [CleanTechnica]
SkyRail demonstration in Shenzhen
¶ London-based Pivot Power unveiled plans to build a world-first 2-GW network of grid-scale batteries and rapid electric vehicle charging stations across the UK. The £1.6 billion ($2.1 billion) program will provide infrastructure to support the adoption of EVs and it will store electrical energy provided by renewable resources. [Renewable Energy Magazine]
¶ Russian power company TGC-1 has struck a deal with the Leningrad Oblast administration for the development of a 50-MW wind farm in the country’s north-west region. Governor Aleksandr Drozdenko and…
View original post 744 more words
Toni Scott asks: will the government hound the Kimba and Hawker communities until they support nuclear waste dumping?
How many times can the Government come back to a community and hound them until they gain broad community support?
I recommend that for something as signiWficant as building a permanent facility hosting hazardous waste it is imperative to have broad community support of no less than 70% absolute majority (meaning 70% of those eligible to vote)
Toni Scott SUBMISSION TO SENATE INQUIRY INTO THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE 
MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. (Submission No. 44, with 4 attachments) Thank you for the opportunity to present my views to the senate inquiry into the process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in SA.
I am an active resident of the Kimba Community and am involved with many community organisations within the town. I own and operate a farming business with my husband, we have 3 small children and I also work part time in Administration at the local Hospital.
Over the past 2 years my husband and I have been involved with this process as direct neighbours of the first round of nominations at Kimba. We have found the process inconsistencies extremely frustrating and stressful.
I ask that you please take my views and recommendations into consideration and I would be happy to be called as a witness to provide further information in the form of a hearing.
- a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquision of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;
All financial incentives been offered to individuals should be made available through public information including monies received through access agreements.
It is my view that communities should nominate to host the facility not individual land owners. This process could include local council coordinated public consultation including information from both sides of the argument prior to nominating, if there is broad community support from a town then the nomination is submitted instead of the other way around.
- b) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:
- i) The definition of broad community support and
- ii) How broad community support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage
The definition of broad community support is very vague. The Minister has refused to set a% of support required for the process to progress through the stages. I have submitted a freedom of information request asking for communication between the Department and Minister Canavan outlining information on how they intend to define broad community support. My FOI request was rejected and I am currently waiting for a case manager to follow up for me through the Australian Information Commission.
Phase 1 Summary Report 2016 ii – The independent Orima Survey indicated 51% of the Kimba Community was not opposed. 582 submissions were received and 80% of them were opposed.
– Summary of Engagement in the Kimba Community December 2016iii – This engagement was prior to the second round of nominations in Kimba. The Working for Futures group indicated to the department that there had been a large increase in support. Results showed there was in fact only a slight shift, of the 300 members that spoke to the Department 56% were supportive of a new nomination.
– Phase 1 Summary Report 2017iv – The Department received 112 written submissions from Kimba residents with 86% opposed. A total of 396 letters were received in relation to the Kimba nominations but for those from outside of the Kimba council boundary results were not reported on. This included letters from people only 20kms out of Kimba who fall outside the council boundary or land holders with property only 10km from nominated site but they fall outside of the council boundary.
AEC Results v– 56% voted yes to go through to stage 2 of the process this % is of those that voted (it is actually only 50% of eligible voters)
How many times can the Government come back to a community and hound them until they gain broad community support?
I recommend that for something as significant as building a permanent facility hosting hazardous waste it is imperative to have broad community support of no less than 70% absolute majority (meaning 70% of those eligible to vote)
- d) Whether and/or how the Governments community benefit program payment affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;
The $2 million dollar community benefit fund can only be seen as a bribe for people to vote to go through to the next stage. The Department representatives have encouraged people to dream about what the money could do for the community. Many of the projects they have suggested including improved phone and internet service and better health facilities are all things that our town like all other Australian Communities should be entitled to anyway.
- e) Whether wider (Eyre Peninsula or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so how this is occurring or should be occurring;
I believe the views of those living close to the facility are ultimately affected the most and therefor their opinion is of the highest importance closely followed by people living or owning property in the community of where the land is nominated. I don’t believe the boundary should be measured by a council boundary it should be set by a radius and should be prioritised in the following order
– Neighbours within the 10km radius views should be of the highest ranking
– Residents & land holders within 50km of the property should all have the opportunity to vote.
– Residents of the Eyre Peninsula and communities along potential freight routes should be consulted and their submissions taken into consideration.
– South Australians should have the opportunity to have their say on the State Legislation prohibiting the building of any Radioactive Waste Facilities within our state.
- f) Any other related matters.
Community members find it very difficult to trust the process when time and time again issues of unfairness arise, I have many other concerns including but not limited to:
– In the National Waste Management Act 2012 it states $10 million will be credited to the host state or territory to be spent on health, education and infrastructure.
It should be the communities money not the state and the Community should decide if, when and how it is spent.
– Throughout this second consultation neighbours from the 10km radius have been disregarded and only those with an immediate fence line have been considered neighbours. This is inconsistent with our first round of consultation and with the consultation at Hawker.
– The Kimba Consultative Committee (which I am a delegate on) was supposed to consist of an even spread of people who are opposed, neutral and supportive of the facility. Unfortunately of the 15 committee reps only 4 people are opposed.
– The Community Liaison Officer was supposed to be a person with neutral views but to no surprise the Department employed a local who has been openly supportive of the facility. Community members who are opposed find it difficult to speak openly with the Liaison officer about their concerns.
– For a process to be considered truly transparent information such as nominated sites, nominator financial payments and information regarding processes around broad community support need to be made readily available to the public.
I strongly believe prior to a final community vote as to whether a facility is to be sited in a community, members of the community NEED to be given all the information in writing including:
- What percentage of support will be required for broad community support.
- Exactly what waste will be stored at the facility.
- What will the facility look like.
- What are the jobs that will be required to run the facility and exactly how many are there.
- How much money will the community receive and how will it be distributed.
i FOI Internal Review Letter
ii Phase 1 Summary Report 2016
iii Summary of Engagement in the Kimba Community December 2016
iv Phase 1 Summary Report 2017
v AEC report
Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
Donald Trump cancels North Korea nuclear summit,
Donald Trump cancels North Korea nuclear summit, In letter to Kim Jong-un, Trump says talks are ‘inappropriate … based on the open hostility displayed in your recent statement’, Guardian, Julian Borger in Washington and Benjamin Haas in Seoul, 25 May 2018
Donald Trump has cancelled his planned summit with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, blaming his decision on a threatening statement from the Pyongyang regime, and warning that the US military is “ready if necessary”.
n a formal letter to Kim released by the White House, Trump said he had been “very much looking forward” to meeting the North Korean leader.
But he wrote: “Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting.”
Trump declared that the meeting would not take place “for the good of both parties, but to the detriment of the world”.
In remarks to the press after the letter was released, Trump said it was still possible the summit could go ahead, albeit at a later date, but warned Pyongyang that the US and its allies would respond if it carried out “foolish or reckless acts”.
Asked if cancellation of the summit increased the risk of war, he replied: “We’ll see what happens.”
Meanwhile, the president said his campaign of “maximum pressure” would continue, involving the “strongest sanctions ever imposed”. However, in the wake of Trump’s withdrawal from this summit, soon after abrogating a nuclear deal with Iran that had global support, there are now serious doubts over his ability to galvanise international support for increased sanctions, or even enforce the existing sanctions regime.
Trump’s letter to Kim mixed regretful and conciliatory passages with a reminder of the size of the US nuclear arsenal.
“You talk about your nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive that I pray to God they will never have to be used,” Trump wrote.
The cancellation came two days after a visit to the White House by the South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, who had sounded hopeful about a historic summit that he portrayed as vital to peace on the Korean peninsula.
Moon held an emergency meeting with top officials just before midnight local time on Thursday night. His office appeared surprised by the announcement, with spokesman Kim Eui-kyeom saying: “We are trying to figure out what President Trump’s intention is and the exact meaning of it.”
Pyongyang also appeared to be taken entirely by surprise.
“There was a real sense of shock amongst the people I was sitting with, the North Korean officials,” Will Ripley, a CNN reporter, said shortly after he read Trump’s letter to them………..https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/24/trump-cancels-north-korea-nuclear-summit
The movement to abolish nuclear weapons 1946 to 2018
ICAN wants to stigmatize nuclear weapons, portraying them as inherently immoral and in violation of international law, not symbols of power or guarantors of national security. In July, 2017, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, sponsored by ican, was endorsed by a hundred and twenty-two of the hundred and ninety-three countries in the United Nations. The treaty will attain legal force after being signed and ratified by fifty. It forbids the testing, development, production, acquisition, manufacture, and possession of nuclear weapons. Last November, Pope Francis backed the treaty, altering the Catholic Church’s position on nuclear weapons.
I hope the spirit now animating the demonstrations against gun violence will soon offer resistance to the greatest possible form of organized violence. As government officials in Washington, Moscow, London, Paris, Beijing, New Delhi, Islamabad, Tel Aviv, and Pyongyang discuss how to update and improve their arsenals, the madness at the heart of the whole enterprise must be loudly asserted. How much is enough? The only rational answer: even one nuclear weapon is one too many.
The Growing Dangers of the New Nuclear-Arms Race, The Trump Administration’s push for more nuclear weapons is part of a perilous global drive to miniaturize and modernize devices that already promise annihilation. New Yorker, By Eric Schlosser, 24 May 18, “…………The movement to abolish nuclear weapons began soon after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In January, 1946, the first resolution of the United Nations General Assembly called for “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons,” and during the Cold War every American President supported that goal, with varying degrees of sincerity. On September 25, 1961, addressing the U.N. General Assembly, President Kennedy gave perhaps the most eloquent speech on behalf of abolition. “Every man, woman, and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or madness,” he said. “The risks inherent in disarmament pale in comparison to the risks inherent in an unlimited arms race.”
That week, Kennedy also secretly met with military advisers at the White House to discuss the pros and cons of launching a nuclear surprise attack on the Soviet Union. American and Soviet troops were confronting each other in Berlin, and a war between the superpowers seemed possible. Kennedy wanted to hear the benefits of striking first. ……..
Kennedy wrestled with the dilemma, decided not to launch a surprise attack, and made his feelings clear at the U.N.: “Together we shall save our planet, or together we shall perish in its flames.”
……… nuclear weapons have regained their sinister allure. Continue reading
New research indicates global temperature increase of 4 degrees C by 2084
Earth’s climate to increase by 4 degrees by 2084 https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/ioap-ect052318.php INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
A collaborative research team from China has published a new analysis that shows the Earth’s climate would increase by 4 °C, compared to pre-industrial levels, before the end of 21st century.
To understand the severity of this, consider the Paris Agreement (https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement) of the United Nations. It’s a global effort to prevent an increase of 2°C. Nearly every country on the planet–the United States is the only country to withdraw–has agreed to work to prevent the catastrophic effects of two degrees of warming.
The researchers published their analysis projecting a doubling of that increase in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-018-7160-4 ) on May 18, 2018.
“A great many record-breaking heat events, heavy floods, and extreme droughts would occur if global warming crosses the 4 °C level, with respect to the preindustrial period,” said Dabang Jiang, a senior researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. “The temperature increase would cause severe threats to ecosystems, human systems, and associated societies and economies.”
In the analysis, Jiang and his team used the parameters of scenario in which there was no mitigation of rising greenhouse gas emissions. They compared 39 coordinated climate model experiments from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcm-cmip), which develops and reviews climate models to ensure the most accurate climate simulations possible.
They found that most of the models projected an increase of 4°C as early as 2064 and as late as 2095 in the 21st century, with 2084 appearing as the median year.
This increase translates to more annual and seasonal warming over land than over the ocean, with significant warming in the Arctic. The variability of temperature throughout one year would be lower in the tropics and higher in polar regions, while precipitation would most likely increase in the Arctic and in the Pacific. These are the same effects that would occur under 1.5°C or 2°C increases, but more severe.
“Such comparisons between the three levels of global warming imply that global and regional climate will undergo greater changes if higher levels of global warming are crossed in the 21st century,” wrote Jiang.
The researchers continue to investigate the changes associated with 4°C of global warming in extreme climates.
“Our ultimate goal is to provide a comprehensive picture of the mean and extreme climate changes associated with higher levels of global warming based on state-of-the art climate models, which is of high interest to the decision-makers and the public,” said Jiang.
Researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, the Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters at the Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, the Joint Laboratory for Climate and Environmental Change at Chengdu University of Information Technology, and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences contributed to this study.
This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
Warning that 5G electromagnetic radiation could greatly harm insect and bird orientation
Electromagnetic radiation from power lines and phone masts poses ‘credible’ threat to wildlife, report finds https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/17/electromagnetic-radiation-power-lines-phone-masts-poses-credible/ Electromagnetic radiation from power lines, wi-fi, phone masts and broadcast transmitters poses a ‘credible’ threat to wildlife, a new report suggests, as environmentalists warned the 5G roll out could cause greater harm.
An analysis of 97 studies by the EU-funded review body EKLIPSE concluded that radiation is a potential risk to insect and bird orientation and plant health.
However the charity Buglife warned that despite good evidence of the harms there was little research ongoing to assess the impact, or apply pollution limits.
New research shows significant radioactive particle release from Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear accident
Fukushima radioactive particle release was significant says new research https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/uom-frp052418.php UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
Scientists say there was a significant release of radioactive particles during the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear accident.
The researchers identified the contamination using a new method and say if the particles are inhaled they could pose long-term health risks to humans.
The new method allows scientists to quickly count the number of caesium-rich micro-particles in Fukushima soils and quantify the amount of radioactivity associated with these particles.
The research, which was carried out by scientists from Kyushu University, Japan, and The University of Manchester, UK, was published in Environmental Science and Technology.
In the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, it was thought that only volatile, gaseous radionuclides, such as caesium and iodine, were released from the damaged reactors. However, in recent years it has become apparent that small radioactive particles, termed caesium-rich micro-particles, were also released.
Scientists have shown that these particles are mainly made of glass, and that they contain significant amounts of radioactive caesium, as well as smaller amounts of other radioisotopes, such as uranium and technetium.
The abundance of these micro-particles in Japanese soils and sediments, and their environmental impact is poorly understood. But the particles are very small and do not dissolve easily, meaning they could pose long-term health risks to humans if inhaled.
Therefore, scientists need to understand how many of the micro-particles are present in Fukushima soils and how much of the soil radioactivity can be attributed to the particles. Until recently, these measurements have proven challenging.
The new method makes use of a technique that is readily available in most Radiochemistry Laboratories called Autoradiography. In the method, an imaging plate is placed over contaminated soil samples covered with a plastic wrap, and the radioactive decay from the soil is recorded as an image on the plate. The image from plate is then read onto a computer.
The scientists say radioactive decay from the caesium-rich micro particles can be differentiated from other forms of caesium contamination in the soil.
The scientists tested the new method on rice paddy soil samples retrieved from different locations within the Fukushima prefecture. The samples were taken close to (4 km) and far away (40 km) from the damaged nuclear reactors. The new method found caesium-rich micro-particles in all of the samples and showed that the amount of caesium associated with the micro-particles in the soil was much larger than expected.
Dr Satoshi Utsunomiya, Associate Professor at Kyushu University, Japan, and the lead author of the study says “when we first started to find caesium-rich micro-particles in Fukushima soil samples, we thought they would turn out to be relatively rare. Now, using this method, we find there are lots of caesium-rich microparticles in exclusion zone soils and also in the soils collected from outside of the exclusion zone”.
Dr Gareth Law, Senior Lecturer in Analytical Radiochemistry at the University of Manchester and an author on the paper, adds: “Our research indicates that significant amounts of caesium were released from the Fukushima Daiichi reactors in particle form.
“This particle form of caesium behaves differently to the other, more soluble forms of caesium in the environment. We now need to push forward and better understand if caesium micro-particles are abundant throughout not only the exclusion zone, but also elsewhere in the Fukushima prefecture; then we can start to gauge their impact”.
The new method can be easily used by other research teams investigating the environmental impact of the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
Dr Utsunomiya adds: “we hope that our method will allow scientists to quickly measure the abundance of caesium-rich micro-particles at other locations and estimate the amount of caesium radioactivity associated with the particles. This information can then inform cost effective, safe management and clean-up of soils contaminated by the nuclear accident”.
Growing public resistance to Holtec’s plan for a centralised nuclear waste dump in New Mexico USA
Opponents dominate NRC Holtec/ELEA CISF scoping meetings in northern NM! Beyond Nuclear 24 May 18 The new nuclear arms race brings nuclear war ever closer
the chance of accidents, miscalculations, and blunders with tactical weapons—as well as the pressure to “use them or lose them” in battle—greatly increase the risk of an all-out nuclear war.
The Fourth Geneva Convention extends legal protection to civilians during wartime. The rules against deliberately harming noncombatants were expanded by two additional protocols, in 1977. “The civilian population . . . shall not be the object of attack,” Protocol II states. “Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.” Despite that admonition, today’s nuclear-targeting policies in many ways resemble medieval hostage-taking. The innocent are threatened with murder in order to preserve the peace.
The Growing Dangers of the New Nuclear-Arms Race, The Trump Administration’s push for more nuclear weapons is part of a perilous global drive to miniaturize and modernize devices that already promise annihilation. New Yorker, By Eric Schlosser, 24 May 18, Less than a decade after President Barack Obama called for the abolition of nuclear weapons, the nine countries that possess them are engaged in a new nuclear-arms race. North Korea has most likely developed a hydrogen bomb, and its Hwasong-15 missiles may be large enough to transport not only a warhead but also decoys, chaff, and other countermeasures that would thwart America’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense anti-ballistic-missile system. India recently commissioned its second ballistic-missile submarine, launched an Agni-5 ballistic missile that can strike targets throughout Pakistan and China, and tested nuclear-capable BrahMos and Nirbhay cruise missiles. Pakistan now has the world’s fastest-growing nuclear stockpile, including low-yield warheads on Hatf-9 missiles for use against Indian troops and armored vehicles. Israel is expanding the range of its Jericho III ballistic missiles and deploying cruise missiles with nuclear weapons on submarines. France and the United Kingdom are developing replacements for their Vanguard and Triomphant ballistic-missile submarines. China is about to introduce Dongfeng-41 ballistic missiles that will be mounted on trucks, loaded with up to ten nuclear warheads, and capable of reaching anywhere in the United States. Russia is building a wide range of new missiles, bombers, and submarines that will carry nuclear weapons. The R-28 Sarmat missile, nicknamed Satan-2, will carry up to sixteen nuclear warheads—more than enough for a single missile to destroy every American city with a population larger than a million people. Russia plans to build forty to fifty of the Satan-2s. Three other countries—Iran, Japan, and South Korea may soon try to obtain their own nuclear arsenals. Continue reading
North Korea explodes it nuclear weapons test site
North Korea claims it has demolished its nuclear testing site North Korea has carried out what it said is the demolition of its nuclear test site, setting off a series of explosions over several hours in the presence of foreign journalists. ABC News, 25 May 18
- Closing of North Korea’s nuclear test site was announced by Kim Jong-un before planned summit with US President Donald Trump
- North Korea brought in a small group of foreign journalists to witness the event
- Demolition comes after North Korea labelled US Vice President Mike Pence a “political dummy”
The explosions at the nuclear test site deep in the mountains of the North’s sparsely populated north-east were centred on three tunnels at the underground site and a number of buildings in the surrounding area.
North Korea had completely dismantled its Punggye-ri nuclear test ground “to ensure the transparency of discontinuance of nuclear test,” state news agency KCNA said.
The dismantling of the nuclear test ground “completely closed the tunnel entrances,” it said, adding that two tunnels there had been ready for use in “powerful underground nuclear tests”.
There was no leakage of radioactive material or adverse impact on the surrounding environment from the dismantling, the agency added.
“The discontinuance of the nuclear test is an important process moving towards global nuclear disarmament,” KCNA said……. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-24/north-korea-says-its-has-demolished-its-nuclear-test-site/9797594
Antinuclear 