Australian news, and some related international items

Senator Rex Patrick in Whyalla – concerned that nuclear waste facility in South Australia is already a ‘done deal’

Senator talks nuclear, Whyalla News, Louis Mayfield , 6 July 18  

July 6, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Sunshine Coast environment and population must not be put at risk by nuclear power stations

OUR SAY: Nuclear move not for Coast, Sunshine Coast Daily by CRAIG WARHURST, 6th Jul 2018 

July 6, 2018 Posted by | Opposition to nuclear, Queensland | Leave a comment

Melanie Orman’s confidence in Nuclear Waste Management Facility Taskforce is misplaced ? – responses to her Submission

Dave Dehelpe  No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia 6 July 18 Unless Mz Orman has dicovered a method of transporting the waste without passing through other towns or properties in S.A. then it is essential that the rest of S.A. claims the same voting rights that she wishes to deny all South Australians.

Steve Dale She says – “I do trust and believe that this facility will not have a negative impact of the community of Kimba” – too late, the sweaty desperation of the nuclear pushers has already caused a huge amount of damage to South Australians. “Trust” – I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw a container of High Level Waste (which they call “Intermediate” – trust blown already).

Picture below is from a UK radioactive waste management document – the UK call it High Level Waste (HLW) – our parliament (at the urging of ANSTO and nuclear lobbyists) passes a law to make us call it “Intermediate”. Oh what a tangled web they weave…..

July 6, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Response to Katrina Koch’s pro nuclear submission on nuclear waste dump siting South Australia

Wendy Nicholls   Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA   6 July 18, I get how the nuclear waste dump plan primarily affects Kimba and adjacent areas first but this will and does affect the whole of SA…

( is the waste going to magically appear in has to be transported thru SA…and has Koch even looked at or researched what has occurred overseas when nuclear waste has leaked?? If this goes ahead and it leaks…whose dollars will be cleaning it up? ANSTO, fed dollars, state dollars)

I’m proud of SA…proud of our environment and rural areas…this affects all of us…) And anti dump activists…they are providing information to allow for Informed choice…

July 6, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Response to the pro nuclear submissions – an Aboriginal perspective

Jillian Marsh No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia 6 July     placing faith in ‘worlds best practice’ without fully understanding what this means or who peddles this propaganda seems such a naive thing in today’s world.

We as members of the public can easily locate information online that contradicts the spin doctors of the nuclear industry – not just on the basis of economic viability, but also on the grounds of lack of an adequate and thorough community engagement process, as well as on the failed track records of governments and the nuclear industry all over the world who consistently fail to contain toxic radioactive contamination. 

So I suspect that the YES people are being seduced by the prospect of wealth, both personal and collective, and for the non-Aboriginal folk out there who say YES to a dump, if it ends up being a disaster and contaminates the land you can just pack up and move onto another farm, buy a house in another town, send your kids to another school and move interstate.

The reality for Aboriginal people, especially Traditional Owners is quite different. we are spiritually, culturally, economically connected to our country and have been for hundreds of generations. that’s what we mean when we say we belong to this land, a concept that is difficult if not impossible for 4th generation settlers who came from (and still identify with) a European heritage.

July 6, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | 1 Comment

New research: Climate scientists underestimated speed of global warming and of sea level rise?

Guardian 6th July 2018 Temperature rises as a result of global warming could eventually be double
what has been projected by climate models, according to an international
team of researchers from 17 countries. Sea levels could also rise by six
metres or more even if the world does meet the 2 degree target of the Paris

The findings, published last week in Nature Geoscience, were based
on observations of evidence from three warm periods in the past 3.5m years
in which global temperatures were 0.5-2 degrees above the pre-industrial
temperatures of the 19th century.

The researchers say they increase theurgency with which countries need to address their emissions. The
scientists used a range of measurements to piece together the impacts of past climatic changes to examine how a warmer earth would appear once the climate has stabilised.

July 6, 2018 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Earthquakes happen in the Kimba area – not a good place for a nuclear waste dump.

Michael Skeet Kilowsky Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SAEyre Peninsula, SA, ML 4.5 1998 February 26, 14:13 UT
(Friday, February 27, 12:43 am CDST)
This earthquake occurred north of Cleve and south of Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia, about 250km northwest of Adelaide. It was felt over northern Eyre Peninsula, and on Yorke Peninsula at a distance of about 110km from the epicentre. The maximum reported intensity was Modified Mercalli Intensity 4. Located by Sutton Earthquake Centre, PIRSA Adelaide.

July 6, 2018 Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump, safety, South Australia | Leave a comment

July 6 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “Syrian seeds could save US wheat from climate menace” • A Kansas greenhouse has in it a buzzing horde of flies laying waste to 20,000 wheat seedlings. But as researchers watched, there was one species of growth that remained untouched. That species, grown from Syrian seeds, could end up saving US wheat from […]

via July 6 Energy News — geoharvey

July 6, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Finkel says Australia can, and should, be world leader in energy storage — RenewEconomy

A new study led by chief scientist Alan Finkel has underlined Australia’s role as a leader in the household battery storage sector, and says Australia can, and should, be a leader of energy storage of all types.

via Finkel says Australia can, and should, be world leader in energy storage — RenewEconomy

July 6, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australia head of UN climate fund resigns, board meeting collapses — RenewEconomy

In a dramatic conclusion to a meeting that failed to approve any finance for the developing world, Howard Bamsey announced his exit from the Green Climate Fund.

via Australia head of UN climate fund resigns, board meeting collapses — RenewEconomy

July 6, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Melanie Orman seems positively joyous about a nuclear waste dump for Kimba

Melanie Orman Submission to Committee Secretariat, Senate Standing Committees on Economics Re – Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility From Melanie Orman – (Submission no. 77)

I originally grew up in Adelaide, South Australia, but have been coming to Kimba for the past five years and officially moved in 2017. My partner is the fourth generation in the process of taking over the family cropping farm in Kimba, that has been operational for the past one-hundred years. I work at Wudinna hospital as a Registered nurse commuting between Wudinna and Kimba. It is my pleasure to be able to provide my personal opinion and relevant information to the inquiry on the process of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) site selection process in Kimba, South Australia. I give permission for this submission to be made public and would be willing to speak with the Senate committee to answer any further questions they may have in conjunction with Kimba’s process through this nomination.

a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;

The financial compensation offered to the land owners of Kimba who put their land up for nomination is not an over-generous amount of money. It is only a small percentage of the money that cropping can bring into a business over many future years. The price offered is not going to impact the overall business, give the farmer an advantage or disadvantage or affect any surrounding neighbours.

In my opinion, I cannot see that the money offered was the main driving incentive for people to nominate their land. When the NRWMF approached people with the idea and compensation, it was in their best interests for their family, community and full belief that the facility would not cause any reason for concern.

b) How is the need for ‘broad community support’ played and will continue to play a part in the process, including: The definition of ‘broad community support’, and How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;

Broad Community Support is defined as a gathering of expressions by a community. [??] There may be broad community support even if some individuals or groups object to the project. But by addressing the community’s majority opinion and accepting that they have their own opinion and not criticise another community members view. A community member is a person who; lives, shops, works, volunteers, or sees themselves as an accepted member of a town. Everyone who defines themselves as a member of the community should accept everyone else in that community and let them have a say.

At the end of 2016 two new voluntary land nominations were submitted from Kimba. Members from the Department of Innovation and Science and the Department of Industry visited to speak with the community of Kimba to see if there was a change in the community’s opinion since the first nomination was terminated. Minister Matt Canavan also travelled to Kimba to meet with people such as landowners, direct neighbours of the nominated sites, District Council members and everyone who either supported or were opposed to the idea. Minister Canavan accepted the two new land nominations and Kimba entered the process once more. I think this shows really clearly that there has been enough support for the community to participate in this next stage, no question. [??] We will all get more input into any decision to come

Evidence that supports broad support in Kimba:

  1. As wished by the community of Kimba, the Australian Electoral Commission vote for registered voters in the Kimba electorate was allowed, so that it was fair to all. The results showed after the June 2017 vote, that majority of the town ( 57.4% ) was in favour for Kimba moving to Phase two of the project, not to receive the site, but the consultation stage.
  2. 2) It was also raised to people who were not on the Kimba electoral role to apply to vote if they thought they had a strong interest in the decision.
  3. 3) The District Council of Kimba has openly supported the process through to phase two.
  4. 4) As per the NRWMF guidelines, the two Kimba nominated sites had 90% direct neighbour backing.
  5. 5) The traditional owners of the land have been informed of the assessment of the two Kimba sites for this facility. They have not expressed opposition to the facility being located in Kimba (to my knowledge) to date.

Like many rural community towns, Kimba is slowly declining in numbers, especially in low rainfall areas. Many people, including myself, want a way to ensure that this beautiful town will still stand for many more generations to come. Numerous people see that this project will ensure job opportunities, infrastructure and can make sure this part of Australia does not vanish from our maps.

  1. 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;

To my knowledge, there are no traditional owners from this region living and active in the Kimba community. I am positive that the department are in contact with the Barngarla people, who are the traditional owners of the land. I am aware that the Barngarla owners visited the two nominated sites in March 2018. As far as I know they didn’t raise any issues or concerns with the proposed project. I believe that the elders will always be in the loop of the process that Kimba has entered. I am confident the department will engage them in decisions and ideas when it comes to a potential new project like this in Kimba. I think the best idea for this committee is probably to ask the department and those traditional owners directly about the process. They are going to know better than most people making these submissions.

  1. Whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;

Kimba has been seen in the media a lot since entering this process, and a lot of the comments made about our town has mostly been negative. This really upsets me when people on social media, and even surrounding towns/ cities go out of their way to degrade my town and tell me “how could you do this to our country?”. It is not just once person’s decision, and I feel I am a part of this community enough to have an educated opinion about this matter. I am now a registered voter of the Kimba electoral role. I will continue to vote ‘Yes’ for this facility, so I can ensure that my future children have a town that exists, and they are happy and healthy in the town of Kimba.

It has been a bonus to find out that Kimba was eligible for a two-million-dollar community benefits fund to help the community thrive. This is a chance for us to better our town in lots of meaningful ways. It recognises that we have taken part in something other communities wouldn’t. I think that’s fair.

I hope that it is understood that the community of Kimba did not vote ‘Yes’ because of the money. I see that the majority of people in Kimba are following this journey because of the passion and end result we hope to get to, and that is to provide a safe place to dispose of and store radioactive material for Australia, at the same time as offering some long term social benefits to our community.

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; and

I believe that the decision should be that of the community of Kimba only. It is the people of Kimba who have been through the past twelve months of meetings with various people from around Australia and the world, people who specialise in these industries. Many people have opinions on the matter, which is fine, but the community of Kimba will have the most educated evidence and findings to make the informed decision, whichever way it goes

I have been very happy, and comfortable with the process thus far. I have attended many community meetings and have heard from many professionals in the topic of radiation. I was lucky enough to be able to visit ANSTO with a group of people from Kimba to learn more about radioactive waste storage. I was amazed at what I learnt, and it cemented my opinion on the topic. The trip really opened my eyes as to the type of waste that would be stored in our facility, we were able to go up and enter the facility where the medical drums are kept and were even able to go up and touch the drums ourselves. I came away from that trip with a really cemented understanding on the specific products that will be potentially stored in Kimba, and I feel that I have enough knowledge to have an un-biased opinion.

I do trust and believe that this facility will not have a negative impact of the community of Kimba. I do not believe that it will have an adverse impact on grain sales, land prices for anyone in the district. As this facility would only affect people in the district of Kimba, I feel it is only up to the people in that district. Their opinions matter the most, and those people only should have the vote on whether this facility goes ahead.

The town of Kimba defiantly has some people who like to have their voices heard, whether it is negative or positive, between other community members! Since this process has started, the community has continued to work, and everyone socialises with everyone in the town. Some people make this matter cloud their opinion on others, but that is up to them. Everyone has a right to their opinion and it’s normal that a town from is made up of diverse opinions. I do not believe the town of Kimba has divided, just that some people chose to segregate themselves from normality. I believe if people wish their voices to be heard that they should do so and do it with respect and non judgment. As I have been brought up if you have nothing nice to say, do not say anything at all. I look forward to the findings on the enquiry.

July 6, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

At Liberal National Party Convention, Turnbull will be urged to develop nuclear power, with popular Queensland coast sites recommended

Seaside gems eyed for nuclear power plants 
The Turnbull Government will be urged to consider developing a nuclear power industry under a plan to be debated at the LNP convention, with two of the potential locations being popular seaside areas in southeast Queensland.  July 5, 2018

THE Turnbull Government will be urged to consider developing a nuclear power industry under a plan to be debated at the LNP convention.

The controversial resolution, proposed by Fairfax MP Ted O’Brien’s branch, could lead to a plan for generators across the country if it is adopted by the party and then acted on by the government. The branch does not list possible sites for nuclear power plants in the resolution but urges the Federal Government to “consider the feasibility of nuclear powered energy generation in Australia”.

A 2007 Australia Institute study identified 17 suitable sites for nuclear power plants including six in Queensland — Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, the Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island.

That study chose locations using key criteria including existing electricity infrastructure, centres of demand, transport infrastructure and access to large quantities of water for cooling and warned setting up a nuclear industry in Australia could prove unpopular.

“If the Federal Government decided to promote the establishment of a nuclear power industry in Australia, the siting of the power plants is likely to be one of the most politically contentious issues,” the report said.

“In Australia, approximately half of the population opposes nuclear energy and two thirds say they would oppose a nuclear power plant in their local area.”

The Fairfax LNP branch has proposed three separate resolutions on energy policy to be debated at the convention, which starts in Brisbane on Friday. Other resolutions from the branch call on the government to “reduce the high level of subsidy paid to the renewable energy industry” and “support the building of new Coal Fired Power Stations that have the capacity to produce reliable and economic power”.

Resolutions that are adopted by the LNP convention are not binding on the government. Mr O’Brien could not be reached for comment

July 6, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Liberal National Party Queensland ‘s dead end pursuit of nuclear power for Australia

Stop flogging the dead horse of nuclear power, Terry Sweetman 6, 2018 
IN the eternal search for a headline, there are few things more predictable than political conventions.

They are places to air outlandish ideas that give the lower party ranks some illusion of influence and to float pet notions. They are also the place to flog dead horses. And there can be few horses more dead than the idea of nuclear power in Australia.

But undaunted by history, Ted O’Brien’s Fairfax branch of the Liberal National Party will urge the Federal Government to consider a nuclear power industry when it takes the floor at the LNP’s state convention beginning today.

Fortunately, the decisions of the convention are not binding on the Government and, I suspect, the suggestion will be allowed to die a natural death.

The problem for the proponents of nuclear power is that we’ve been down this track before and not all that long ago. In fact, we’ve been talking about nuclear power since 1952 when then South Australian premier Thomas Playford confidently proposed that one be built on the shores of Spencer Gulf. The next and probably most serious proposal was to build one on Commonwealth territory at Jervis Bay in 1969 but this idea went into meltdown when the locals got nervous and the unions got aggro.

Ted O’Brien’s Fairfax branch of the LNP will urge the Federal Government to consider nuclear power, despite the fact every party knows it could simply never happen.
And so it went on over the decades, with the idea intermittently erupting like a dyspeptic belch and then subsiding. It got almost serious in 2006 when Prime Minister John Howard was starting to accept at the very least the idea of containing emissions even if climate change was a bridge too far. He launched what he called a “full-blooded debate” and commissioned a report by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski who reckoned we could have the first nuclear reactor in Australia (he meant power stations as we already have a reactor) in as soon as 10 years. The headline was that we could have 25 nuclear stations producing a third of Australia’s electricity by 2050.

What took the fizz out of the fission was just where these 25 reactors would be built.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd taunted Howard to name the sites but he refused to be drawn on specifics, leaving others to draw their own conclusions.

The four main criteria for the siting of nuclear power plants in Australian had generally been accepted as proximity to appropriate existing electricity infrastructure; proximity to major load centres (i.e. large centres of demand); proximity to transport infrastructure to facilitate the movement of nuclear fuel, waste and other relevant materials; and access to large quantities of water for cooling.

The Australia Institute took these criteria (plus a few others) and pinpointed 17 places that seemed to fit the bill. Seven of the prospective sites were in Queensland: Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island. (The Sunshine Coast sites are in the seat of Fairfax and Bribie is in Longman, where a crucial by-election is being fought and the LNP quite possibly could do without this distraction.)

The Australian Institute is routinely disparaged as “left leaning” but I saw nothing then or since to challenge its conclusions on prospective nuclear sites.

The earthquake and tsunami in the Miyagi prefecture in Japan sparked a nuclear disaster in 2011.
In 2006 the Institute reckoned about half of the population opposed nuclear energy and “two thirds say they could opposed a nuclear power plant in their local area’’. If the nuclear industry was still looking at the same backyards, it is reasonable to presume it would come up against the same public sentiment.

The other problem was that Switkowski concluded nuclear power was likely to be between 20 and 50 per cent more costly to produce than power from a new coal-fired plant.

Unless they have been major advances in nuclear technology in the past 12 years, that same formula would apply.

In 2006, Switkowski was able to breezily report: “Since Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, the nuclear industry has developed new reactor designs which are safer and more efficient.’’ Then along came Japan’s Fukushima disaster.

These are the sorts of things the old folk seeing out their days in the sun on Bribie have plenty of time to think about.

If the motion is debated seriously this weekend, proponents may be able to produce much in the way of supportive technical and financial evidence, even warming up the Switkowski report. But that will count for nothing when it comes to the Not In My Backyard syndrome and politicians of all shades know it.

July 6, 2018 Posted by | politics, Queensland | Leave a comment

Queensland’s nuclear medicine from cyclotron produced at the hospital, leaving no nuclear waste problem

Cancer care in Queensland relies on nuclear medicine made in this concrete bunker  ABC Radio Brisbane By Hailey Renault

Staff at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital’s nuclear medicine department get to work in the morning around the same time as a baker starts serving up hot bread.

But instead of kneading dough and priming ovens, the labcoat-clad workers manufacture medicines that diagnose and treat cancer.

It’s a delicate operation with rigorous quality control and testing protocols that start deep in the bowels of the hospital behind several layers of thick concrete.

A vault with walls more than a metre thick houses a particle accelerator called a cyclotron.

“It creates a proton beam which bombards oxygen-18 water and turns it into fluorine-18. That’s what we attach to those pharmaceuticals,” Dr Marissa Bartlett, manager of the Radiopharmaceutical Centre of Excellence, said.

The cyclotron is switched on at 4:00am every day to make a new batch of radiopharmaceuticals for lifesaving treatments and therapies.

“We make products that are taken up by cancer cells, so when a patient goes under the [PET] scanner the doctors can see pictures and images of where the cancer cells are,” Dr Bartlett told ABC Radio Brisbane’s Katherine Feeney.

“One of the therapies some patients who have cancer can have is a radionuclide therapy, which goes to the cancer cells and uses radiation to kill those cells.”

There’s no hazmat suits in sight — they’re not needed in a lab largely devoid of dangerous chemicals — but Dr Bartlett said lab workers were protected from radiation by a series of lead, lead-glass and concrete shields.

“When the cyclotron is on it generates very large amounts of radiation so it would be extremely dangerous to be anywhere near it when it’s on,” she said.

“In order to have it on campus we have it inside a concrete room. The walls of that room are thicker than I am tall.”

Medicines go direct to patients

Even though Dr Bartlett described the nuclear medicine department as an “obscure little branch” of hospital operations, many Queenslanders would come into contact with the radiopharmaceuticals it produced.

The Cancer Council of Queensland estimates nearly 27,000 people receive a cancer diagnosis each year.

“One of the things that makes this an amazing place to work is that you literally walk past the patients to get to the lab,” Dr Bartlett said.

“They might get news they really don’t want or maybe they’re coming back to see how their cancer is progressing or responding to treatment.

“We’re very aware of the patients who are lining up every day to get the products we make.”

And what happens to any radioactive materials that aren’t used?

“Everything we make has a very short half-life, so we basically store it until it decays away,” Dr Bartlett said.

“Then it’s completely cold and you wouldn’t know that it had been radioactive.”

July 6, 2018 Posted by | health, Queensland, technology | Leave a comment

Daryl Koch has “no concerns” about nuclear waste dump for Kimba or for anywhere else

Daryl Koch Kimba SA Committee Secretariat, Submission to Senate standing committees on Economics Re – Selection process for a National Radioactive waste facility (Submission no. 75)

My name is Daryl Koch and I was born in and lived in Kimba all my life. I am a wheat and sheep farmer and three generations of my family have farmed in the Kimba district. I am on several committees in Kimba and volunteer with our local sporting clubs. I care deeply about my town and community remaining viable into the future for my children and grandchildren. I am pleased to be making a submission to the enquiry to address the terms of reference. I am comfortable with my submission to be made public.

To date the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection in search of a national radioactive waste management facility (NRWMF) has been thorough, transparent and fair. In February 2018 I visited ANSTO at Lucas Heights in NSW to see the nuclear medical reactor and to see firsthand the types of low and intermediate level waste that would be held at the NRWMF. I was very impressed by how professional and carefully the people of ANSTO operate this facility and how well-managed these radioactive waste streams are. I have actively taken part in the consultation process here in Kimba and I do not have any concerns for a radioactive waste facility being built either here in the Kimba district or elsewhere.

a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;

I actually don’t have a strong view as to whether the amount being paid for the land is too high in value. The compensation seems appropriate. Any land holder across Australia had the opportunity to nominate, so no one was excluded from the opportunity. Other parcels of land here in Kimba have been surveyed and sold for community benefit at well and truly above market value. ie The Viterra grain bunker site and the EP Hay site

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’, ii) how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;

Every person on the electoral roll in the District Council of Kimba was given the chance to vote to go to stage 2 (consultation stage) of the NRWMF. Also people who believed they had an interest in Kimba could apply to the council for a vote eg owning a business, owning land in Kimba, work and live in Kimba but not yet on electoral roll. This Australian Electoral commission voting process was fair and trustworthy to every adult who was invested in Kimba and its future.

In my opinion any percentage over 50% is a majority win and constitutes ‘broad community support’ for a project. The new Marshall Government in SA won the election with 37.9% of the electoral votes and is now in Government and that is ‘broad community’ of voters in South Australia. In addition to the AEC vote, all but one direct neighbor (to both the nominated sites) is in support of living and farming near a radioactive waste facility and that must also be added to support the term ‘broad community support’.

I believe a future AEC vote is the only fair way for advancement in the project (50% plus one vote is majority) and continued direct neighbor support is essential, I also think the opinion and vote of the District Council of Kimba should be taken into account for broad community support

  1. 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; I am aware that the Indigenous groups (Barngarla people) have been acknowledged and consulted throughout the process. Any indigenous people living in our community have had access to the same information process as I have and will have the same opportunity to vote as I have.

    d) whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;

I don’t believe people voted yes to go to phase 2 for the promise of money. Only the cynics amongst us would believe this.

People have voted yes to get more information about the project and to ask questions of experts about the safety of radioactive waste, how it will be stored and how it will be transported. The community benefit program is an added bonus for being in the process and will benefit many community projects. People from both sides of the argument about the facility have applied for funding of a project. We are all smart enough not to vote yes to have the facility built in our district for the promise of money. I will vote yes when I am assured that the facility can be built to international best practice and that there will be no adverse effect to people, the environment and our livelihood.

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; f) any other related matters.

The people of Kimba are the only ones whose views should be considered when voting to advance in any stage of the Kimba nominations. I don’t believe this facility will have any negative impact for our Kimba community or any other community, so I don’t think we need the approval of a neighboring town, regional centre or the state.

Lobby groups and Nuclear activists have been questioning the ‘process’ and spread false information but they have no interest in Kimba or the people of Kimba or any idea of the level of participation in the process the people in Kimba have made.

Our community has had access to a 12 month consultation and information process that other towns on the Eyre Peninsula or the state have not had access to

The department have had a business space in Kimba for two days a week for nearly a year. I have been able to walk in and ask questions and request people I would like to speak to or hear from. They have also sent out frequent newsletters and information brochures. I have been to public information sessions at the town hall and at the Hotel. I have heard from specialists in radioactive waste treatment, radiation experts, General manager of Ansto nuclear medicine program, listen to and ask questions to speakers from France that have a similar facility in their community. I was also able to visit Ansto (fully funded trip) to ask further questions and to see for myself the types of waste and how it will be transported. I have also had access to newspaper articles, radio and tv interviews and access to the internet.

The people of Kimba are able to make an informed decision for ourselves about our town. Outsiders should not be able to make decisions for our town.

Changing the process in a search for a Radioactive waste facility in Kimba or for any future nominations would destroy the integrity, appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process to date. 

July 6, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment