Antinuclear

Christine Scott rejects nuclear waste dump proposal – it’s against South Australian law, and will damage agricultural industry

Christine Scott Submission No 14 Subject: Senate enquiry into site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility

To whom it may concern, I am writing this letter as a concerned member of the Kimba community. I reside in the township of Kimba and have a son, his wife and three young children living and working on the farm which has been in our family for over 100 years, and which is situated approx 17kms from our town centre.

In the 50 years I have resided in the Kimba district (coming here as a teacher in 1968) I have never before witnessed such a divided and hurting community. Before the selection process began I would have described our community as united and supportive of each other and the local businesses. Now many farmers are looking to buy their merchandise only from businesses that support their viewpoint on whether or not there should be a nuclear waste dump in Kimba, even preferring to shop out of town for farm goods, food and groceries than give their financial support to people who they feel have betrayed them and the whole agricultural export industry on which the existence of this town depends.

Resentment runs high towards those farmers who “volunteered” their land for the dump, when that “volunteering” comes with an incentive of 3 times the value of their land plus the original value. From my understanding a volunteer is someone who gives of their time, services or possessions for free, but these farmers are seen to be benefiting at the disadvantage of others.

I strongly reject the presumption implied by the Government that one, or in Kimba’s case two individuals have the right to decide that: –

(a) A nuclear dump can be placed in a grain growing area relying on export markets for its existence.

(b) Can ignore their own State Law prohibiting such a dump.

The present government, would no doubt argue that it is not just two individuals offering their land.They would say that 56.7% of the community are in favour as a result of a local council vote and thatthis shows “broad” community support for the nuclear dump to be placed in agricultural land.That 56.7% is considered to be broad community support is puzzling when 65% support was required at Hawker.

What is the figure representing broad community support? Surely when you are considering intermediate waste with a life of up to 1000 years, meaning that it could affect many, many, many generations to come, and that once the waste is “dumped” it will most likely not be shifted – so the decision is actually irreversible, surely broad community support should be at an absolute minimum 66%. This is the figure I understand is required for a constitutional change.

I have attended many “information” sessions over the time our town has been enduring this destructive process and my confidence in the process has decreased considerably: –

(Ed.   I was unable to copy the rest of this):   Here she lists problems about the jobs promised, the type of waste, the unsuitability of Kimba, as compared with Lucas Heights for a nuclear waste storage location, the effect not only on agricultural land, but on overseas customers‘ perception of agricultural produce from  a nuclear waste dump area.

July 12, 2018 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump