Submissions to Senate: more people oppose a nuclear waste dump in Kimba or Hawker.
The 58 submissions to the Senate, opposing the plan for the process for selecting a nuclear waste dump site come from a variety of organisations and individuals, and include residents of Eyre Peninsula.
These are some points that came up as they answered the Term of Reference, especially (f) – Any related matters. (These submissions also generally gave full answers to the other 5 more narrow Terms of Reference)
Comprehensive criticism of the entire process. (ENUFF Submission no. 109) No justification for dump (Wakelin B No. 23) Why the assumption it has to be South Australia.? (Wauchope N. No. 21) Flawed process (Hughes No. 57) (Mitchell No. 25) Opposed to process, not necessarily to dump (Lienert L No. 50) End the process (Noonan, D No 31) Longterm negative effects (Sisters of St Joseph No. 68 )
Nuclear wastes. Wants re-examination of waste plans (CCSA 55 ) Intermediate wastes (Mitchell 25, Scott C 14 ) Prelude to commercial waste import? (Name Withheld 90 ) Dangers Waste types ( Noonan, D31 Wauchope N 21 ) Lucas Heights best site (Taylor A 82 ) stranded wastes (Tulloch S 32)
Issues of dishonesty – lack of trust (Ashton 73) Hypocrisy of DIIS (Bannon 85 Fergusson 106) Biased committees (Scott T 44) Biased and misleading information given (Thomas 36 Tiller J 9 Tulloch B 87) Dishonest process (Tulloch R 62 ) Conflicts of interest (Cushway 6 Fels P 84 Fergusson 106 )
Illegality of setting up nuclear dump – (Gaweda 54 Madigan 26 Scott T 44 Stokes B Tulloch S 32 Walker 20 )
Aboriginal issues well beyond the Term of Reference about this. Strongly Aboriginal In depth on Aboriginal interaction (ATLA No 42 MKenzie K 78 McKenzie R 107) History of Aboriginal interaction (Bangarla 56 )History. (Madigan 26 MKenzie K 78)
Floods groundwater (Fels K 63 Fels P 84 Thomas 36 )
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply