Australian news, and some related international items

Opinions on siting a nuclear waste dump at Kimba or Hawker, South Australia   Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced ( THE AUSTRALIAN, 18/6/18) that on 20 August, there will be a ballot to gauge community support for a federal nuclear waste dump near one of the small towns of Kimba or Hawker, about 450km north of Adelaide. The vote will be confined to the residents in the immediate local area.The decision will be made in the second half of this year” said Canavan ““We do not want this overlapping with a federal election”.

A Senate Inquiry will report on this on 14 August, possibly too late to make a difference. However, many people are taking this Inquiry very seriously, and have sent in 109 submissions, nearly all of which can be read at the Senate Committee’s website.

As I’ve been going through 98 published submissions to this Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia, I’ve been able to learn some of the reasons why people support or oppose the idea of the nuclear waste dump. 

The division of opinion was clear in the answers to the 5 main Terms of Reference, asking whether the following aspects were satisfactory: – financial compensation for land, community support, indigenous support, Community Benefit Program, and confining consultation to the local community. Answers were consistently “Yes” in submissions supporting the plan, and “No” in those opposing it.

More interesting were the comments in the 6th Term of Reference – ” Any related matters”

The 40 supporting submissions. Almost every one of the supporting submissions came from local residents, several explaining that they have been very thoroughly informed by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, including tours of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. Four submissions spent time praising the Department of Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS) and Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)

Their answers regarding “Any related matters” were strongly concerned with the local area and its future. Several were enthusiastic that the nuclear waste facility would ensure the survival of the town into the future. It would have no negative impact. It would be good for local business. It would be beneficial to Australia. Some complained of misleading information from anti nuclear activists. There was strong opposition to “outsiders” having a say in the decision. Kimba District Council needed detail on important financial benefits. Submissions from DIIS and ANSTO said that the facility was essential for nuclear medicine. Lobbyist Ben Heard said that it is needed for the expansion of the Lucas Heights nuclear centre.

The 58 opposing submissions come from a variety of organisations and individuals, and include residents of Eyre Peninsula. These were generally more comprehensive and wide-ranging. When it comes to “Any related matters”, they had a lot to say:

There were several comprehensive criticisms of the entire site selection process – no justification for the dump  –  why the assumption it has to be in South Australia? – the process is flawed. One was  opposed to the process, not necessarily to the dump. One call to end the process. Concern on longterm negative effects.

Nuclear waste issues were discussed . Call for re-examination of waste plans- dangerous waste types – intermediate level wastes – probability of stranded nuclear wastes – Lucas Heights the most suitable site – this facility a prelude to commercial waste import?

Issues of dishonesty – lack of trust – dishonest process -hypocrisy of DIIS – biased committees biased and misleading information given – Conflicts of interest .

Aboriginal ssues well beyond the Term of Reference about this – strongly Aboriginal in depth on Aboriginal interaction – history of Aboriginal interaction.

Other issues discussed: – seismic danger  – floods, groundwater – tourism -nuclear medicine not needing the dump  – prediction of legal action – mental health issues – aim for a nuclear free world.

You can read more about these submissions, in the summaries at–and also find links to each full submission.

Senate sites:


August 6, 2018 - Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump

1 Comment »

  1. TURNBULL PLEASE EXPLAIN : Spencer Gulf Cities in South Australia to become Nuclear Waste Central – Nuclear Waste from all over the country (upto 10,000 times more radioactive than uranium ore) will be transported thousands of kms several times a week thru Spencer Gulf cities, roads and ports (Port Pirie, Whyalla and Port Augusta). Like the rest of the state, people living in the Spencer Gulf region have been SHUTOUT of Turnbull’s Nuclear Waste Dump process – 25million people will be effected as our national highways become Nuclear Waste superhighways and the fate of the whole nation is confined to just 600 people (living within 50km radius of the proposed sites) in Kimba and Hawker who will vote this month FOR or AGAINST a Nuclear Waste Dump in our backyard. When a Nuclear Waste accident happens (and it will happen), your insurance company will not cover you for Nuclear Waste exposure and you will not be compensated. Turnbull, if the Nuclear Waste radioactivity is like a banana then leave it where it is, but it’s not, is it. Placing a Radioactive Nuclear Waste dump in farmland, or on a floodplain in one of the most seismically active regions in Australia, is pure insanity – a Fukushima moment – when is the next federal election?

    Comment by Kim Mavromatis | August 8, 2018 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: