Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Susan Craig: in Kimba “Informed Consent” not possible, as the community was not properly informed

Susan Craig Submission No 62. to the Senate Committee Inquiry on  National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill (part 2)

CRITICAL THREAD –  “Informed Consent” – voting is not possible if there is insufficient knowledge of the process.

Informed consent is based on a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, identifying the implications, adverse risks and consequences of an action.

Because the KIMBA community were not given an unbiased and objective view
of the long term implications of the National Radioactive Waste Management
Facility (NRWMF), it is not possible for them to be in a duly qualified position
to determine the best long term solution for KIMBA and therefore they were
never afforded the opportunity to execute their decision to vote based on
“informed consent”.

INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE KIMBA COMMUNITY BY THE DEPT. OF
INDUSTRY, INNOVATION AND SCIENCE (DIIS).information in
support of the NRWMF; outlining ONLY the proposed potential benefits
to the community of KIMBA.

The proponents of the NRWMF, DIIS, only disseminated information in support of the NRWMF ,outlining only the propsed potential benefits to the community of Kimba. At no stage during the consultation process

Because the KIMBA community were not given an unbiased and objective viewof the long term implications of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF), it is not possible for them to be in a duly qualified position to determine the best long term solution for KIMBA and therefore they were never afforded the opportunity to execute their decision to vote based on “informed consent”.

At no stage during the consultation process did DIIS present the risks associated with a NRWMF to the community. Nor did they actively engage with an independent authority asking them to provide
information on the risks that the facility would pose.

A risk assessment was never carried out by DIIS to explain the
consequences of a radiological release and the effect it would have on
human life, the environment, agriculture and subsequent risk of a shift
in product / region value and land values

Refer to:
“National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce:
Information pack.”  The hyperlink below  [on original]  is to the list of 25 documents covering various aspects of
the NRWMF and is representative of the print material distributed throughout
the Kimba community, leading up to the ballot. Note the absence of
information/documentation relating to potential risks.
Furthermore, the document titled “Safety and Security,” (extract below) shows
the extreme and unfair bias for the NRWMF. The Task Force in their dealings
and consultation were unethical and opportunist by using deception and
concealment to persuade the ill-informed taskforce-information-pack.

https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/national-radioactive-waste-managementfacility-
This information serves to demonstrate the inequitable information
that was disseminated to the Kimba community.

THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REPRESENTS POTENTIAL RISKS
THAT WERE NEVER PART OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY DIIS
TO THE KIMBA COMMUNITY.

Interim might be forever. With regards to the intermediate/high level
nuclear waste, the Kimba community needed to understand that
“interim” could mean storage for an indefinite period—perhaps
forever—if a permanent disposal facility is not constructed. Even if a
date for opening a permanent repository was stated, it is meaningless,
as the community would be relying on future Governments to uphold
the promise over the next 10, 20 – 100 years and make the tenuous
assumption that future Governments would have the expertise, impetus
or financial resources to implement them. DIIS advised the Kimba
community that the intermediate level waste would be ‘temporary,”
never referencing “indefinite” and only once the NRWMF was
established, would they commence identifying a possible permanent
facility for the intermediate/high level

Therefore the Kimba community were never informed.
 A risk assessment was never carried out by DIIS to explain the
consequences of a radiological release and the consequence this would
have on human life, the environment, agriculture and subsequent risk of
a shift in product / region value and land values. This information was
never part of the consultation process.

Therefore the KIMBA community were never informed.

A Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Response Action plan was
never presented by DIIS to the Kimba community, in accordance with
ARPANSA regulations that refer to the IAEA Response Assistance
Network (RANET).

 As stated by ARPANSA and the IAEA. “It is the responsibility of the State
Emergency response agencies with radiation protection guidance from
State Radiation Safety Officers to respond to a radiation emergency
within their jurisdiction.” (RANET).

“As part of these activities, it develops safety standards, guidelines and
technical tools; assists Member States in building the capacity for
emergency response; and maintains the IAEA Incident and Emergency
System to efficiently implement its role in response to nuclear or
radiological incidents and emergencies, regardless of whether they arise
from accident, negligence or deliberate act.”

 A Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Response Action plan
specifically addressing and tailored to the NRWMF at Kimba does not
exist and was never presented as part of the proposal.
Therefore the Kimba community were never informed.

Without the above information being provided to the KIMBA community by
DIIS, the community has absolutely no understanding as to the consequences
of their vote in the community ballot and therefore should be disregarded and
declared to be of no consequence in assessing “broad community support”.
To do otherwise would be morally and legally negligent.

Because the KIMBA community were not given an unbiased and objective view
of the long term implications of the NRWMF, it is not possible for them to be in
a duly qualified position to determine the best long term solution for KIMBA
and therefore they were never afforded the opportunity to execute their
decision to vote based on “informed consent.”

April 27, 2020 - Posted by | Federal nuclear waste dump

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: