We say NO to nuclear waste dump in South Australia
We Say NO is a short film bringing together voices from South Australia and beyond presenting clear and united opposition to the Federal government’s proposal for a Radioactive Waste Management Facility in the State. “South Australia has spoken. We say NO, and we mean NO.” Regina McKenzie “Many voices bring promises of wealth, but one State, with a cohesive strong voice, says We Say NO.” Lavene Ngatokorua For more information see: http://www.nodumpalliance.org.au/
Earthquake 20 August near Hawker planned site for nuclear waste dump
NW of Hawker,
South Australia
Magnitude: 3.2
Depth: 10km
Origin (UTC): 19/08/2018 15:28
Epicentral Time: 20/08/2018 00:58
Source: © Commonwealth of
(Geoscience Australia) 2018
http://www.ga.gov.au
So called benefits from the waste dump don’t add up according to a new report
Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association RNTBC ARA Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges
So called benefits from the waste dump don’t add up according to a new report.
Down in the Dumps report released today shows that the financial benefits for theAboriginal community do not add up.
Full report here
https://www.conservationsa.org.au/down_in_the_dumps
Indigenous skill training programs are to be $3 million of these funds over the life of the project, yet it is not clear how much of this is double counting necessary training, or is simply a net reallocation from other indigenous
support programs that have had significant recent funding cuts
INDIGENOUS
The new promised community benefit package also mentions “up to $3 million for indigenous skills training and cultural heritage protection.”9 The words “up to” could
be doing a lot of work.
Regardless, the inconsistency of this announcement is revealing when this spending is compared to the size of some of the recent cuts to indigenous support programs by
both the federal and South Australian governments. Some are briefly summarised in Table 2. The “up to $3 million” over three years is roughly the same amount of money
cut from the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council in Port Augusta earlier this year.https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/?multi_permalinks=1791348750902989¬if_id=1534910507282378¬if_t=group_highlights
Is South Australian group Engage 2 Act a nuclear propaganda front?
South Australia has this organisation Engage 2 Act. I know little about it. Perhaps it is a genuine organisation. Perhaps you just have to offer yourself as a speaker for their functions, and no checking is done?
Anyway good old nuclear propagandist Ben Heard is right into it., and will be speaking at their function Escape 2 The Country South Australia, on November 16.
Destructive Process and Oversold Benefits: New Report questions nuclear dump economic case, as Govt ballot postponed
20 August 2018 A new report into the claimed economic benefits to regional communities of the 
Federal Government nuclear waste facility has found the government has exaggerated the benefits, and not properly factored in insurance costs and 
other risks.
The report’s release comes as the Federal Government scrambles to fix up a controversial community ballot process in the wake of a Supreme Court injunction. The ballot was due
to begin today (Monday) in the two affected communities of Kimba and Hawker.
“This whole process has been poorly conducted and horribly divisive from day one,” said Craig Wilkins, Chief Executive of the state’s peak environment body, Conservation SA.
“Knowing how reluctant many people in Kimba and the Flinders Ranges are to having a nuclear waste dump in their backyard, the Federal Government has greatly over-sold the economic benefits to try and buy community support.
“This report is a reality check for a community sick of the spin from the Federal Government,” he said.
Conservation SA commissioned economic think tank The Australia Institute to examine more closely Federal Government’s claims of an economic windfall for the affected communities.
The “Down in the Dumps” report compared the current Australian National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) plans with similar facilities overseas, and found a raft of exaggerated jobs and economic return claims. For example, a proposed facility in Canada which is more than one hundred times larger with more functions and features, will cost only half as much to construct and operate.
As the report’s author, Dr Cameron Murray, states: ‘Either the waste facility is orders of magnitude larger than need for Australia’s nuclear waste, or the government has exaggerated the economic returns to the local community of the NRWMF facility’.
It also questioned the true value of the promised $31 million in local grants and infrastructure promises, as some of this appears to be double-counting, re-labelling of other programs or matched by cuts to other funding streams.
Adjusting the economic impact assessment to account for the exaggerated claims reduces the number of net full time jobs down to just 6.
“At the end of the day, the case for shifting waste across from Sydney to South Australia simply doesn’t stack up,” said Mr Wilkins.
“Why is the Federal Government pushing so hard to move Australia’s highest risk radioactive waste from Lucas Heights where it is safely and securely stored, to park it in SA in temporary sheds while they work out what to do with it?
“Wouldn’t it be better to work out the final disposal plan first, including the true cost and benefit to the local community, and then move it once when everything is sorted?
“Double handling is incredibly wasteful, is not international best practice, and makes no sense in terms of public health or radiation safety.
“It is time for the Federal Government to apologise, walk away and put in place a credible pathway for a long term, permanent solution to nuclear waste stored at Lucas Heights,” he said.
The full report can be found her
For comment:
Dr Cameron Murray, The Australia Institute, 0422 144 674
Craig Wilkins, Conservation SA, 0417 879 439
Australia’s racist politicians are also mostly Australia’s nuclear-loving politicians
Alice Workman No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia August 15
Here’s a list of the politicians who shook hands / hugged / kissed Fraser Anning after his “final solution” speech calling for an end to Muslim immigration and a return to the White Australia policy.
Minister Mathias Cormann
Minister Bridget McKenzie
Minister Nigel Scullion
Minister Conchetta Fierravanti-Wells
Minister Matt Canavan
Assistant minister James McGrath
Assistant minister Anne Ruston
Steve Martin
Amanda Stoker
Jonathan Duniam
James Paterson
Dean Smith
David Bushby
Wacka Williams
Barry O’Sullivan
Cory Bernardi
Derryn Hinch
David Leyonhjelm
One Nation’s Peter Georgiou
Centre Alliance’s Stirling Griff & Rex Patrick
No Labor/Greens senators congratulated him. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
Legal challenge against nuclear waste community vote for Hawker?
Injunction stalls one nuclear waste dump community vote‘The Barngarla people have won a Supreme Court injunction
against the vote in Kimba, with the Hawker ballot
still scheduled to open Monday.’ By Brooke Fryer
‘A community vote on whether a nuclear waste facility should be built on
South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula near Kimba has been stalled,
after a group argued the poll was discriminatory. …
‘NITV News understands a similar legal challenge for Hawker is being considered. …
‘The court heard an example is that a person who owns a property at Kimba
but lives away from the district would be entitled to vote,
but a person who holds native title rights and lives away would not. … ‘
‘Mr Dare says the Barngarla people opposed to a nuclear waste dump
stand alongside the Adnyamathanha people who are also
facing the prospect of a waste dump on their land.
‘”Of course we stand behind them in their pursuit
to not let this waste dump go on their country also.” … ‘
www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2018/08/17/injunction-stalls-one-nuclear-waste-dump-community-vote
Should there be another nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights?
| Siting another reactor at Lucas Heights http://ssec.org.au/our_environment/issues_campaigns/nuclear/info_sheets/1997_oct_1a.htm |
| Even if we assume that Australia does need a third nuclear reactor, is Lucas Heights the best site? There are numerous and compelling reasons why it is not.
1. It’s not remote Lucas Heights was selected in 1955, as a site for Australia’s nuclear industry for the very reason that it was remote from population. Now, 40 years later, it is surrounded by houses, on the edge of Australia’s largest city. This is no longer in a good site for a nuclear reactor! 2. It’s not been the subject of a proper site-selection process The most recent search for a dump for low and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste has taken 4 years and has considered criteria such as low rainfall, freedom from flooding, stable hydrology, freedom from cyclones, tectonic, seismic or volcanic activity, as well as socio-economic, ecological and land-use factors. Selection of a site for a nuclear reactor – its production of high, medium and low level waste- should be at least as stringent as that for a low level waste dump! The McKinnon report said that “If a decision were made to construct a new reactor, it would not necessarily best be placed at Lucas Heights. An appropriate site would best be decided after exhaustive search and taking into account community views. Any siting decision should be based on criteria similar to those developed by the National Resource Information Centre (in its search for a low level waste dump) with an additional range of economic and scientific criteria.” (1993 Research Reactor Review 20.1-2.) 3. It’s the easiest option ANSTO maintains that “The relocation of infrastructure and personnel to a new site would significantly add to the costs of a new research reactor.” (Website) This is no justification for building a reactor at Lucas Heights! According to leaked memo to Peter McGauran on the Relocation of the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, “the political fallout from either the refurbishment of the old reactor or the construction of a new one would be of the same order.” The real reason that Lucas Heights was seen by the Federal Government as being the best site was that it knew that no other community in Australia would accept it. It also believed that the Local Council would be compliant as would the surrounding population 4. It does not comply with public opinion ANSTO’s recent public opinion poll – commissioned at a cost of $40,000 of taxpayers’ money – found that 83% of Sutherland Shire people surveyed thought that a new reactor should be in a “remote location”. This is consistent with this Centre’s 1992 poll which found that 81 % people felt that a new reactor should be away from population centres. The Commonwealth has ignored this finding. 5. It is a health and safety risk to the local population According to ANSTO “The annual dose of radiation received by any member of the public living near ANSTO as a result of authorised emissions from the site is currently less than one-100th of the amount permitted by the National Health and Medical Research Council and by NSW Government regulations. A modern research reactor would not produce more than those levels…” (Website) Regulations or not, there is no proof that this (or any) level of radiation is safe. There are neither medical records nor diagnostic tests to assess the effects of radiation on the local population. Apart from obvious cancers and leukaemia – which can take decades to develop – more subtle health or genetic problems could be caused such as impaired scholastic performance, visual impairment or reproductive problems. The NSW Health Authorities have avoided their responsibilities and declined to carry out health studies. They say that one “would not be warranted”. Current scientific studies in the UK suggest that even radiation exposure less than 1mSv may be harmful and could be poisoning the human gene pool (New Scientist Oct. ’97) Yet we are daily subjected to routine emissions of radioactive gasses from the nuclear plant at Lucas Heights! There is no insurance to cover the public against risk of a nuclear accident. Commercial insurance companies will not insure against radiation or nuclear accidents because they “would not have enough funds to cover claims” . (NRMA Insurance letter.) In the event of such an accident claims would have to be made against the Commonwealth Government. The NSW Government and the local Council may also be liable for damages and they are uncertain of their position. 6. Lucas Heights a potential disaster area In 1994 and 1997 disastrous bushfires struck the area. In the most recent calamity Barden Ridge, the suburb closest to ANSTO, was evacuated at the height of the fire. Eleven houses in the next suburb of Menai were destroyed. At the same time the ANSTO staff were locked in, unable to telephone their families. The official reason was that staff were held back on police advice. For several days the only road connecting the site was blocked to through traffic. This is hardly the perfect site for Australia’s only nuclear reactor! |
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull sells out on climate policy, in effort to save his job
Turnbull dumps emissions from NEG in final act of capitulation, REneweconomy
Right-wing in Liberal Coalition causing Turnbull to again weaken climate action
Malcolm Turnbull plans more changes to energy policy amid pressure from within Coalition, ABC News, By Jade Macmillan , 20 Aug 18 Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has outlined further changes to his national energy policy amid increasing pressure from within his own party.
Nuclear has left its run too late: a response to Ian Hore-Lacy
ETHOS, 14 August 2018 | Robert Farago “………… Nuclear as the solution? There are a number of unresolved problems around nuclear power and questions of whether nuclear energy can grow quickly enough to solve our climate change problem. I will just list some of these problems with a sentence each:
- Weapons proliferation – enriching Uranium for civilian nuclear energy programs can lead to fuel being diverted and further enriched for nuclear weapons programs.
- Safety – although less deaths have been recorded from nuclear power than from coal mining, nuclear accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima have shaken the confidence of citizens to have nuclear reactors near their homes and food sources.
- Waste – although we have generated nuclear waste for 70+ years we still don’t have a solution. Nuclear waste needs to be stored safely for hundreds of thousands of years, longer than settled agricultural society has existed.
- Decommissioning – cost estimates vary wildly and it’s particularly technically challenging and expensive after nuclear accidents.
- Water use – like thermal coal generators, nuclear needs large quantities of water for cooling, making droughts and heatwaves a problem.
- Capacity – if we moved to a large portion of our global electricity generation to nuclear power, will there be enough Uranium to fuel them?
- Timeliness – can we move quickly enough to a majority nuclear electricity future and meet our global emission reductions?
Exaggerated ‘benefits’ of a radioactive waste dump for rural South Australia
The economic benefits of a radioactive waste dump proposed for rural South Australia have been exaggerated, a new report warns https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/the-economic-benefits-of-a-radioactive-waste-dump-proposed-for-rural-south-australia-have-been-exaggerated-a-new-report-warns/news-story/34bfd2eba14e0b3a9975dc861315112a Peter Jean, Senior Federal Political Reporter, The Advertiser August 20, 2018
Wangan and Jagalingou leaders call on Queensland Govt not to extinguish native title
18 August 2018 ‘In the wake of yesterday’s adverse Federal Court decision against their challenge to Adani’s ILUA, Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners say yesterday’s judgement merely
confirms the limitations of the native title system, and fails to address their right
as Indigenous people to free, prior and informed consent,
which is at the heart of their action.
‘Mr Adrian Burragubba, one of five applicants in the case, and W&J cultural leader says:
‘“We are calling on the Queensland Government to rule out
extinguishing our native title in any part of our land.
‘“Once native title is gone, it is gone forever.
It would be a travesty for the Government to wipe out our title for Adani.
If Queensland can stop them dredging the Reef before Adani has money,
or pull the pin on $1 billion NAIF funding, they can surely protect our rights to our land.
They must not hand a private corporation land title at our expense,
based on discriminatory laws.
‘“The Queensland Government has a clear choice here, and yesterday’s ruling
in no way forces them to proceed to extinguish our native title.
Don’t be fooled, it is up to the Government what happens next.
‘“Adani can’t be trusted; how can they say they respect
‘the rights, history, future intentions and requests of the traditional owners’?
‘We are Traditional Owners, we are the people from that land,
and they have never respected our decisions, or our right to free prior informed consent,
or our aspirations to care for our ancestral country.
They split our people for their own ends and then try to claim they care.
They should walk away in shame for all the damage they have done”.
‘Ms Linda Bobongie, another applicant and chairperson of the Traditional Owners Council, says:
‘“While we respect the decisions of the courts, we aren’t satisfied by this judgement
and will work with our legal team to prepare an appeal to a higher court.
‘“We know the Queensland Government has no obligation to act on extinguishment for Adani.
They should wait until all our appeals are exhausted.”
‘“We held out hope for this legal avenue, but anticipated a conservative judgement
within the Native Title system, and were prepared for the decision.
Our Council has vowed to continue to defend our lands and waters from Adani’s destruction.
‘“We call on Adani to immediately withdraw from this damaging project on our land.
No administrative decisions that block our rights will stop us standing our ground
to defend and protect Wangan and Jagalingou Country
and our connection to it.
‘We do not consent to a mine that will destroy our culture and land, and
rob our people of a sustainable future, so a rich company
can get richer exploiting and burning the coal beneath ourfeet”.
wanganjagalingou.com.au/wj-leaders-call-on-qld-govt-not-to-extinguish-native-title/
Hawker vote on nuclear dump siting delayed, after Bangarla people’s court win
Second nuclear vote delayed in SA https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/second-nuclear-vote-delayed-in-sa/news-story/7dd60e6cfa72bbe446a547ccbc7361bc Kathryn Bermingham, Australian Associated Press August 17, 2018
Another resident vote about a nuclear waste facility has been stalled in South Australia, after an indigenous group argued a similar poll was discriminatory.
A vote on whether the facility should be built near the rural town of Hawker has been delayed, after the Barngarla people were on Thursday granted a Supreme Court injunction to delay a vote on whether it should be built near Kimba.
Flinders Ranges Mayor Peter Slattery said the decision was made because the Kimba matter, due to be heard before the full court next week, may have consequences for the Hawker vote.
He said the decision to delay the Hawker vote was jointly made by the council and the federal government.
Two sites near Kimba, on the Eyre Peninsula, and one near Hawker, in the Flinders Ranges, have been short-listed as potential locations for a low-level radioactive waste storage facility.
The traditional owners of the Hawker site are the Adnyamathanha people, while the Barngarla are the traditional owners of the two Kimba sites.
Lawyer Dan O’Gorman, for the Barngala people, argued in the Supreme Court on Thursday that the poll presented issues of direct and indirect discrimination.
“These owners of land are treated differently and that’s because their rights are native title rights,” he said.
The court heard an example is that a person who owns a property at Kimba but lives away from the district would be entitled to vote, but a person who holds native title rights and lives away would not.
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said on Friday the two votes should be held at the same time.
“Until the Barngarla challenge has concluded, the Hawker vote must be delayed,” she said.
“The traditional owners, including the Adnyamathanha people, deserve the right to vote and have their say on an issue that affects their traditional lands.”
Malcolm Turnbull caves in to climate denialists – again
Malcolm Turnbull dumps plan to legislate Paris emissions targets, ABC News, By political editor Andrew Probyn and Melissa Clarke , 17 Aug 18
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 