Bias of SA Nuclear Royal Commission finally exposed, REneweconomy, By Jim Green on 4 November 2016 “……..SA Premier Jay Weatherill should initiate a Royal Commission to investigate the discredited, $9 million Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. He should also have the decency to fall on his sword for his role in the fiasco.
Weatherill’s exit is looming as a real possibility. He hoped that the state Labor conference on October 29 would give him licence to push ahead with his nuclear waste plans. But he had to defuse a plethora of no-dump resolutions by promising to hold a ‘Special ALP Convention’ to discuss the issue. The resolution read: “This Special ALP Convention should be held at the conclusion of community consultation and before a decision is made on the development of a high level nuclear waste repository in SA.”
Yet days later, on November 1, Weatherill denied that he had made a commitment to hold a special convention. He told Parliament: “There is no upcoming special convention. There will be a special convention at a time when it is necessary. It is not going to happen anytime soon. It may be a question of years away”.
There is plenty of angst within the state Labor Party (an election is just over a year away) and there will be plenty more as a result of Weatherill’s welshing on his promise to hold a special convention.
And there is plenty of public opposition: a protest rally in Adelaide on October 15 attracted 3,000 people; Aboriginal Traditional Owners are overwhelmingly opposed to the nuclear waste plan and are fighting hard to stop it; trade unions and churches are speaking out in opposition; and the SA Liberal Party is hedging its bets by pointing to the huge upfront costs (estimated at between $600 million and $2.4 billion) that the state would need to gamble before any income was generated.
November 4, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Local nuclear jurors prepare report, Port Lincoln Times 2 Nov 2016,Port Lincoln residents involved in the nuclear Citizen’s Jury are on the home straight as they work together on a final report on the issue of storing nuclear waste in South Australia. The jurors met for their third and fourth days in Adelaide this past weekend where they heard from witnesses who provided information on the issue.
November 4, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Nuclear Citizens Jury |
Leave a comment
Bias of SA Nuclear Royal Commission finally exposed, REneweconomy, By Jim Green on 4 November 2016 “………The Royal Commissioner, retired Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, denied claims of a conflict of interest. He told the ABC: “The conflict of interest would arise if they [Jacobs MCM] were the only source of information that we were using to assess the evaluation. They were not.”
Scarce’s claim is false. As Prof. Barbara Pocock, an economist at the University of South Australia, told the ABC: “All the economists who have replied to the analysis in that report have been critical of the fact that it is a ‘one quote’ situation. We haven’t got a critical analysis, we haven’t got a peer review of the analysis”.
Another South Australian economist, Prof. Richard Blandy from Adelaide University, said last week: “The forecast profitability of the proposed nuclear dump rests on highly optimistic assumptions. Such a dump could easily lose money instead of being a bonanza.” Blandy contributed a submission to the Royal Commission but was not invited to speak at the Commission’s public hearings.
SA Conservation Council CEO Craig Wilkins said that asking pro-nuclear advocates to provide “independent” advice was “like asking the crew of the Sea Shepherd to provide an independent review of whaling in the Antarctic.”
The Jacobs MCM report estimated that the total costs associated with the project would amount to a whopping $145 billion. And while some allowance is made for cost overruns, both Jacobs MCM and the Royal Commission glossed over massive cost overruns evident overseas. Estimates of the clean-up costs for a range of (civil and military) UK nuclear sites have nearly doubled over the past decade. Estimates of the cost of a building a deep underground nuclear waste dump in France have nearly doubled over the past decade.
And between 2001 and 2008, the estimated cost of constructing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in the US and operating it for 150 years increased by 67 percent. The Yucca Mountain project was abandoned by the Obama administration, so the US wasted A$17.8 billion on a failed repository project.
The Jacobs MCM report is honest enough to state that many of its assumptions are highly speculative; for example, no-one knows which countries might want to off-load their nuclear waste to South Australia or how much they might be willing to pay. But the speculative nature of its findings was downplayed in the Royal Commission’s report and has been largely ignored by the SA government and its Nuclear Consultation and Response Agency.
The Australia Institute crunched the numbers presented in the Royal Commission’s interim report and wrote a detailed rebuttal. Kevin Scarce responded on ABC radio on 31 March 2016, saying that the Royal Commission would “take apart” the Australia Institute’s report “piece by piece”. When asked if such an aggressive attitude was appropriate, Scarce said: “I’m a military officer, what would you expect?” …….
Before his appointment as the Royal Commissioner, Kevin Scarce said little about nuclear issues but what he did say should have excluded him from consideration. Speaking in November 2014 at a Flinders University guest lecture, Scarce acknowledged being an “an advocate for a nuclear industry”. Just four months later, after his appointment as the Royal Commissioner, he said the exact opposite: “I have not been an advocate and never have been an advocate of the nuclear industry.”
Other than generalisations, and his acknowledgement that he is a nuclear advocate, Scarce’s only comment of substance on nuclear issues in his 2014 lecture was to claim that work is “well underway” on a compact fusion reactor “small enough to fit in a truck”, that it “may be less than a decade away” and could produce power “without the risk of Fukushima-style meltdowns.” Had he done just a little research, Scarce would have learnt that Lockheed Martin’s claims about its proposed compact fusion reactor were met with universal scepticism and ridicule by scientists and even by nuclear industry bodies.
So the SA government appointed Scarce as Royal Commissioner despite knowing that he is a nuclear advocate who has uncritically promoted discredited claims by the nuclear industry. Scarce appointed an Expert Advisory Committee. Despite claimingthat he was conducting a “balanced” Royal Commission, he appointed three nuclear advocates to the Committee and just one critic. There wasn’t even a single, token critic on the staff of the Royal Commission.
November 4, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
Leave a comment
The danger here is that the Nuclear Citizens’ Jury is being presented as a neutral process, when in reality it is designed to manufacture the outcome the Premier wants.
- The question the jurors have been asked to answer is a leading one. As one juror put it to me: “This is a ‘yes’ question.”
- the purpose of the amber can only be one: to nudge jurors towards the middle-of-the-road option: the “yes but”. That is, the “proceed with caution” desired by the Premier.
- why call it a jury? Why not call it a “focus group” or a “citizens’ inquiry”? Because “jury” appeals to our notions of citizenship and predisposes participants towards trust and good faith. “Jury” implies a trusted verdict.
this process is arguably the most sophisticated illustration of manufacturing consent in the history of South Australia.
Manufacturing consent for SA’s nuclear program www.crikey.com.au/2016/11/03/manufacturing-consent-for-sa-nuclear-program/ The SA government has turned to a “citizen’s jury” to manufacture trust in its nuclear policy. But the process is far from independent, writes University of Adelaide politics lecturer Benito Cao.
This weekend the Nuclear Citizens’ Jury is expected to deliver a report to South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill that will shape the future of the nuclear industry in this country. But although the jury is presented as a non-partisan body able to make a decision in the state’s best interest, the Premier has designed it so it will return the result he wants.
The jury has been asked to answer this question: “Under what circumstances, if any, should South Australia pursue the storage and disposal of high level nuclear waste from other countries?”
If, as expected by the Premier, the report recommends to “proceed with caution“, the South Australian government will feel legitimised to embark on the gradual expansion of the nuclear industry in the state. The answer, however, will have implications for the whole of Australia.
The Nuclear Citizens’ Jury was established as the centrepiece of the community consultation instituted by Weatherill. In his opening address to the Citizens’ Jury on day one, the Premier presented the jury’s work as “a contribution to democracy” and “a better way of citizens coming together and answering complicated questions”.
However, his words also reveal what is at the heart of this matter: trust. The Premier has said that the Citizens’ Jury was set up because people don’t trust government, and that an independent process was needed to address the complex and contentious issue that is the potential expansion of the nuclear industry in South Australia. Continue reading →
November 4, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Nuclear Citizens Jury |
Leave a comment
Conservation SA sounds alarm on nuclear dump lobbyists exposé, Impress Media, 03 November 2016 Conservation SA is alarmed by revelations that “independent” advice for the Royal Commission that has recommended a nuclear waste dump for SA was provided by long-time advocates for the dump. ……
Conservation SA CEO Craig Wilkins said pro-nuclear advocates providing “independent” advice was a clear conflict of interest. “It’s like asking the crew of the Sea Shepherd to provide an independent review of whaling in the Antarctic,” he said.
“The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission has described the Jacobs MCM report as an independent, technical analysis of the business case for a high level waste dump.
“However these revelations cast a dark shadow on the alleged independence of the advice provided to the Royal Commission upon which the entire business case for the nuclear waste dump rests.
“The Royal Commission report’s bullish predictions of decades of super-profits from a global nuclear waste dump in SA must now by viewed in the light that it was informed by pro-nuclear boosters.
“We, the people of SA, have been duped. These revelations raise serious doubts about the quality and integrity of the Royal Commission findings and reveal a gaping flaw in its business case.”
Conservation SA (Conservation Council of South Australia) is SA’s peak environment organisation which represents more than 90,000 people from 60 environment related community groups in SA.
Mr. Wilkins said two of the Jacobs MCM report co-authors, Charles McCombie and Neil Chapman, have advocated for a nuclear waste dump since the 1990s, when they were involved in a company called Pangea Resources Australia Pty Ltd. “After that went pear-shaped, the Pangea team re-formed as ARIUS, an advocacy group for underground storage of nuclear waste,” he said.
“Mr McCombie and Mr Chapman now run the Swiss-based consultancy MCM, which specialises in radioactive waste management. The revelation that the President and Vice President of ARIUS were two of the lead authors of the Jacobs MCM modelling for the Royal Commission brings into question the value of that modelling.
“Why did the Royal Commission claim their input was independent when it clearly wasn’t, and why was it considered appropriate to base the Royal Commission findings on this single business case developed by these industry advocates?”
Background information and source documents:………http://www.impress.com.au/newsroom/50-innovation/2056-conservation-sa-sounds-alarm-on-pro-nuclear-partisans-expose.html
November 3, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
Leave a comment
Climate warning at bushfire inquiry, Examiner,
2 Nov 2016, Tasmania could see major transformations in its landscape as climate change-caused fires impact vulnerable species, an expert has warned a Senate inquiry.Evidence showed pencil pine trees burnt thousands of years ago never recovered, University of Tasmania environmental change biologist Professor David Bowman told the inquiry into responses to recent bushfires in remote Tasmanian wilderness.
Professor Bowman said he didn’t make the decision lightly to identify last summer’s Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area fires as a symptom of climate change.
However he wanted to warn the community that such unprecedented events occurred with a rapidly warming climate, he said.
The summer’s bushfires took fire managers to “the limit of their imaginations let alone their capacities” after lightning struck in vast and unusual quantities throughout remote wilderness areas, Professor Bowman said.
While rapid attack firefighting and fire detection would save some vulnerable systems in the TWWHA, he warned against expectations that all fires could be extinguished.
These expectations were unfair to fire managers, Professor Bowman said.
“This is a very challenging environment, particularly given the soil can burn.” …..
The Wilderness Society urged the committee to recommend that the management plan for the TWWHA prioritised protection of irreplaceable values over built infrastructure.
State environment minister Matthew Groom is expected to finalise the plan by the end of the year.
Fires impacted about 20,100 hectares, or 1.3 per cent, of the TWWHA last summer. About 2,700 hectares of fire-sensitive areas with vegetation not adapted to recover from bushfire were damaged. http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4268911/bushfire-climate-warning/?cs=5312
November 3, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change - global warming, Tasmania |
Leave a comment
“Such a dump could easily lose money instead of being a bonanza.”
Critics argue Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission skewed by advocacy group’s evidence, ABC 3 Nov 16 by Stephen Long “…….Claims that building a radioactive waste dump would give a massive boost to the South Australian economy rely on a report co-authored by members of an advocacy group for international nuclear storage “solutions”.
A royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle has urged South Australia to develop a facility for the disposal of international used nuclear fuel and waste, arguing it could provide “significant and enduring economic benefits to the South Australian community”.
It based its finding on a “viability analysis” conducted for the commission that found that a nuclear waste dump could “generate more than $100 billion income in excess of expenditure” over the life of the project, or a $51 billion benefit in today’s dollars.
That analysis was co-authored by Charles McCombie and Mr Neil Chapman, the president and vice president of ARIUS, the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage. The association’s role is to “promote concepts … for storage and disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes” and to “act as an advocate for international and regional storage and disposal options”.
Its motto is: “The world needs nuclear power — nuclear power needs multinational facilities”.
As well as co-authoring the viability analysis, Dr McCombie and Mr Chapman wrote the safety analysis that the royal commission relied upon.
Advocates’ advice tainted analysis: critics
Critics argue that using leading members of an advocacy group to assess the viability and economic benefits of building a nuclear waste dump gives rise to a clear conflict of interest and taints the analysis.
“I think it is really disappointing and I think Australians should be asking fundamental questions about the independence of the economic analysis on which this entire case, on which this entire royal commission, rests,” Barbara Pocock, an economist and research professor at the University of South Australia, told the ABC.
Professor Pocock, who is a member of Mothers for a Sustainable South Australia, said the royal commission appeared to rely entirely on the “viability analysis” for its recommendation of a nuclear waste facility.
“All the economists who have replied to the analysis in that report have been critical of the fact that it is a ‘one quote’ situation.
“We haven’t got a critical analysis, we haven’t got a peer review of the analysis, which appears to have come from an interested source,” she said……..
Its modelling assumes that South Australia will receive $1.75 million per tonne for taking spent nuclear fuel and intermediate radioactive waste and command half the available market, though it says it would still be viable with a lower price and market share.
Critics describe the price forecasts as heroic, and the assumption that the forecast price would not bring rival facilities into market as puzzling.
“The forecast profitability of the proposed nuclear dump rests on highly optimistic assumptions,” Richard Blandy, professor of economics at the University of Adelaide, told the citizens’ jury last week.
“Such a dump could easily lose money instead of being a bonanza.”……… http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-03/radioactive-waste-dump-would-boost-sa-economy-commission-hears/7991170
November 3, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
Leave a comment
Mike Baird is going rogue on climate change, The Age, Christine Milne , 3 Nov 16.In NSW the Baird government is set to give the green light to land clearing that will increase our greenhouse gas emissions just as the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2 degrees and pursue a more ambitious 1.5 degrees limit comes into effect on Thursday. Premier Baird is going rogue on climate.
As the world meets in Morocco for COP22, Australia will be under scrutiny as never before. Not only have we not ratified the Paris Agreement, we are increasingly being seen as cheating the process with rubbery figures. To meet the Paris Agreement objectives, negative emissions will be required. That is pulling CO2 from the atmosphere at the same time as reducing emissions from all sources. The Baird government is doing the opposite, increasing emissions from coal and coal seam gas at the same time as pushing up emissions from land clearing.
The rest of the world is sick of Australia’s creative accounting using land use, land use change and forestry, or LULUCF, as a “get out of jail free card” to “offset” its rising greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Australia has argued that while its emissions from coal-fired power stations, industries, cars and transport fleet vehicles and fugitive emissions from gas are rising, they are offset by our forests.
That is the basis of the Turnbull government’s Emission Reduction Fund. It has spent over $1 billion paying farmers not to clear or to regrow forests so polluters can keep on polluting. People think the fund must be invested in upgrading industry. Wrong, it has been overwhelmingly paid to farmers.
That is why the Baird government’s proposed changes are so bad. Not only will they destroy biodiversity and send species to extinction by destroying habitat, they will undermine efforts to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets by cancelling out any reductions that may have been made through the ERF……….
In its reports to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Australia said that from 2005- 2013 land use emissions dropped by 10 per cent but admitted that they will increase by 8 per cent from 2013 to 2020. As part of a peer review process, other countries can ask questions and they have leapt at the chance.
The US asked: “Can you explain what caused this reversal from downward trend to upward trend?” Australia has not yet answered but it is obvious that the Liberal governments of Newman, Baird and Malcolm Turnbull are to blame.
The European Union has noted:”Australia updates some details on ‘avoided clearing of native regrowth’, stating that projected increases in land clearing will be offset by low rates of native forest harvesting. Noting that tree-clearing controls were instrumental in Australia meeting its Kyoto commitment, have the emissions projections been adjusted to account for the updates?”…..
This cannot go on. The offsetting, lies and rubbery figures must stop. Carbon in the landscape must be increased, not decreased. The Baird government’s new land clearing laws must be stopped and if NSW won’t act the federal government should step in to make it happen.
Christine Milne is the former leader of the Australian Greens. http://www.theage.com.au/comment/mike-baird-is-going-rogue-on-climate-change-20161102-gsg4zr.html
November 3, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change - global warming, New South Wales |
Leave a comment
Bias of SA Nuclear Royal Commission finally exposed, REneweconomy, By Jim Green on 4 November 2016 “……….Given the make-up of the Royal Commission, it came as no surprise that numerous questionable claims by the nuclear industry were repeated in the Royal Commission’s report released in May 2016. Critical analyses of the Royal Commission’s findings are posted online. Suffice it here to mention one example here. The Commission’s main recommendation was to import 138,000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste for disposal in a deep geological repository. Yet the Commission’s report only offered a few sentences on the world’s one and only deep geological repository ‒ the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan (WIPP) in the US, shut down since 2014 because of a chemical explosion in an underground nuclear waste barrel.
Kevin Scarce said that WIPP received little attention because it involved different waste forms (long-lived intermediate level waste). But the high level nuclear waste that he wants South Australia to import is vastly more hazardous than the waste managed at WIPP, so Scarce’s argument is disingenuous.
While completely ignoring the world’s one and only existing deep underground nuclear waste dump, the Royal Commission’s report went into detail about deep underground repositories under construction in Finland and Sweden. According to the Royal Commission’s report, those two countries “have successfully developed long-term domestic solutions” for nuclear waste. But in fact, neither country has completed construction of a repository let alone demonstrated safe operation over any length of time.
The Royal Commission also had little to say about failed repository projects. Incredibly, the Royal Commission ‒ and now the SA government ‒ want to import many thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste before construction of a repository even begins, and 50,000 tonnes of high level waste before a repository begins accepting waste. What if it proves impossible to build a repository for one reason or another ‒ as has the been the case in many countries around the world? There is no Plan B………http://reneweconomy.com.au/bias-sa-nuclear-royal-commission-finally-exposed-57819/
November 3, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
Leave a comment
So – the Australian public dreams on – preoccupied with the Melbourne Cup and other sporting events. And the global nuclear lobby continues its machinations. It would be such a strong selling point, to be able to tell South Asian countries that they can go ahead with nuclear power, as Australia will take out the radioactive trash
The machinations of the global nuclear lobby, http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/27-27/40006-the-machinations-of-the-global-nuclear-lobby-qdown-underq31 October 2016
Australia has been pretty much of a forgotten player in the global nuclear “renaissance”. Not any more. The big nuclear players – USA, Russia, Canada, France, China , Japan South Korea are busily marketing nuclear technology to every other country that they can. Strangely enough little ole non-nuclear Australia, (population 23 million) has a starring role to play in all this.
You see, the global nuclear lobby’s problem is – what to do with the radioactive wastes? I know that the new geewhiz guys and gals are pushing hard for Generation IV reactors that will “eat the wastes”. The trouble is – there is an awful lot of the stuff. World total of high level radioactive wastes was estimated at 250,000 tonnes in 2010 . There must be quite a bit more by now. The other trouble is that even the most geewhiz of the as yet non- existent Gen IV nuclear reactors still would leave a smaller but highly toxic volume of radioactive trash, which would still require disposal.
This leads to a serious marketing issue. If countries such as USA, Japan, Canada, South Korea, are still having trouble dealing with their own domestic accumulation of nuclear waste, how can they persuasively sell nuclear reactors to Asian, Middle Eastern and African countries? The waste problem must be solved!
The wizards of the global nuclear lobby have come up with what they see as the perfect answer. A far away land, with lots of space that’s owned by “unimportant” indigenous people, could import the wastes, and thus remove the problem. It’s a sort of variant on the old “toilet way down the back”. Continue reading →
November 3, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia, wastes |
Leave a comment
Jim Green, 3 Nov 16 No High Level International Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia
The Nuclear Royal Commission was a disgraceful con-job from start to finish.
The SA government chose a nuclear advocate as Royal Commissioner.
The Royal Commissioner stacked his Advisory Committee with three strident nuclear advocates, ‘balanced’ by one token critic.
There wasn’t even one token nuclear critic on the Royal Commission’s staff.
And there isn’t even one token nuclear critic on the SA government’s Consultation & Response Agency which has been exerting influence on the Citizens’ Jury, and which also has strong influence over the statewide ‘consultation’ process (thinly-disguised promotion).
This morning the ABC reveals that the economic modelling commissioned by the Royal Commission was co-authored by the president and vice president of a group which aims to promote nuclear waste “solutions” and which also promotes nuclear power. A clear conflict of interest and an absolute disgrace. (www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4568141.htm)
Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce told the ABC this morning:
“The conflict of interest would arise if they were the only source of information that we were using to assess the evaluation. They were not.”
Really? In fact, only one, conflicted consultant was used by the Royal Commission for economic modelling. The fanciful speculation of the conflicted consultant was heavily promoted in the Royal Commission’s report and is now being promoted as solid, factual information by the government’s Consultation & Response Agency.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A ROYAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
For a serious discussion on the economics of the plan to turn SA into the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump, see this submission from Prof. Richard Blandy: http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/…/upl…/2016/04/Blandy-Richard.pdf
And see also the report by the Australia Institute: http://www.tai.org.au/…/P222A%20Digging%20for%20answers%20-…
November 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, secrets and lies |
Leave a comment
Tim Bickmore Nuclear Citizens Jury Watch South Australia 2 Nov 16
There will be a ‘Minority Report’ & this is being actively collated by a designated juror who volunteered for the task. It’s focus will probably be upon alternate projects which would enhance the SA Great brand & demonstrate better options for the future direction of the SA economy.
Nov 2 snippet “I felt that the idea of a nuclear waste dump was a stepping stone in acquiring a nuclear reactor and the bogey man appeared straight away after the mood of the jury had been felt. I wondered why certain people were so keen to establish the waste site it would have been better to be upfront with everyone and declare their intentions we are aware of the tactics used.”
… “Re changing the legislation
The advice we were given at the table was that the legislation does not prohibit the next stages of investigation that are needed to fill the gaps identified in the extremely dubious case for this project. But even if they did this legislation applies only to spending public funds. If this project is such a financial bonanza as some proponents keep insisting it is then maybe the industry should fund the next stage of the feasibility study – and there is absolutely no barrier to spending industry rather than public funds to do this .
One juror gave me the question I’ve been searching for in all of this: Would you want to invest your superannuation funds in this project? If so please feel free to do so – I wouldn’t and I suspect most people with any financial nous (or sense of financial responsibility) wouldn’t either.” Australia https://www.facebook.com/groups/1172938779440750/
November 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Nuclear Citizens Jury |
Leave a comment
Kim Mavromatis No High Level International Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 1 Nov 16 SA Government Nuclear Focus Group in Port Pirie last night.
I got into a SA Govnt Nuclear Focus Group session in Port Pirie last night. 9
males – no females. There was an all female focus session before the all male session. Males and females were separated, why? Apparently females are predominately against the nuclear waste dumps and males are more open to it.
It was an interesting discussion though, one pro nuclear, the rest either fence sitters or like me opposed to the waste dumps. We were given parameters of what to talk about but mostly discussed the nuclear industry and the SA govnt proposed waste dump. The 90 min session was recorded. We did 2 written surveys as well, at the beginning and at the end, to see if our views had changed.
The group was asked why we thought most women were opposed to Nuclear waste dumps and I said because they are smarter than males. I expect there have been a lot of these sessions held around the state (closed to the media and public scrutiny). And at the end we were given $70 cash each in unmarked sealed brown envelopes, for our top-secret work.
From what I can gather, it’s the Know Nuclear mob running the show – they commissioned a 3rd party to do the business – and they report back to govnt with their findings
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
November 2, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Special assembly to weigh SA nuclear dump, SBS, 30 Oct 16, SA’s Labor Party state 
convention has delayed making a decision on the proposal for a nuclear waste dump in the state’s north. South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has run the gauntlet of anti-nuclear protesters as Labor voted to put the question of establishing a high-level nuclear waste dump to a special party convention.
Mr Weatherill was heckled by several hundred anti-nuclear activists while entering the ALP state conference in Adelaide on Saturday, as they called on him to scrap the dump idea, which goes against current party policy.
Dave Sweeney, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, told the protesters South Australia was so much more than a dumping site.
“This is a bad idea, it’s a thought bubble that should have burst on day one,” Mr Sweeney said.
“We will not be burying waste, we will be burying this idea.”
The convention considered a number of motions related to the dump, including one calling for the government to hold a referendum on the issue.
Others called for the government to delay any decision until after the issue was discussed at the next national ALP conference while the Maritime Union of Australia urged the state government to “cease and desist” with any action to consider a dump of any kind.
However, the party endorsed a motion to have the issue put before a special convention at the conclusion of the community consultation process.
The state government remains committed to making a decision on the dump proposal by the end of the year ….http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/10/29/special-assembly-weigh-sa-nuclear-dump
October 31, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Australia, wastes |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 