Witnesses recommended for the next Citizens’ Jury on Nuclear Waste Importing, South Australia
This is a full list of witnesses chosen by the Nuclear Citizens’ Jury on October 9th and invited to be witnesses for the next Nuclear Citizens’ Jury on 29 October.
Here I have endeavoured to shed light on the likely evidence of each, according to the following code :
GREEN = Anti-nuclear waste dumping , Yellow – doubtful on waste importing. ORANGE=Neutral – Uncertain, about waste dumping, BLACK = I don’t know, PINK = probably pro waste dumping , RED = Pro nuclear waste dumping
- I ran into a spot of bother with the many Aboriginals recommended. As far as I can tell, they are all opposed to importing nuclear waste, except Parry Agius . Some of the most prominent Aboriginal persons are: Kevin Buzzacott, Karina Lester, Rose Lester, Vivienne McKenzie, Enice Marsh.
- Some pro nuclear people might be opposed to the dump plan, so I put those in pink.
Nuclear Citizens Jury Two: Witness work
WITNESSES CHOSEN BY JURY AND INVITED FOR THE 29th
No List Ref Name Votes Theme
1 123 Richard Dennis 96 Economics
2 121 Professor Richard Blandy 54 Economics
3 128 Professor Barbara Pocock 45 Economics
4 179 Professor Brian Cox 45 Safety
5 166 Hon Nick Xenophon 44 Trust
6 56 Paddy Crumlin 34 Safety
7 1 Timo Aikas 34 Safety
8 4 Professor Rodney Ewing 31 Safety
9 168 Dr Karl Kruszelnicki 30 Safety
10 116 Dr Simon Longstaff 29 Trust
11 5 Robert J Halstead 27 Safety
12 19 Dr Jim Green 25 Safety
13 9 Dr Carl Magnus‐Larsson 25 Safety
14 162 Ian Hore‐Lacy 22 Economics
15 49 Professor Tilman Ruff, AM 22 Safety
16 53 Frank Boulton 21 Safety
17 188 Someone from the Attorney Generals Department to provide advice on the legislation that will be required to be developed/changed. DemocracyCo seeking advice on who. Trust
18 124 Assoc. Professor Mark Diesendorf 20 Economics
19 7 Dr Andrew Herczeg 20 Safety
20 42 Dr Ian Fairlie 19 Safety
21 137 Hon Mark Parnell, MLC 18 Economics
22 39 Dr Margaret Beavis 18 Safety
23 119 Assoc. Professor Haydon Manning 17 Trust
24 122 John Carlson AM 16 Economics
25 200 Dr Benito Cao 16 Economics
26 18 Professor David Giles 16 Safety
27 115 Steven McIntosh 16 Trust
28 2 Dr Ian Chessell 14 Safety
29 34 Professor Sandy Steacy 14 Safety
30 69 Gill McFadyen 11 Consent
31 74 Dave Sweeney 10 Consent
32 104 Bob Watts 9 Consent
33 76 Ross Womersley 8 Consent
34 72 Dr Gerald Ouzounian 7 Consent
35 73 Dan Spencer 6 Consent
36 126 Tim Johnson 7 Economics Invited to provide info on the Royal Commission economic modelling after 20+ requests on Information Gap Cards Dotmocracy Results ‐ 25 plus a few extras to allow for availability Top 6 from Consent ‐ as Gill is unavailable.
Nuclear Citizens Jury Two: Witness work
ABORIGINAL WITNESSES ALREADY INVITED ON THE 29TH Continue reading
People power against nuclear waste dumping – protest at proposed dump site
Nuclear waste protest http://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/4210032/people-power-on-display-in-the-flinders/ 10 Oct 2016, People power was in full force over the weekend, and it was directed against the federal government’s proposed nuclear waste facility.
‘Yanakanai Ngarpala Yarta – Come Here to Our Country’, saw 70 people travel to the proposed national nuclear waste dump site at Wallerberdina in the Flinders Ranges.
It was at the invitation of Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner and neighbour to the proposed site,Regina McKenzie,
Ms McKenzie made her opposition to the proposal clear.
“We don’t own the land, the land owns us. If you poison the land, you poison us,” she said.
At the three day camp, from October 7-9, Regina McKenzie shared her knowledge of the land and its cultural significance, including Australia’s first registered song-line, which runs from Hawker to Lake Torrens.
Supporters were taken to one of the world’s richest archaeological sites, and the sacred Hookina Springs.
More than 150 people gathered on Sunday and marched from the Blue Burt Memorial Park to the main intersection of Hawker, chanting “don’t waste the Flinders, dump the dump now!”
The rally was addressed by Traditional Owners, local pastoralists and members of the Flinders Local Action Group.
Hawker GP Dr Susan Andersson remains critical of the proposal.
“The continued availability of nuclear medicine services does not depend on a permanent waste repository. Less than one percent of the low level waste is medical waste,” she said.
Supporters across Australia will hold protests, film screenings and meetings for a national day of action against the nuclear waste dumps targeted for South Australia on October 15.
Solar power needed, to bring energy security and jobs to Port Augusta, South Australia
Sam Johnson: Solar power must be provided to regional centres such as Port Augusta to provide electricity security – and jobs
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/sam-johnson-solar-power-must-be-provided-to-regional-centres-such-as-port-augusta-to-provide-electricity-security/news-story/4ffcdfeb9fc35ef3f8cbfe0eea1c9bdc October 10, 2016 THE political hoo-ha over renewable energy in South Australia over recent weeks has revealed a serious lack of leadership when South Australian towns like Port Augusta need it most.Will South Australia’s Nuclear Citizens’ jury be fed lies and half-truths?
Nuclear waste storage plan prompts more citizens’ jury debate in South Australia, ABC 7
Oct 16, Greens leader Mark Parnell is worried members of the South Australian Government’s citizens’ jury are not getting all the facts as they consider whether the state should pursue a nuclear future.
The Government is considering a royal commission’s recommendation that SA store high-to-intermediate-grade nuclear waste, most likely in the outback.
A citizens’ jury of more than 300 people is meeting in Adelaide this weekend to hear a range of expert views, the second such process after a first jury pondered the business case at a weekend forum back in July.
Mr Parnell said he was worried the citizens were not getting the best information, especially as the Government pointed out other countries with nuclear waste storage facilities.
“The Government seems keen on promoting this idea that Finland have got all the answers,” he said. “The Finland facility isn’t finished, it’s been 30 years in the making, it’s at least six or eight years away from taking any nuclear waste.
“What’s proposed for South Australia is 20 times bigger.”……..
SA senator Nick Xenophon said citizens’ juries might have a role, but could not replace taking the nuclear issue to the wider community.
“The ultimate citizens’ jury to decide an issue so big, so momentous for SA has to be 1.2 million South Australian voters at a referendum,” he said…….
[Mark Parnell said] “I’m worried that the [current] parliamentary committee won’t have finished its work, and the most important bit of work that is needed I think is a second and third economic opinion.”………http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-08/nuclear-waste-storage-south-australia-citizens-jury-debate/7915292
More safety problems in canisters for storing nuclear wastes
Premature failure of U.S. spent nuclear fuel storage canisters, San Onofre Safety.org, “……Stainless Steel Dry Canister Problems Darrell Dunn, an NRC materials engineer, stated stainless steel dry storage canisters are vulnerable to failure within about 25 – 42 years. If any of the fuel cladding in the canister fails, there is no protective barrier and we could have a serious radiation release.
The NRC said they have no current mitigation plan for that consequence. They suggested we MIGHT be able to put the fuel back in the spent fuel pool. However, Edison plans to destroy the spent fuel and transfer pools. And there is no technology to repair the canisters. The NRC said they HOPE there will be a solution for mitigation in the future. Even an NRC May 2nd High Burnup Fuel letter admits there are mitigation problems.
No Inspections of Stainless Steel Canisters EPRI 2012 presentation To make matters worse, these stainless steel canisters are not inspected after they are loaded into the unsealed concrete overpacks (Areva NUHOMS) or concrete casks (Holtec and NAC Magnastor). The NRC proposed having each nuclear plant inspect the outside of only ONE stainless steel canister before they receive a license renewal and then do that once every 5 years. The industry balked at having to even check one canister at every plant. The problem with the stainless steel canisters is they do not protect against gamma rays; so it’s not a simple task to remove a canister from the concrete overpack/cask to examine the exterior for corrosion or other degradation. And since welded canisters do not have monitoring for helium leaks, we may not have any warning of an impending radiation release.
Concrete Overpack Corrosion Problems Darrell Dunn discussed serious corrosion problems with the concrete overpacks/casks, especially in coastal environments…….. https://sanonofresafety.org/2014/08/21/premature-failure-of-u-s-spent-nuclear-fuel-storage-canisters/
Citizens’ Jury members not allowed to change the wording of their set question.
9 Oct 16 Tim Bickmore Some of the Jury Members requested that the form of the question be changed to adjust the term ‘circumstances’ into better context ie the question should be along the lines of …. whether or not to pursue the HLW dump, & if so, under what circumstances…..
They were informed that there would be no change to the question. This calls into question any claims that the Jury is in Charge of the process.
The set question is “Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?”
Monitoring South Australia’s Nuclear Citizens’ Jury
I have not been watching today’s Citizens’ Jury Two Livestreaming and Video. However, these sessions are available for viewing. I saw at the agenda – See the agenda here – that the gathering was to be opened by Premier Jay Weatherill, and Kevin Scarce, former chief of the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission.
Unlike may other critics of the nuclear industry, I have some faith in the process. I did think that DemocracyCo ran the first Citizens’ Jury meetings well, and the jury members asked intelligent questions. The problems were:
- The whole premise was not really a jury situation in any sense. The jury were told that they were not to make a decision (the essential brief of any real jury). They were told to produce a ‘Summary of the Nuclear Fuel cycle Royal Commission’s Report.
- The witnesses were not always well informed, and some were both ignorant and biased. They were chosen at an early stage by the jury members, who clearly did not then have access to impartial and well informed experts.
- Members of the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission were far too prominently present and vocal. Greg War and Chad Jacobi made sure to dazzle all with their pro nuclear knowledge, whenever it looked as if criticism of the nuclear industry was coming up.
This new Citizens’ Jury has been given a loaded question to consider:
“Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?”
So – much as I admire DemocracyCo’s the group management efforts, and real attempts at fairness, I am not optimistic about the outcome of this Citizens’ Jury 2. I think it will boil down to another delaying tactic by the Weatherill government, to keep the State guessing – while behind the scenes, the nuclear lobby gets on with its preparations for nuclear waste importing to south Australia.
Virtual reality film “Collisions” tells one Aboriginal man’s story of Maralinga nuclear bombing
Aboriginal man’s story of Maralinga nuclear bomb survival told with virtual reality By Alex Mann ABC News, 7 Oct 16 In an unlikely collision of cultures, state-of-the-art 3D film technology is bringing an Aboriginal man’s unique tale of nuclear bomb survival to audiences across Australia.
In the 1950s Nyarri Morgan was a young man, walking and hunting in South Australia’s northern deserts. His dramatic first contact with whites came when he witnessed a nuclear bomb explosion at the British testing site at Maralinga.
Now, as an old man, and with the help of director Lynette Wallworth and some technology, he is sharing his story in a film called Collisions that is screening in selected venues around Australia.
“It happened in a desert where people assumed there were very few people [and] there was not much life and not much to be lost,” Wallworth said.
“Every one of those assumptions was wrong.”
‘People still have that poison today’ As the radioactive dust fell, Mr Morgan walked an ancient trade route at the edge of the test site. He had no idea of what he was witnessing.
In making the film, Wallworth asked Mr Morgan what he thought he was seeing. “He said, ‘We thought it was the spirit of our gods rising up to speak with us’,” she said. “[He said] ‘then we saw the spirit had made all the kangaroos fall down on the ground as a gift to us of easy hunting so we took those kangaroos and we ate them and people were sick and then the spirit left’.”
Mr Morgan is sharing his story, in his words, so it won’t ever be forgotten. “After the explosion the fallout went north,” Mr Morgan said. “Powder, white powder killed a lot of kangaroos [and] spinifex [grass]. Water was on fire, that’s what we saw.”
Mr Morgan said water “died” but that he and the two men he was with drank the water, even though it was still hot. “The smoke went into our noses, and other people still have that poison today,” he said.
“We all poisoned, in the heart, in the blood and other people that were much closer they didn’t live very long, they died, a whole lot of them.” ‘In virtual reality everything becomes personal’………..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-07/aboriginal-mans-story-of-nuclear-bomb-survival-told-in-vr/7913874
8 – 9 October – Nuclear Citizens Jury 2, Adelaide: LOOK OUT FOR THE WITNESS LIST
I say “Look out for the witness list, because for citizens’ jury 1, the big weakness was in 
the witnesses – some of whom were clearly ignorant and biaseed. This was particularly apparent in the appalling way they covered (up) the question of ionising radiation and health.
October 8th and 9th Citizens’ Jury Two Livestreaming and Video
See the agenda here. Note these two important sections on Sunday 9th:
3.45pm Working afternoon tea – witness selection
4.15pm Defining the witness list
Citizens’ Jury Two will be held over two weekends in October and one weekend in November. The original 50 members of Citizens’ Jury One will be supplemented by an additional 300 South Australians to answer the question: Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?
The Jury will deliberate on the question using both the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Report and first Citizens’ Jury report, with feedback from the community consultation and expert witnesses also used as important inputs.
The unedited and unchanged jury report will be presented to the Premier and tabled in the South Australian Parliament. The report will play a vital role in informing the State Government’s response to the Royal Commission’s Report later this year.
Dates for Citizens’ Jury Two are 8/9 October, 29/30 October, 5/6 November 2016.
Inconvenient truths the nuclear “citizens’ jury” needs to hear
7 Oct 16 As the South Australian Government’s second nuclear “citizens’ jury” gets underway this weekend, it’s essential that participants aren’t denied important facts about global nuclear waste, says Mark Parnell MLC, Parliamentary Leader of the SA Greens.
Here are eight inconvenient truths that the citizens’ jury needs to hear:
1. The much-heralded Finnish underground nuclear waste facility (visited by the Premier recently) does NOT yet have a licence to accept nuclear waste, will not open for at least six years and has been three decades in planning. It is also 20 times SMALLER than the facility proposed for SA by the Royal Commission.
2. The nuclear industry is without peer in terms of cost blow-outs and time over-runs. This is likely to eliminate any anticipated profit for South Australia – which is the sole rationale for the proposed SA dump.
3. According to the Royal Commission’s own consultants, it could cost South Australia more than $600 million before we even know whether the project is viable.
4. The main client countries anticipated to send nuclear waste to South Australia, including South Korea and Japan, are already exploring domestic solutions to their nuclear waste problem and are not considering overseas solutions.
5. The world’s only operating underground nuclear waste facility, in New Mexico, USA, closed in 2015 following a chemical explosion brought about by human error. It is still contaminated and yet to re-open.
6. The most advanced nuclear nation on Earth, the USA, is yet to come up with a permanent solution for waste from its nuclear power plants. The proposed underground nuclear dump in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has been stalled by community opposition and may never go ahead.
7. Whilst it may be the best idea so far, nobody knows if deep geological disposal of nuclear waste will work in the long term, because it has never been done before.
8. South Australia is not unique in its geology and has regular earthquakes of magnitude 4 and above.
Without all the facts, the citizens’ jury can’t possibly make an informed decision.
NOTE: Mark Parnell MLC is a member of the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee that is investigating the Royal Commission’s findings. Mark and other Committee members recently returned from inspecting nuclear waste facilities under construction in Finland and France, as well as failed facilities in the United States.
Look to our sun, urges Hewson
DR John Hewson is leading the charge for more renewable energy – and wants a system redesign.
Tory Shepherd, Political Editor, The Advertiser, October 6, 2016 AUSTRALIA needs more renewables, not less, former Liberal leader John Hewson says.Official report available on South Australia’s blackout last week
Derek Abbott uploaded a file. No High Level International Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 5 Oct 16
“Moral” argument for nuclear waste import is rejected, economic one is dodgy, too
at a dinner hosted by the Eurajoki municipal council at its restored 16th-century Vuojoki Mansion, the South Australian delegation was told to put aside any so-called moral obligations.
Mr Jalonen joined others who have urged caution and questioned whether the economic benefits are overblown.
Unlike the potential riches being speculated about in South Australia — more than $100 billion over 120 years — Mr Jalonen said there was only a “little bit” of money on offer for his region.
Premier Weatherill’s nuclear ‘moral’ case rejected The Australian 
,October 3, 2016 MICHAEL OWEN SA Bureau Chief Adelaide @mjowen
The head of a governing body in Finland where the world’s first permanent disposal facility for nuclear waste is being built has rejected Premier Jay Weatherill’s “moral” case that South Australia should consider following suit because of its uranium exports.
Mr Weatherill, who last month toured the site at Eurajoki, due to open in the early 2020s, has said South Australia is primarily considering permanent nuclear fuel disposal because of its potential long-term economic prosperity.
But during the visit, accompanied by The Australian, he also said that given South Australia accounted for 25 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves mined and exported for use in nuclear facilities internationally and creating waste, it was “sensible for us to ask ourselves ‘can we play a role in this nuclear fuel cycle?’ and ‘are we the appropriate place to store the material?’ given that this waste does exist in the world.
“Simply, does South Australia consider itself a global citizen?”, he said. Some of the 400 or so nuclear power plants around the world, including those in Finland, use Australian uranium. Continue reading
Another inaccuracy from pro nuclear propagandist Geraldine Thomas
Steve Dale Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 1 Oct 16 In Geraldine Thomas’s recent talk she showed dosimeter data from students in Japan, but she didn’t make it clear that the students were kept out of the “Restricted zone” (funny about that). But if you read the paper, it mentions that a teacher went into the zone for 2 hours (to Okuma) and had readings of 5 microSieverts per hour. Thought I would show how the graph would look with this data included. (Note: Okuma is not the “hottest” area, some areas in the restricted zone are over 20 microSieverts per hour) [relevant graph can be seen on original on Facebook] Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/ Continue reading
South Australia: Electranet’s privately owned and run electricity transmission system is in a mess.
Dennis Matthews , 3rd October 2016
Electranet now wants the public to pay for new infrastructure. Electranet’s proposed investment will be rewarded with a handsome guaranteed return on the amount invested, which will be funded by all South Australian electricity users in the form of increased tariffs.
Why do we need such a high capacity transmission network? It is to service big electricity users to the north of Port Wakefield, like BHP. Getting everyone to pay for the new infrastructure is a huge publicly funded cross-subsidy to the mining industry. It is a publicly-funded disincentive for more efficient and reliable distributed generation. It is anti-competitive.
The windfall profits reaped by Electranet will then go offshore.
This is a win for Electranet and the big energy guzzling mining companies but, as usual, a huge kick in the guts for small businesses and the average South Australian.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 