No nuclear waste dump groups from Kimba and the Flinders Ranges came together in Port Augusta last week in response to the recent announcement by federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan that a community vote for a planned national radioactive waste management facility would begin on August 20.
The groups discussed shared concerns and committed to increase their efforts against the plan including through an open debate featuring the federal department, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Traditional Owners and public policy and health professionals.
People at the meeting included Adnyamathanha community members, representatives from Kimba, Hawker, Whyalla and Quorn along with members of the Flinders Local Action Group and No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA.
Peter Woolford from Kimba said the “flawed federal process” was failing the communities.
“Minister Canavan is fast-tracking a plan that does not have broad community support”.
The groups committed to highlight community concern and opposition to the federal plan ahead of the August vote and urged residents in the wider region to stand up and speak out.
Former federal member for Grey Barry Wakelin said it was a national issue, “not something that a regional community should be left to deal with”.
“The current federal plan lacks evidence and poses a threat to our existing industries – we need a better way,” Mr Wakelin said.
“This has been a productive meeting and it is heartening to see regional South Australians stepping up to the challenge, taking action and working together.”
Selection Process for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in South Australia – Submission From: Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation ICN 8603 : 3 April 2018
The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation (BDAC) is the prescribed body corporate for the Barngarla native title holders as defined in the Barngarla Determination of Native Title made by the Federal Court in Croft’ on behalf of the Bamgar/a Native Title Claim Group v State of South Australia (N0 2) [2016] FCA 724 (SAD 60/11/998) on 23 June 2016.
We attach a map [on original]of the Barngarla Determination Area, as Schedule I. It clearly shows that the Barngarla are the native title holders for the two nominated sites near Kiinba, namely the Lyndhurst and Napandee nominated sites.
BDAC believes that community consultation in relation to the site selection rocess for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF) has been patently inadequate, bordering on non-existent.
We hold this view given the lack of contact by the Federal Government and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (the Department) from the outset. The chronology of consultation is contained in our letter to the Department of 21 February 2018 (which is attached [on original] along with all other correspondence as Schedule 2), for the sake of ease of reading we reproduce a version of it below:
On 7 April2017, three months after the Lyndhurst and Napandee sites were nominated, Barngarla made contact with the Department. Prior to this letter, the Department had made no contact with the Aboriginal traditional owners or native title holders of the area.
Notwithstanding this complete lack of contact, the Department was asserting that there were no Aboriginal heritage issues in the area. Therefore, the Barngarla letter of 7 April2017 sought to correct the Department and indicated that Barn aria needed to be engaged with. Barngarla further indicated that the failure to consult to date was unacceptable.
On 4 May 2017, Barngarla received a pro forma letter from Mr. Bruce Wilson (the date April2017 had been crossed out with May inserted). The letter contained three general paragraphs and did not in any way address the Barngarla’s concerns.
On 10 July 2017, Barngarla sent a response to Mr. Wilson, requesting s ecific information on the following:
ll proposed activities, which the Department seeks to undertake for the purposes of the proj’ect, ‘what protocols, if any, the Department intends to apply in respect of Aboriginal Heritage; and Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia Submission any assessment that the Department has undertaken in respect of the impact of the proposal on Aboriginal Heritage in the Bamgar/a Determination Area.
On 14 August 2017 (originally dated 11 August, with the 11 crossed out and replaced with a hand written 14), Barngarla received a particularly uriconstructive letter from Mr. Bruce MCCleary. We do not repeat it here, but a longer description of this letter i contained in our letter of 21 contained in our letter of 21 February 2018.
Barngarla responded to the 14 August 20171etter, on 13 October 2017, providing the Department with all of the information (that the Commonwealth already had) indicating the status of BDAC, and Norman Waterhouse’s role as the Solicitors for Barngarla.
Barngarla did not receive a response to their letter of 13 October 2017. The next item of correspondence we received was a further pro forma letter from Mr. Bruce MCCleary, dated 31 October 2017, confirming the Solicitor for Barn arla’s a arent “nomination” for the Kiinba Consultative Committee (although Mr Llewellyn-Jones himself did not nominate for this Committee). It is obvious from reviewing the correspondence, that this letter was not a response to any of the letters sent by Bamgarla and was just a misaddressed pro forma letter of no substance.
Bamgarla received no further correspondence from the Department in 2017
Barngarla finally received a letter on 20 February 2018, congratulating BDAC for its status as a PBC (somewhat out of date, given that this had occurred approximately one year earlier) and advising that the Department would like to present to the BDAC Board. However, this letter.
Did not address any of the substantive matters raised by Barngarla on 7 A in 2017 or, O July 2017; in particularit does not answer how the Department could assert a lack of any Barngarla Aboriginal heritage given that there had been no discussions or engagement with Barngarla;
Did not answer the express questions put to the Department on 10 July 2017; and ,
Suggested that the first consultation with Barngarla should occur some 14 months after the Lyndhurst and Napandee sites were nominated, even though the Department had been making representations about the Barn aria and Aboriginal heritage during this time.
It is Barngarla’s position that the entire consultation process has been completelyl inappropriate and, in most cases, has involved being copied into pro forma correspondence, which is not relevant to any of the issues raised by Barngarla.
As can be seen above, BDAC has repeatedly contacted the Department to address Barngarla heritage concerns as the traditional owners in the Kiinba area. Correspondence was instigated by BDAC, not by the Department. Again, as indicated above, Barngarla’s most recent letter to the Department on 21 February 2018 provides a chronological outline of BDAC’s communication with the Department. All relevant correspondence is enclosed with this submission.
The correspondence largely speaks for itself, and so forms part of this submission. Most concerning, apart from the Department not having made contact with the Aboriginal traditional owners or native title holders for the area, was the Department’s assertion that there were no Aboriginal heritage issues in the area surrounding Lyndhurst and Napandee. ‘ This assertion was made without any consultation with these traditional owners. Further, Barngarla have repeatedly asked, on three separate occasions, for the Department to provide the basis of this assertion, which the Department has failed to do. It is not the case that there is no Aboriginal heritage in the area. Given the complete inactivity of the Department to engage with Barngarla, BDAC retained out of its own funds, the services of Dr Dee Gorring to conduct a heritage assessment of the area. This took place on 27 February 2018 to 3 March 2018. Preliminary conclusions from Dr Gorring indicated that there are a number of sites that have been identified surrounding the site of Lyndhurst and spanning across to the site of Napandee.
Accordingly, as per terms of reference:
The Department has not even engaged with Barngarla to establish whether there is any relevant Indigenous support for the NRWMF. Therefore, in respect of the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (c), the need for Indigenous support has so far not played a part in the Department’s site selection process at all in respect of the sites near Kiinba.
The Barngarla are not aware of the Government ‘community benefit program payments referred to in the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (d). These have therefore had no impact upon the sentiment of the Barngarla Community.
However, irrespective of any community benefit package, Barngarla would not support the NRWMF in the area. This indicates that the Committee’s terms of reference paragraph (b) have not been met; there is no ‘broad community support’ in respect of the NRWMF from Barngarla.
The proposed NRWMF does not have the support of BDAC nor does the NRWMF have the support of the broader Barngarla Community.
As seen above, there has been no appropriate consultation process. The approaches made by BDAC have been rebuffed by a combination of meaningless pro forma correspondence, bureaucratic tangents, and obfuscation, which has resulted in a contrived consultation process completely lacking in transparency.
Washington report floats US nuclear attack subs and warships in Perth THE AUSTRALIAN, CAMERON STEWART, Washington correspondent@camstewarttheoz, –25 Apr 18
US nuclear attack submarines and navy warships should be based in Perth in response to China’s growing power projection into the Indo-Pacific, a new US report warns.
The report says Australia and its allies must “spotlight and push back” against China’s stepped-up efforts to project power and build military infrastructure in the region.
……..The report also comes a week after it was revealed that three Australian warships were challenged by the Chinese military as they travelled through the disputed South China Sea early this month.
Tensions between Australia and China have risen sharply, with China’s ambassador to Australia warning last week that the relationship between the two countries had been marred by “systematic, irresponsible and negative remarks” about China.
Beijing has not hosted a senior Australian minister for several months and was highly critical of Malcolm Turnbull’s new security laws announced last year to protect Australia from foreign interference.
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd this week further accused the current Prime Minister of undermining Australia’s relationship with China, saying Mr Turnbull’s public remarks about our largest trading partner were tantamount to “punching the Chinese in the face”……..
the CSIS calls for a range of measures, including a rotational presence of US warships at HMAS Stirling in Perth.
It also calls on the Turnbull government to “consider the possibility of investing in the nuclear support infrastructure necessary for the basing of (US) attack submarines as well”.
These military options have been considered by the Turnbull and Abbott Coalition governments and by the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments but they have never been acted upon.
Effectively it is about relocating Australia’s worst radioactive waste from above ground interim storage at a purpose built and heavily secured and resourced facility in Sydney to above ground interim storage at a far less resourced facility in regional SA. There is no compelling public health or radiation management rationale for this approach.
It is definitely not something that should be foisted on a community area/state/through transport route communities at the behest of a local land/leaseholder.
The national radioactive waste facility is in two parts
(i) a dump for LLW – placed there and never recovered or removed (most of this material will decay to background equivalent in 300 years) and
(ii) a store for ILW to be kept above ground prior to being removed at a undefined future point by an undefined process to an unchosen sitefor promised deep burial (this material needs to be isolated from the wider environment for 10, 000 – 10K – years).
Submission by Michele MadiganTo The Economic References Senate Committee Inquiry – Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
The appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia, noting the Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community, with particular reference(s).
I submit that the present method/process of selection for the site for Australia’s long term intermediate radioactive waste and to a lesser extent for the nation’s low level radioactive waste is not only inappropriate but has grave implications for present and future generations:
*of local communities *for all South Australians *and indeed all Australians – in particular those national communities along any proposed transport route.
I note, as does the Senate Committee, that the Federal Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community. This condition of willingness is indeed world’s best practice. Whether or not its present process and reported results accurately reflects the reality of such unwillingness in the South Australian proposed sites is discussed below. Continue reading →
Barilaro sees nuclear future, Labor criticises lack of detail, Canberra Times, Elliot Williams – – 21 Apr 18, NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro has not ruled out one day having nuclear reactors in his home electorate of Monaro, near the ACT.
Mr Barilaro has garnered attention this week after advocating for nuclear energy to be considered in NSW in a speech to an energy policy forum in Sydney on Wednesday.
But when questioned whether he would ever consider bringing nuclear reactors to Monaro Mr Barilaro refused to rule anything in or out.
……..Mr Barilaro said he envisaged a future where small modular reactors were set up in a series and could be air, gas or sand cooled rather than the familiar technology of large reactors situated on the coastline for easy access to water.
He said recycling of radioactive material had improved and waste products would remain radioactive for around 300 years rather than hundreds of thousands of years.
However Mr Barilaro has been criticised by Labor candidate for Monaro Bryce Wilson and the Nature Conservation Council for his reluctance to provide details about his plan to bring nuclear power to the state.
“John can’t stand there and say he wants to provide relief to household energy bills without giving us any figures,” Mr Wilson said.
“This isn’t primary school debating, this is a conversation for grown ups.
“How can we have a conversation about nuclear power without knowing where reactors would go, how much it would cost and what would happen to the waste?
Mr Wilson added he would not endorse bringing nuclear reactors to any part of the region………The federal government has a ban on nuclear power in Australia and federal member for Eden-Monaro Mike Kelly said he would not support nuclear power in the region.
“It is not necessary to build nuclear power stations in Australia, as we have an abundance of natural renewable resources that can be utilised to create energy,” Dr Kelly said.
“For our region, there is a real opportunity in becoming a hub for research and development in renewable energy and the scope for manufacturing renewable energy components.”
Mr Barilaro said he wanted to see more investment in renewable energy, particularly in Monaro, but said it would not be possible to do so without ensuring a greater baseload of energy, which nuclear power could provide.
He said nuclear was a cleaner option than coal or gas to achieve the necessary baseload…….ACT minister for climate change and sustainability Shane Rattenbury ruled out nuclear power as an option for the territory.
“Both Greens and Labor national platforms specifically preclude the construction of nuclear power plants in Australia,” Mr Rattenbury said.
If government can’t show that it can cleanup, or even finance a $30 million cleanup of 9,8000 leaking rusty barrels of radioactive waste abandoned at Woomera, what reason would any adroit person have to believe that the government’s $10 million incentive package to manage a radioactive dump in Hawker or Kimba is nothing more than a 79 cents a week contract to abandon high grade waste under the guise of being called intermediate waste, for the next 244,000 years of its hazard.
Submission by Barbara Walker Senate Economics References Inquiry – National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
Introduction:
My name is Barbara Walker. My husband and I bought a home in Quorn fifteen years ago, retiring to the peace and tranquility of the magnificent Flinders Ranges. We are both active volunteers within our community. I served as a volunteer lifeguard/supervisor at the Quorn swimming pool for nine years and am also a volunteer at
the Platform Gallery in Port Augusta. I am a member of the Flinders Local Action Group – a group of concerned citizens protecting the Flinders Ranges and against a pending nuclear
waste repository.
My husband is a regular volunteer for several local clubs and community fundraising events.
He is also an organiser for an annual military veterans retreat and a volunteer radio operator
for the VKS-737/RFDS Radio Network.
Through our network of friends and radio contacts we have always encouraged people to
visit the iconic Flinders Ranges. Many travellers visit us while travelling through Quorn and
most are horrified after discovering a nuclear waste repository is pending for the Flinders
Ranges.
A nuclear waste facility will adversely affect tourism within the Flinders and outer regions.
Many travellers from Australia and abroad have said they will not return if a waste dump is
located in the Flinders Ranges.
The prospect of a nuclear waste repository has also caused much division and ill health
within our local communities.
The Flinders Ranges is the home of the Adnyamathanha people who coincide with tourism
operators and local pastoralists in showcasing the marvels of the Flinders Ranges.
The question of broad community support:
I believe the Orima survey was flawed and inconsistent with broad community views and
opinions. Orima survey phone calls were made but only to some fixed home phones. These days most
people use mobile phones. Mobile phone users were not surveyed.
Orima offered small incentives in the form of supermarket vouchers to some indigenous
respondents. Proof of this is written in the Orima survey, headed “Interview Method”. Why
was this necessary? Would this be classed as a bribe?
In my opinion a better way to survey people would be through the postal system, canvassing
the whole community by using a simple democratic process. Perhaps using the AEC would
have been a better and fairer solution, and in doing so, every community member would
have a voice.
South Australia’s Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 states it is illegal to
have a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia, in which case, the whole of South
Australia has already said a clear NO to the storage of nuclear waste, and if that were to be
changed by Government, all South Australians should be asked for consent.
At our own expense, Flinders Local Action Group also conducted a survey. It was posted to
the people living in Hawker, Quorn and Cradock. People were simply asked for a YES, NO
or UNDECIDED vote regarding storage of nuclear waste in the Flinders Ranges. Flinders
Local Action Group then asked if the results could be opened and scrutinized by the CEO of
the Flinders Ranges Council. FRC kindly obliged and final results showed 79% of the
respondents were against having a nuclear waste repository in the Flinders Ranges.
The consideration of Indigenous support:
The consideration of indigenous support is an important factor within the Flinders Ranges
and the wider community. Any support for a nuclear waste repository would firstly have to be
given from the Adnyamathanha community because, in the case of
Wallerberdina/Barndioota, a nuclear waste repository on that site would be invasive to their
culture. Intrusion would cross cultural songlines and disturb artifacts, sacred sites and the
Hookina – The Hookina is a culturally important place for Adnyamathanha women.
Adnyamathanha families from Hawker and surrounding areas have been severely affected
by this controversial process. It has caused great heartache, division and ill health for many
people. Families and friends are feeling torn apart by the long and ongoing processes from
ANSTO and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
Community Benefits Program:
Another example of division. Many think the Community Benefits Program is divisive and creates an impression of bribery. Some businesses needing monetary assistance, regardless of their ‘for’ or ‘against’ opinions, are happy the money has been offered and therefore feel it is up for the taking. Others refuse to apply as they regard it as bribe money. Some people in the community were selected for paid positions, and part of their role is to reassure people that a nuclear waste repository would be a positive enhancement to the Flinders Ranges – jobs, tourism and Federal money. A few of these people have used their
positions as a license to bully community members who are not in favour of a nuclear waste
dump. I suggest in future jobs like these need to be screened and monitored regularly if
people are to receive Federal funding for this kind of employment.
Small vulnerable communities would be best served if community benefits were given in
constructive growth projects, like tourism and small business, not a nuclear waste repository
that offers minimal employment and destroys tourism and cultural heritage.
Wider Community Views and conclusion:
Wider community views should always be considered regarding the storage of nuclear
waste. Most people would agree there needs to be a single repository for a low level nuclear
waste facility somewhere in Australia but it is fundamentally important to find the right place.
The Flinders Ranges is not the right place.
The intermediate nuclear waste stored at Lucas Heights should stay where it is. The Lucas
Heights storage facility is purpose built for safety and has ‘state of the art’ security with plenty
of storage availability for years to come. Why move it to a place that has massive floods, frequent earthquakes and sometimes 50+ degree days in summer?
This is the best of several submissions to the Senate Inquiry, that I have read so far. It can be heavy going for the reader, because it is densely informative. For a start, I have summarised some of the major arguments,
ENUFF argues that “the Taskforce has not properly nor fully informed either the wider public; nor their arbitrary ‘local community’ cohort; nor the State Government; &, it would appear, not even their own Federal Minister – about the whole radioactive waste regimen. Instead they almost only & exclusively accentuate & promote Australian usage of medical radioisotopes. ”
The community consultation methods have been inadequate and unfair. There is no scientific need for Lucas Heights nuclear wastes to be transported to rural South Australia, and medical wastes amount to only a tiny fraction of the radioactive wastes planned for the S.A. Dump.
Stirling North and Leigh Creek residents would be affected, but were excluded from the consultation. Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association were NOT consulted prior to the Wallerberdina preferred site announcement , contrary to UN endorsed Indigenous Rights.
In surveys run by Flinders Local Action Group a clear majority voted “no” to the establishment of a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in the area .
Scrutiny of the Barndioota Consultative Committee NRMWT survey reveals questionable and biased methodology and results.
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility’s communications and publicity have been deceptive with its pretense that the waste is predominantly medical Low Level Wastes, ignoring Intermediate Level Waste volumes intended for ‘temporary’ storage
Given the prime-facie maladministration ans deficiencies described above, ENuFF calls for a judicial inquiry into the NRWMF ‘s processes.
ENuFF-SA Submission 1 to the Senate ERC NRWMF Inquiry (not yet published on the Senate website)
CONTENTS Page 2 Acronyms 3 Introduction 5 Executive Summary 6 History 8 Contemporary Action 9 Wallerberdina 16 Indigenous appraisal 19 Correspondence with the Taskforce 22 Afterword 25 Bibliography
In order to determine whether or not maladministration &/or negligence has any bearing upon the community consultation process, ENuFF asks the committee to recommend a judicial inquiry into the performance of the NRWMF Taskforce…..
Barilaro slams “ignorant 1970’s thinking” on nuclear, 2GB.com – 19 Apr 18 MICHAEL MCLAREN
Acting NSW Premier John Barilaro has been speaking on energy, declaring nuclear power “inevitable” and slamming the “ignorant 1970’s thinking” that has inhibited the development of our nation’s uranium reserves.
Michael McLaren is also pointing out the hypocrisy of Australia’s engagement with nuclear energy, noting that despite being the world’s third largest exporter of uranium, Australia has a banning moratorium on the resource.
“In 2016, Australia exported uranium worth more than $900 million to other places around the world. But we didn’t use one iota of it at home,” says Michael.
With the prospect of more bursts of extreme weather in the future, yet another danger of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor is apparent.
Meanwhile, other countries are turning to the safer and far more practical methods of producing medical radioisotopes. (After all, the tax-payer funded Australian National Science and Nuclear Technology Organisation ANSTO claims that the only purpose of the reactor is medical) . Map above shows Canada’s network for production and distribution of the most important medical radioisotope, Technetium-99m , as well s as others.
Bushfire now contained About 200 firefighters worked on Tuesday at Holsworthy and Barden Ridge backburning and creating containment lines.
By 6:30pm, the Holsworthy bushfire was considered contained, Mr Garlick said.
“Over the next few days our crews have a lot of hard work ahead of them mopping up and extinguishing all the hotspots within the containment lines of this fire,” he said.
“As these days continue, we are expecting milder conditions which will ease that threat, but residents should monitor those conditions and take advice from firefighters on the ground and through our website.”
As a result of backburning operations, some smoke would continue to remain in the Sydney area, potentially even as far as the Blue Mountains.more https://tinyurl.com/yaky4nqf
I’m a professional firefighter employed by Fire Rescue NSW and working out of Balmain fire station.
When I arrived at work on Sunday, the crew who were just finishing their shift looked dead on their feet. There was a pile of dirty hose in the backyard, and the fire engine stank of smoke.
‘We are leaders from many faith traditions and communities across Australia.
We are writing to you to ask you to abandon your proposed mine and
instead use the same money to invest in solar energy in North Queensland.
‘Our common home, the Earth, is now in great danger
due to the effects of our actions as human beings on the climate.
On this point the scientific community is united.
Today, we too are united as people of faith.
‘Let us be clear.
We are not merely opposed to this one mine.
We are opposed to all new coal development in the Galilee Basin.
We are at a crossroads.
One way lies destruction; the other way, sanity.
We need to turn immediately in the direction of a stable and
compassionate future based on ambitious investment in renewable energy. … ‘
Apocalyptic blaze surrounding nuclear reactor sets off emergency
AUSTRALIA is struggling to contain a growing bushfire that is racing towards a nuclear reactor, amid fears that the blaze could expand beyond their control. By OLI SMITH Apr 16, 2018
More than 500 Australia firefighters are struggling to tackle a massive bushfire, with several residents urged to seek shelters as evacuation is now “too late”.
Scenes of the blaze, which started yesterday, have been described as “apocalyptic” after the fire ripped through nearly 2,500 hectares of land close to the suburbs of Sydney.
Firefighters failed to stop the out-of-control blaze from burning through a major military base – and a nuclear reactor is the next at-risk location.
The New South Wales Rural Fire Service (RFS) said it was concerned that flying embers could spark even more blazes……
The unseasonably hot Autumn in south-eastern Australia has been blamed for worsening the bushfire after record temperatures for April.
Shane Fitzsimmons, of the RFS, warned that strong 60km per hour winds are expected to push towards residential homes.
He said that the country’s largest army barracks at Holsworthy, where stockpiles of fuel, ammunition and explosive materials are kept, had been hit by the fire.
Firefighters Warn NSW Is “Not Out Of The Woods” On Third Day Of Bushfires, Pedestrian. 16 Apr 18 More than 250 firefighters continue to battle bushfires in NSW’s southwest, which has spread more than 2,400 hectares since Saturday afternoon.
The blaze, which is believed to have originated in the vicinity of Casula, was fanned further by strong winds on Sunday.
More than 500 firefighters from the Rural Fire Service, Fire & Rescue NSW and the Australian Defence Force attempted to contain the blaze over the weekend with help from volunteers and 11 water-bombing helicopters.
The fire tore trough Holsworthy military range, and while approaching suburban areas, has been staved off. Several residents report fighting off embers with hoses and water buckets.
The fire was downgraded from “emergency level” to “watch and act” on 5.30pm Sunday, then again downgraded to “advice” around 2am Monday.
While lower wind conditions are expected to help with containing the fire, RFS Deputy Commissioner Rob Rogers warned that the high temperatures remain an issue.
“Still quite a difficult day ahead (on Monday),” Rogers told the Nine Network. “I think we’ve got a long way to go before we’re out of the woods.”
There’s also a risk that winds could also pick up to 35km/h later today.
The RFS is currently advising residents in Pleasure Point, Sandy Point, Alfords Point, Barden Ridge [ie; Lucas Heights] , Voyager Point, Illawong, Menai & Bangor to “remain vigilant throughout the day and keep themselves up to date by checking the NSW RFS website“……..https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/firefighters-warning-nsw-bushfires/
Comment by Steve DaleThere is something really rotten about the Nationals lately. Four Corners (4corners, fourcorners) can you please follow the stink/money trail and find out who is pulling the strings on these politicians? We have had a Royal Conmission into nuclear, I think what we really need is a Royal Commission into Nuclear lobbying and its corrupting influence on our political system.
John Barilaro to push the nuclear power button The Australian, April 17, 2018 Acting NSW Premier John Barilaro will declare nuclear power “inevitable” in a speech that slams “ignorant, 1970s” thinking for preventing development of the nation’s uranium reserves and condemning residents to blackouts.
The speech by the state Nationals party leader, seen by The Australian and to be delivered on Wednesday night at an energy policy forum in Sydney, calls for small modular reactors, likely imported from the US, to reduce dependence on high-emission coal and gas-fired power over the next five to 10 years……
Mr Barilaro, who recently returned from an Advanced Reactor Summit in Atlanta, Georgia, spoke out in favour of nuclear power a year ago, prompting Premier Gladys Berejiklian, currently in India on a trade mission, to declare she was open-minded on the issue. “I’m in the camp of the jury’s still out,” she told the ABC then.
…….The Minerals Council of Australia, a proponent of nuclear power, said the federal nuclear ban could be reversed “with a single amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. “The removal of four words — ‘a nuclear power plant’ — would allow nuclear industries to be considered for development in Australia,” it said.
If government can’t show that it can cleanup, or even finance a $30 million cleanup of 9,8000 leaking rusty barrels of radioactive waste abandoned at Woomera, what reason would any adroit person have to believe that the government’s $10 million incentive package to manage a radioactive dump in Hawker or Kimba is nothing more than a 79 cents a week contract to abandon high grade waste under the guise of being called intermediate waste, for the next 244,000 years of its hazard.
Antinuclear 