Paul Waldon on the unreliability of manufactured news from the Department of Industry Innovation and Science (DIIS)
Paul Waldon Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA
Where are all of these alleged proponents of a nuclear waste dump that the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science has claimed support the risk of contaminating their own environment of Hawker for a few jobs.
Only one, yes 1, that’s less than two, nearly zero, zip, squat, zilch, butt kiss, and it was only that one elderly local that got up and spoke in support of a risky program at the Hawker community meeting on the 6th of May 2016. A man with No conscience, and willing to burden the young with the contamination of Hawker and the Flinders,
the same meeting that had over 100 concerned people decrying the abandonment of radioactive waste, yet the DIIS claim this one man was the majority. The augury of the DIIS’s factoids needs to raised so people are adroit to the dangers of their manufactured figures. https://www.facebook.com/groups/344452605899556/
Senator Rex Patrick attended Kimba Senate Nuclear Waste meeting – concerned about problem of “community support”
Senator Rex Patrick Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 5 July 18
It was great to hear everyone’s perspective – the local council, land nominators, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation and local groups from both sides of the fence. It’s too early in the inquiry process to pass judgement, but I must say I share concerns with some witnesses over the lack of consultation, the inconsistency of certain information, the lack of transparency and especially the lack of any apparent ‘formula’ to determine whether the Government has broad community support.
The Committee is spending the night in Port Augusta; Crossroads of Australia. We travel to Hawker tomorrow to hear more evidence.
Here’s a photo of me and my Senate colleagues, Chris Ketter (QLD) and Dean Smith (WA) standing in front of The Big Galah in Kimba. No jokes about politicians and galahs please.
Jodie Joyce – another true believer in the National Radioactive Waste Facility for Kimba
Jodie Joyce Submision Committee Secretariat Senate Standing committees on Economics RE – Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Submission no. 33
I have lived in the Kimba District since my family moving here in 1982. I married a local born and bred farmer. Living on a farming property with a cropping programme incorporating cattle and sheep. My husband has been truck driving for 15 years living away from home, recently gaining employment with a local Transport business. For the past 6 years I am very fortunate to have full time employment in a family owned Kimba. My husband and myself have volunteered on many local committees. I am pleased to be able to provide information to the inquiry on the appropriateness and thoroughness of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility site process in Kimba SA. I give my permission for this submission to be made public.
a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the nominations of Land Guidelines;
I believe the financial compensation offered to the land owners (four times the value of the land) is a fair representation, it is not an exorbitant amount, you must take into consideration this land will not be farmed gaining income as previous. It will be deemed useless to the land holder, with land steadily on the increase, this is a fair price. It will not impact the running’s of their farming practises. I fail to see this money being used as an incentive for people to offer their land. Land holders would only offer their land if they were truly convinced there would be no health or safety issues that would impact them or their family’s health and wellbeing, and to benefit their community on a whole.
b) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play in a part in the process, including: i) The definition of ‘broad community support’, and ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;
People who reside, work, support, volunteer and genuinely care for the future of the town, this is to define community.
Broad community support is fundamental to this process. The District Council have been activity involved in the process and has shared their views seeing this process into the next phase. Kimba community were despondent in the flawed phone poll and suggested a vote. District council organised an Electoral Commission vote for the registered voters in the Kimba electorate so that it was a fair and exact representation. 57.4% of voters in June 2017 concluded that they were in favour of Kimba moving into Phase 2, this is a very clear affirmative. There is a 90% ‘direct neighbour’support on the two selected sites.
This is how I determine Broad Community support in Kimba.
Indigenous groups have been informed of Kimba’s nominations and have had two years to voice any concerns they have and up till date they have not opposed. [???]
Direct neighbouring support has to be regarded a high priority, as with District council support in co junction with an Electoral commission vote is the only fair exact representation of what Kimba residents want for their community. In saying so any number above the 50% is an indication of support.
Kimba is struggling, population is declining, we are a farming community relying heavily on agriculture to survive. Farms are being bought out by their neighbours. Businesses are cutting back staff we are in need of a life line
and this is a glimmer of hope, without our nominations gaining momentum and advancing I have fears for our community and my lively hood. The possibilities this facility could provide a small failing community is endless with jobs, the infastructure and many beneficial health care related services.
- How any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;I believe the Department has been in contact and liaised with the Barngarla Tribe regarding any heritage titles. From my knowledge they have visited the proposed nominated sites and without any issues or concerns. I am without a doubt if there was a problem or concern these issues would have been addressed quickly and promptly.
d) Whether and /or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;
Kimba residents have been pro active learning about this process and facility. There have been many experts in the field visiting Kimba offering their vast knowledge and time. The Governments Community Benefit Program will help many ailing clubs and facilities, raising money in a small community town with many sporting clubs and committees all vying for the same results is major hard work. Bake sales and raffle tickets can only scrape the surface. Local businesses are inundated with letters of help with sponsorship, there is only so much money people can give. This community benefit programme moves those parameters giving people insight what it would be like in a bigger community when raising funding for your club. In saying this do I think this government Community Benefit Money entice broad community support. No way. No one is going to exchange their beliefs for a may or may not financial gain for a committee they volunteer on. The media hasn’t helped this situation people are always willing to hear the sensualism [?] of the negative. We are mostly made up of mature reasonable intelligent community members, who can make their decisions regardless of financial gain.
e) Whether wider (Eyre Peninsula or state – wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring; and
I have personally attend many information sessions, been fortunate enough to listen to many visiting nuclear and radiation experts. There are officials in Kimba two days a week setting up shop down our main street. Newsletters adorn our mail boxes, French residents highly regarded in their field held an information session. A session on nuclear medicine was offered. A 3D model is offered for visual representation of a proposed facility. Many trips have been scheduled to ANTSO and I am fortunate enough to be attending one in June. There has been an overwhelming opportunity of information assessable for all Kimba’s residents. This is why I believe this should be a Kimba Community decision only. We have had the resources to be able to make informed decisions. We all know the imagery Google can offer when searching radioactive and nuclear. This is not an exact representation. You cannot make an informed mature decision when you haven’t been given the true and correct facts.
f) Any other related matters
There have been many mis informed media representations portraying our small community as divided, this has continued to put us in the wrong light. We are a small community and until you are part of a small rural community there is no possible way you can understand one. You come across the same people week in week out, whether you both support the same cricket or tennis team or serve on the same committee. Small rural communities are hard work but can in turn provide an amazing support network. We all might not support the same AFL football team, attend the same church, vote for the same political party, when the town is in need we can get together and raise thousands of dollars for a struggling community member. This is the true essence of Kimba. Those of us who are Adults are entitled to vote however we decide this is our chosen right. There is a handful of residents whom behaviour is subpar and I personally hope that they will keep their negative thoughts to themselves and let Kimba’s residents make their own informed decisions.
Earthquake rocks planned area for nuclear waste dump Eastern Eyre Peninsula
Earthquake rocks Eastern Eyre Peninsula https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5500632/earthquake-rocks-eastern-eyre-peninsula/?cs=1825 Kathrine Catanzariti Eyre Tribune, 2 July 18 Kathrine Catanzariti
Eastern Eyre Peninsula was rocked by a 3.7 magnitude earthquake on Sunday morning.
At 11.57am, an earthquake occurred north east of Cleve towards Mangalo, at a depth of 10 kilometres.
According to Geoscience Australia, the earthquake could have been felt by people up to 47 kilometres away.
Did you feel the shake? Did you receive any damage? Let us know!
Bev Baldock – another Submission completely happy with the Kimba nuclear waste project
Bev Baldock (Submission No. 72) Submission to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. My name is Bev Baldock. I have lived and worked in the Kimba Community for many years, living and working on a farm for twenty years, small business for sixteen years. I personally have no issues with the site selection, which has been honest and open.
The financial compensation offered to the applicants for the acquisition of their land is minimal, but fair.
Overall, I am very comfortable that we have been given honest knowledge and feedback on this project. Our community has had ample opportunity to learn more about the proposed facility which has been advertised extensively. We have had several community meetings, the opportunities to meet departmental members and experts in many areas of Nuclear.
I consider myself informed now and able to share my knowledge. It will be great to create new jobs which will bring economic benefits to Kimba. It could help bring more numbers for our school and keep the services that we still have as numbers are diminishing each year. Whatever the community may decide the process has been fair and open with lots of opportunities to learn, and make the right decision for our district.
I disagree that we need broader community support and feel the rest of South Australia should not have a say in what happens in our town and district.
If the rules are changed for measuring the community support to include more of South Australia, how can this be compared? E.g.: community consultation, public meetings, local government election.
We do not get a direct say in what takes place in neighboring communities and our state. This would set a precedent for future projects in South Australia where local communities don’t actually get listened to.
We have had visits from indigenous leaders, and to my knowledge there are no native title claims on district lands. We can still take care in what we do and try to make this project welcoming and inclusive for everyone and to look after heritage if they find it.
The benefit fund is a great bonus for Kimba, without this funding projects that have been submitted would not be possible. I have been involved in lots of projects for many years and this takes a huge amount of time to raise the dollars and reach our target. It is a great a fund to the betterment of the whole community whether the facility goes ahead or not.
Overall, the site selection process has been open, honest and fair. The proposed payments to landholders are fair. It’s our community, we have done the work, we have had the information, and we should be able to make our decision. Yours Sincerely, Bev Baldock
Does the Australian Federal Govt have the power to impose a nuclear waste dump?
The Minister claims a need for this dump is generated by civilian radioisotope production & not from military use – therefore it cannot be legitimised under auspices of the S.51(vi) Defence umbrella.
there is no legal base for the Commonwealth to enforce State acceptance of radioactive waste.
ENuFF-SA Examining 
Commonwealth Power to Enforce Nuke Dump – part 1, 4th July 2018
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LAW
- The 2015-16 $10+ million South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission found that: “The construction or operation of a facility for storage and disposal of nuclear waste, along with the importation or transport of nuclear waste, is unlawful in South Australia”. The amendment or repeal of the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (SA) would therefore be required prior to any substantive progress being made in further developing any proposal.
- “ 1 The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (SA)2 must be amended or repealed PRIOR TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE PROGRESS towards developing a radioactive waste facility in this State. 2.
- Portions of The Act which prohibit the establishment of nuclear waste storage facilities include:
S.8 against the construction or operation of such;
• S.9 making it illegal to import or transport nuclear waste, &
• S.13 “No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility”
S.13.1 also provides such prohibition “Despite any Act or law to the contrary ….”
- The newly elected Liberal Premier Steven Marshall has previously categorically stated: “A Marshall Liberal Government will not support the building of a nuclear waste repository in South Australia.“ 4 : & in answer to a February 2018 Election Survey the South Australian Liberal Party responded: “The Liberal Party supports the current Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000“ 5 .
- 4. To date (June 2018) the NRWMF-T has expended $40+ million of taxpayers PUBLIC MONEY towards: not only encouraging ‘local communities’ acceptance for a nuclear waste storage facility within South Australia; but also financing active on-site preliminary works deemed essential to constructing said facility. Clearly & brazenly contrary to State Law.
- 5. It would appear that the NRWMF-T has failed to investigate nor even consider any implications arising from the current prime facie unlawful nature of their actions. Numerous sham ‘community consultation’ medleys; Taskforce presence in the field, & radiopharma promotions. Myriad ANSTO propaganda tours of Lucas Heights; French des visiteurs; community grants; ORIMA & AECOM contracts, & etc.. costing tens of millions. All done without first establishing any legal foundation.
Legally; fiscally; morally, & administratively negligent
FEDERAL LAW “Commonwealth Legislative Powers”
The Constitution confers the power to make laws on the Commonwealth Parliament. However, the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws is limited to particular subjects. Most of these subjects are listed in sections 51 and 52. They include defence; external affairs; interstate and international trade; taxation; foreign, trading and financial corporations; marriage and divorce; immigration; bankruptcy; and interstate industrial conciliation and arbitration.” 6
- Amongst other dubious claims, Minister Canavan would have us believe that Federal Legislation allows him to run roughshod over State Law. But does the Emperor actually wear any clothes?
- 7. The previous South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill in 30 January 2018: “ Asked if the state government would pursue a High Court case against the Turnbull government if a national facility were approved in South Australia, Mr Weatherill said: “We would have to explore our options to see what steps can be taken.” “ 7 .
- 8. One of those steps would be to query whether Federal Parliament had Constitutional Authority to impose radioactive waste upon a State which had specific laws prohibiting such. Section 51 of the Australian Constitution describes the various Powers of the Federal Parliament, & there are 39 such capacities – none of which relate to things radioactive8 : whilst Section 118 obligates the Commonwealth to recognise & respect the public Acts of the States.
- To make things perfectly clear, included as Appendix 1 is the whole Section 51 of the Australian Constitution: we challenge anyone to demonstrate how Canberra can legally impose Commonwealth owned radioactive waste upon any State whose Legislation prohibits such – S.51. (xxvi) actually says that Federal Parliament needs to respect State Legislation. Prime facie there is no legal base for the Commonwealth to enforce State acceptance of radioactive waste.
- 10. The knowledge that the Feds don’t have Constitutional Power to dump radioactive waste upon the States is not rocket science & is not a new revelation. Continue reading
Katrina Koch happy with the Kimba nuclear waste dump selection process
Katrina Koch (Submission No. 28)- Kimba SA Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines .
Ms Koch is sure that the financial compensation is not extravagant, as indeed, agricultural use would bring in more. The waste dump will not affect the neighbours.
b) On community support.
“To define community – it is the people that live here in the Kimba district. “ the main thing about the current process to date in Kimba is that it is open, transparent and everyone gets to have a say “
She is happy with the processes, involving the District Council of Kimba, and the Australian Electoral Commission vote. As regards neighbours –
“Of the two sites in Kimba there is 90% ‘direct neighbour’ support.” “I truly believe that any number over 50% is an indication of support for the project “
She considers that indigenous leaders will support the project, though she is vague about this. The Bangarla people should be consulted in the same way as for any mining project.
“ Traditional owners have not expressed opposition to the project. “
A town vote unanimously decided to move into Phase 2 (the consultation stage) Ms Koch is very happy with the Community Benefit Fund.
“The nuclear waste facility will benefit the community and the country as a whole.”
Donna Johnson – enthusiastic about the Kimba Nuclear Waste Dump Selection Process
Donna Johnson Senate Standing Committees on Economics Subject: Submission on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (Submission No 27) Regarding a) the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines; she believes that compensation offered is appropriate. She knows the people who nominated their land, and believes that their offers were made solely for the community benefit.
On (b) community support, She believes that a 50% plus 1 vote for a site is adequate, and that neighbour support should be ‘factored in’ for the ultimate decision. While the early surveys were inadequate, Ms Johnson believes that
‘Australian Electoral Commission poll provided surety, independence and an indisputable final result. I support the AEC vote and that process as a whole; it was beyond reproach. ‘
She is confident that the department has listened to our community and will help the community come to an informed decision.
On c) indigenous support, Ms Johnson believes that the process has been satisfactory –
“The Department should keep reaching out to the right spokespeople for the traditional owners to get this information.”
Ms Johnson is concerned for the economic future of the community’s children. She is enthusiastic about the plan ;
“The Community Benefits Program is breathing new life into our community and is an appropriate recognition for the journey and commitment that has been made by Kimba and its people in this search that is in the best interests for ALL Australians. We are incredibly fortunate to live in a country with facilities such as ANSTO’s Lucas Heights and its nuclear reactor providing life saving diagnosis and treatment options for vulnerable Australians. I understand more than one in two Australians will benefit from nuclear medicine in their lifetime. Make no mistake, this is a very noble cause with benefits for our entire nation.”
On e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring;
“I support the AEC vote and that process as a whole. A change of boundaries after an initial voting result would destroy the integrity of the process.
“The boundaries used for that vote were fair, and it is entirely appropriate that those living in our community should be those who get a vote on this. If this potential facility were to come to our District it would have nothing to do with a fisherman in Port Lincoln nor anyone behind a desk in Adelaide. It affects those living in the Kimba District and it is a decision for those people alone.”
Ms Johnson is proud that “Our community has made a significant investment in learning, researching and meeting experts to form considered and knowledgeable views” – and compares it to the rest of the State, which has not bothered to learn about the Nuclear Waste Management Facility plan.
“There is no grounds for them to now have influence over our choice to vote on an opportunity that can deliver higher sustained employment and important economic diversity for our community.”
- f) any other related matters
The result of the AEC vote is clear demonstration of the maturity of the Kimba community. The education and information that has been provided has increased as we all learned together of the intricacies of radioactive waste and its safe use, transport, storage and disposal. It must be noted the final result showed a 57.4% YES vote for our community to take another step in ths process and receive more information and closer consideration.
“Community Consent: for nuclear waste dump site? Minister Canavan further muddies the waters
Katrina Bohr No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia When asked 
in Question time,Matt Canavan said ‘Submissions and views of people that live outside the formal regions, with an interest, will also be part of broad community consent.’
The elusive “broad community consent” continues. yes https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
Analysing the pro nuclear submissions about nuclear waste dump plan
Just started on this – but so far, the quality of these submissions is indeed markedly poorer than in the anti nuclear submissions. I have previously briefly summarised the first 4 pro nuclear submissions (all remarkably similar), and also the cleverly manipulative one from Ben Heard.
Pat Beinke (submission No.17) is very pleased with all the guest speakers,and very happy with the financial aspects (sycophantic in tone, no facts given)
Robyn Stewart. (No. 10) “Whenever I have spoken to people elsewhere, I have found that most people get the low level repository confused with the high level facility that the State Government held a citizen’s jury on. Therefore, I feel the wider community beyond our council boundary would not have the knowledge to make an informed decision.” (No facts given)
Nuclear enthusiast Matt Canavan keen to quickly wrap up waste dump site in Flinders Ranges
“I would be chuffed if we can find a solution, we’re very close, we have two communities in South Australia that have voted in favour of considering a site.
“In a couple of months time, they will vote again on whether to accept our detailed proposal.
“I’m quietly hopeful, but it’s now in the communities hands.
“If we can’t find a site for low-level waste… the idea that we build a full-blown nuclear power reactor’s probably a pipe-dream.”
He tells Ben the reason government hasn’t acted on nuclear is that Australia has such easy access to other resources.
“We have cheap coal or gas, or we have in the past… so we haven’t probably needed to look for the alternatives as much as some other countries have been forced to do.
“We are the world’s largest producers of uranium but we don’t have any nuclear power plants here.”
Brett Stokes shows how plans for nuclear waste dumping in South Australia have breached S.A. law
Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000. – No public money to be used to encourage or finance construction or operation of nuclear
waste storage facility
13. Despite any other Act or law to the contrary, no public money may be appropriated,
expended or advanced to any person for the purpose of encouraging or financing any activity
associated with the construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in this State.
Prohibition against construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility
8. A person must not construct or operate a nuclear waste storage facility.
Prohibition against importation or transportation of nuclear waste for delivery to nuclear
waste storage facility
9. A person must not—
(a) bring nuclear waste into the State; or
(b) transport nuclear waste within the State,
for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility in the State
Brett Stokes – Appendices to Submission to Senate on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
Appendix A
Breaches of s13 of the NWSF(P) Act 2000:
During 2015 and 2016, s13 has been breached by spending of public money on many promotional and planning aspects of nuclear waste importation, in particular the “Business Case” prepared by JacobsMCM for Kevin Scarce (Attorney General’s Department tender AGD 027852).
This “single-quote” Business Case document has been criticised because it was prepared by people with vested interests.
This “single-quote” Business Case document contains economic predictions which have been challenged by UniSA economists Barbara Pocock and Richard Blandy and by many others.
These economic predictions have been promoted as “facts” by Kevin Scarce and associates.
The amendment to s13 in early 2016 did not allow “spruiking” for nuclear waste importation, said Mark Parnell MLC.
– “The law now says that the Government can use public money to consult the community but they’re not to use public money for promoting or designing or even buying land for a nuclear waste dump.” – Mark Parnell MLC, April 2016
Many people have spoken out about the biased information and processes involved with the public funded Nuclear Schools Engagement Program, the public funded KNOW Nuclear advertising campaign, the public funded Your Say Nuclear advertising campaign and the public funded Nuclear Citizens Juries.
Therefore s13 has been breached during 2016 by participants in the Nuclear Schools Engagement Program, the KNOW Nuclear advertising campaign, the Your Say Nuclear advertising campaign and the Nuclear Citizens Juries.
The Nuclear Schools Engagement Program involved indoctrination of young children who were not all fooled:
“Listen to us more rather than spend days like today talking to us. Answer questions that deal with the negatives. Many questions were dodged by the experts.” Mt Lofty/Bridgewater Primary School.
“The day has provided an opportunity to find out more about nuclear storage in SA, but we feel as though the information has been biased and pro-nuclear” Streaky Bay/Ceduna.
“It was great to be given the opportunity and it was informative but all information has been very bias toward pro-nuclear. The other side needs to be heard!” Cleve Area School and Cowell Area School.
Appendix B
Threats and conspiracy to commit offences prohibited under s8 and s9 of the NWSF(P) Act 2000:
Since early 2016, there has been an open conspiracy to breach s8 and s9, with planning and promotion of importation and storage of nuclear waste into South Australia.
Detailed plans for importation and storage of nuclear waste into South Australia were produced in the “Business Case” prepared by JacobsMCM for Kevin Scarce (Attorney General’s Department tender AGD 027852).
These plans were then promoted by Kevin Scarce and associates.
Brett Stokes-Submission on “community consultation” and the illegality of the campaign for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia
Why has this submission not been published on Senate website?
From: Brett Stokes Sent: Sunday, 18 February 2018 To: Senate Standing Committees on Economics Subject: Submission on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia
Terms of Reference addressed:
e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring;
======================================
Dear Committee Members
I am one of hundreds of South Australians who have signed the following Online Open Letter calling for police action against illegal threats to import nuclear waste and to establish nuclear waste dump(s).
Please take note of this community rejection of nuclear waste importation into South Australia.
Please take note of this community support for the laws which prohibit nuclear waste importation into South Australia. Please cease this process which threatens present and future South Australians and shows contempt towards South Australian law.
Best wishes
from Brett Stokes
Dear Commissioner of Police,
We are citizens of Australia who want action taken to enforce the law, including the South Australian Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (abbreviated herein as the NWSF(P) Act 2000).
We are sick and tired of being threatened with illegal importation of nuclear waste.
We are sick and tired of public money being spent illegally to plan and promote illegal importation of nuclear waste.
We want action now to stop current threats of illegal importation of nuclear waste. We want action now to deter future threats of illegal importation of nuclear waste.
It is clear that the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 has been breached.
During 2015 and 2016, s13 has been breached by spending of public money on many promotional and planning aspects of illegal nuclear waste importation, as briefly described in Appendix A.
Since early 2016, there has been an open conspiracy to breach s8 and s9, with planning and promotion of importation and storage of nuclear waste into South Australia, as briefly described in Appendix B.
There are ten year imprisonment penalties and multi million dollar fines for offences – these are very serious penalties, in accord with the gravity of the threat.
As well as these offences against the NWSF(P) Act 2000, there are also other offences, including fraud, which may become more apparent as your investigation proceeds.
Please act now to enforce the law.
Please act now to end this illegal threat.
Please act now to “protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live”. (Quote from s3 Objects of Act of the NWSF(P) Act 2000)
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Signed (Name and Postcode) Continue reading
Geologists warn that the Barndioota region is a dangerous site for nuclear waste dumping
Barb Walker to Quorn – Out & About Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA
From: Professor Chris von der Borch
For distribution: The Advertiser, The Transcontinental, The Town Crier, Quorn Out and About, The Mercury and Get About – Hawker.
Received: Sunday, June 24th 2018
Subject: Proposed nuclear waste dump near Hawker.
“A site on the western slopes of the Flinders Range west of Hawker is one of the key areas currently under consideration for storage of low level, and the much more dangerous intermediate level, nuclear waste. A number of distinguished geological colleagues and myself, who collectively share many decades of geological research in the proposed area, are very concerned that the one of the suggested storage sites, in the Barndioota region, ticks “all the wrong boxes” as a fail-safe option.
Such nuclear waste, which would have a radioactive half-life of tens of thousands of years, needs a careful consideration of the geological parameters of a proposed responsible storage site, rather than what appears to be “political expediency”! And the site under consideration would certainly not satisfy these geological considerations.
It lies in one of the most seismically active regions of Australia. It lies in a zone which is subject to catastrophic flash-flooding and mudflow activity. The area is adjacent to a major saline lake, Lake Torrens, which is a “terminal drainage area”, meaning that all surface and underground run-off from the ranges ends up in the periodically drying surface lake sediments. So the bottom line is that, were such a storage site were to break down within the next several thousand years, radioactive material would end up in the surface sediments of Lake Torrens. Dry desert winds would then have the potential to disperse radioactive dust over large areas which may well be occupied by humans in the future.” https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Fight%20To%20Stop%20Nuclear%20Waste%20Dump%20In%20Flinders%20Ranges%20SA
Regina McKenzie’s detailed letters to Minister Matt Canavan ask the hard questions about the proposed Barndioota nuclear waste dump
- The Commonwealth Government commitment to not harm Aboriginal cultural heritage has failed and requires urgent reparation/damage assessment.
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 