I support both a high level nuclear repository, as well as using nuclear power in Australia.

The benefits are too good to ignore (ie. lower cost of energy, income for SA and Aust, clean energy, help unemployment rate and general economy, etc).

Nuclear energy is a devil in disguise. We all know that - we have seen the devastating effect on human beings, animals and the environment. Tchernobyl, Harrisburg and Fukushima. Just horrible. I believe politicians are being bribed from the nuclear sector as was Anna Bligh ( Queensland Premier ) from the fluoride companies. Other countries distancing themselves from nuclear energy and we don't have to try it.
Even if Australia has lots of Uranium etc. the Royal Commission want's to make Australia the nuclear rubbish bin of the world. It is practical: if something goes wrong in Australia every body is far away. As far as I am informed the nuclear waste is supposed to be stored on ground level.
This is very practical in case of a terrorist attack, they only have to throw a conventional bomb in this storage facility and they have created a huge dirty bomb. This scenario will make "On the beach" (Nevil Shute) Death in PARADISE in comparison. If there is a war (we are building lots of Submarines) the hostile nation will certainly send their Cruise Missiles exactly at this point: one hit and the war is won and over. To protect this are (with probably little success) will make the storage extremely expensive, e.g. there is no money in this scam!!!

Over two hundred billion dollars is a lot of money. South Australia has always been 'the bankrupt state', the poor cousin of the larger states in the east and west. It would be foolish to decline an opportunity to make very good money - to benefit all South Australians - out of our enormous backyard.

That backyard is a vast, geologically-stable, virtually uninhabited desert. The crust of the Roxby Downs area has not moved for five hundred million years. Despite South Australia suffering from earthquakes, these are 'small potatoes' compared to those in (for instance) the United States where nuclear waste is right now. It should be noted that much intermediate-to-high-level nuclear waste is currently stored in open-topped water pools inside nuclear power plants across the US and other countries. You don't hear complaints from suburban residents who live two kilometres away from these facilities. We have much more empty space ready for storing nuclear waste than most other countries. The word 'desert' means 'deserted'.

Drums to store and transport high-level waste have been developed for decades. They have been smashed by heavy freight trains during tests without leaking. Any nuclear waste tomb in South Australia would be rigorously designed and involve burying the waste very deep underground, far from any town or water table. The risk of any leak is astronomically small. Human beings tend to fear grave-sounding events - the more frightening something is, the more likely it seems. It is a well-known psychological illusion. For example, you should be much more scared of the taxi ride to the airport than the flight itself, because a car crash is less scary but infinitely more likely than a plane crash.

I highly doubt having a nuclear waste dump in the remote interior of South Australia will damage our reputation as a clean food and wine region. This state is the size of several European countries. Besides, I don't see the food and wine industry currently setting the economic house on fire and making us a rich state.

The risk is tiny, the financial benefit is simply enormous, and we should start carefully planning so that we can build a facility and set the market price. People say 'money isn't everything'. Yet I would rather live in a state with a very beneficial long-term wealth fund, paying for hospitals and roads and the like, than a state whose empty desert is pristine. Money is useful. An unexploited desert is not.

This Royal Commission was driven by desperation and a need for jobs - at any price. Yes, SA is desperate for jobs, but not jobs associated with the nuclear industry. SA should always remain nuclear free and we should not store the worlds nuclear waste. To create jobs, the State Government should focus on developing the renewable energy industry across the state. There are new renewable technologies emerging all the time, and SA is well placed to take advantage of it - if only we had the vision and leadership.

Responses from girls in a Year 9 Science Class at Kildare College after research, experimental work and discussion around this topic.
For
I am for the radiation dump for the following reasons:
It will create many jobs for South Australians, it provides the world with somewhere to keep their radiation waste and will bring millions of dollars to our state. In my lessons I have learnt that we can store radiation safely in a variety of containers including lead pots and if we bury the pots underground as SA is stable in terms of geology, the pots are unlikely to be cracked by earthquakes or swamped by tidal waves. If we do have the dump we would need to do regular testing for alpha, beta and gamma radiation as radiation is invisible. The workers would also need to wear protective clothing and devices for determining if they were exposed to radiation. Having a waste dump for radiation is not the same as running a nuclear power plant so I don’t think people should be afraid of accidents like those that happened at Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Against
After thorough research we have decided that we are against the construction of a radiation dump that will be situated in South Australia. We have many questions concerning the safety of this dump, not only will the people living nearby be affected if a leakage occurs but also the workers. The waste is also to be stored above ground while the dump is being constructed which is basically asking for all sorts of problems e.g. leaking into the water and soil. If this is to get out it can cause all sorts of injuries to the human body e.g. cancer and tissue damage. Aboriginal people have a strong relationship with the land and so we consider it is very disrespectful to the aboriginals that live on this land if we build a dump without consulting them.
Also if you are exposed to the radiation you wouldn’t know because it’s invisible, if you wanted to know if you were exposed you would need a Geiger counter. We feel as if the South Australian government are only taking into consideration the fact that they will be receiving a large sum of money and a couple thousand jobs will be created. The South Australian government really need to think about what this could do to affect our future.

I think having a radiation dump is a bad idea for the following reasons, first of all the radiation cylinders could build up heat and pressure and leak, this leakage could be very toxic and contaminate soil and the water and this could contaminate crops which will be dangerous for us and animals. Radiation is invisible so there is no way of knowing if it has leaked, and it can take years for symptoms of radiation poisoning to show up. Bushfires could also be a problem in the outback, burning down the storage facility. While SA is pretty stable geologically, there is still a small chance of earthquakes. People could argue that creating a nuclear waste dump would also make Australia a target for those wanting to access nuclear weapons, but this is probably unlikely. Finally, we are concerned with the storage material; what happens if a metal that we think is safe, slowly decays from the radiation? over time this structure could become less safe.

I strongly believe South Australia should not have a radiation dump. Radiation is scientifically proven to be dangerous to the human body and causes cancer if ingested; this is a major risk to human lives. It may also be a risk to animals and plants in the area of the dump. Radiation is invisible so you would not know you’re exposed to it unless you have a Geiger counter. If the radiation is carried away from the site through ground water…. How would we know? The world has not had a very good history with nuclear radiation for example the disasters of Fukushima and Chernobyl where radiation was released, forcing people to leave their homes. If that happened here people wouldn’t be able to return to their homes for a long time due to the long half-life of many of the types of radiation. Even though a radiation dump would make lots of money and provide lots of jobs it isn’t worth risking South Australians lives. We believe that the radiation dump should not be held in Australia because it’s very dangerous. Radiation is invisible; therefore you will never know if you’ve been exposed unless you carry a Geiger counter or another radiation measuring device around. Radiation affects the animals and plants in their environment. If ingested, radiation can be harmful and cause fatality further on in life. The place in the Flinders Rangers, where the government have selected to build the nuclear waste dump, is only 3-4 hours away from the great artesian basin. The basin just happens to be the largest and deepest artesian basin in the world. Not only has the decision been made to put it near the only reliable source of fresh water for inland Australia but also seismic activity over the last 8 years has been increasing through the Flinders Ranges. If an earthquake were to disturb the dump there is a possibility that the radiation will leak into the soil and groundwater. We are worried that like Chernobyl and Fukushima our environment one day, may be un-inhabitable due to high radiation levels.
After researching as a class, our group has decided against the radiation dump. Our research showed that radiation is extremely dangerous and that radiation can cause cancer which may not be detected for many decades. If exposed to high levels of radiation for even a short period of time, it can cause sickness and death. Storing the toxic waste above ground before the storage facility has finished being built will be a dangerous thing and poses a risk to those in the area. Something could go wrong with this temporary storage plan, there could be a leakage which exposes the air around to radiation as well as the plants and animals. Another problem with the dump in general, is that if it were to seep into the ground it may find its way into the food chain and our water which can cause widespread sickness. This argument is also not helped by the fact that radiation is invisible unless a Geiger counter is present.
We believe that this dump is not a good idea as we are concerned for the people who will be working at the dump and those in the surrounding area as well as the health of our environment if any problems were to occur.
Unsure
Having a radiation dump in South Australia is a debatable subject. The radiation dump will provide an opportunity for thousands of people in terms of jobs. We have scientific means for safe storage radiation i.e. lead containers so if the radiation was kept in a lead based shelter we would be prevented from exposure. Over 3000 jobs will be lost in SA due to the closure of Holden and other manufacturers shutting down; having this dump will provide 5000 jobs for this and the next generation. Having this dump will also allow the government to earn 6 billion dollars per year which will provide money for other things such as education and improved health.
We are concerned, however, about the safety of the workers. Exposure to radiation can cause cancer and long-term illness. Specific types of radiation can interact with cells in the body and make them non-functional or destroy them completely. This is why the workers at a radiation dump would be at risk, no matter what type of radiation they were exposed to, as all types of ionising radiation are dangerous.
We also have concerns about the radiation penetrating our groundwater. Radiation could be filtered through the water we drink, which would spread illness and expose us to the radiation. It is dangerous because we cannot see it. We do not know if we are being exposed to it because it is invisible. Initially, the waste in the dump would be stored above the ground, which would spread radiation through the atmosphere.

One in the same. If you have nuclear power then you have nuclear waste. The problem I see with society as a whole is that people want to distance themselves from the truth so they dont have to think. If we look at history and see that it does repeat. Those who say that a nuclear waste dump is going to be safe and secure, have lost touch with reality.

I want south Australia to play no part in the nuclear industry. It is not environmentally friendly and I will not live in a place with such a short sighted plan run by politicians who only care about money and getting re-elected. They DONT CARE AT ALL about the environment! Nuclear power is not the future and it needs to stop BEFORE huge environmental damage is done!

I think its time for governments to stop dilluding themselves over nuclear power. There are better alternatives for the sustainable future of power needs. We as a community just need to step into future. Everything these days is about money and power. When are people going to wake up and see what the human race is doing to the planet.

Understanding and balancing risks is very difficult - humans just aren't very good at "instinctively" recognizing risks, and relative risks. And that's when you have to rely on scientific and engineering analysis, and that's what you have experts for. One relies on their analysis, designs and yes, huge reports that explore the problem space in great detail. All of the objections raised in the forum have been addressed in the report (it's very well written), and they all boil down to "something might go wrong, and we don't trust experts to convince us otherwise". Those objecting I expect drive cars, many would drink alcohol, some would smoke, and a large proportion of the electricity used to write the posts come from fossil fuels generating CO2. All these are risks to your own health, and the health of others. In comparison, the additional risks from a nuclear repository are vanishingly small, even integrated over 200k years or more. The finances of the proposal seems to stack up, and Australian engineers and scientists are actually quite good at balancing risks, and coming up to safe, sustainable, solutions to problems. Australian regulatory oversight is also robust. We aren't exploding nuclear weapons, illegally experimenting with reactor stability on Soviet era hardware, or putting 1970s design reactors on fault lines next to tsunami prone oceans. A repository can be safely and profitably developed.
The community acceptance issue remains, and is important. I hope comments on this forum from those without a vested interest, but an appreciation of the technical issues, can reassure those with doubts that they can be managed safely.

It sounds like a great idea

This is a report prepared by one of the political family(Kevin Scarce), a report paid for by the government (hardly an independent report). SA is a state in crisis, jobs and financially and often in these circumstances "the experts" and "Power Brokers" make decisions based not on what is best but what will sustain their position, jobs and futures. SA cannot be allowed to become the dumping ground for the worlds nuclear waste - full stop! We already know there are issues with some of the uranium stored at Woomera(
traditional landowners indicate they are aware of that situation). Maralinga is another example of a nuclear wasteland where generations of people continue to suffer. I do not believe there is any safe long term solution for storing this waste and there would be issues transporting it through our contry towns. To consider dumping it in the Flinders Ranges - pristine environment, tourist meca, on a geological fault line would be a very big mistake. I DO NOT support any nuclear repository anywhere in SA. This is a mistake.

No its a bad idea.

It has been clear to me for some time that we should be good farmers of our resources and value add on site. We should not only store waste here, we should go further and enrich fuel rods and send them to the world. Take back the waste and control all steps in the nuclear fuel process. We would know what everyone has and control the world price. We would make GST revenue for the state at every step. We would then have more than enough money in the state government to pay for high level community services. Let's not fight it, embrace it, let us be OPEC nation of the future.

I personally believe it is absolutely, 100% the right thing for South Australia to pursue this option.

1) The waste has to go somewhere. It seems like given the requirements for a geologically stable and sparsely populated area in a politically stable country, there are vast tracts of South Australia that may very well be the absolute best possible place in the world for this waste to go.

2) Given that we were responsible for much of the Uranium being dug up and sold in the first place, we should accept that we have some responsibility to the world to help with the safe desposal of the waste.

3) This will be vastly profittable to the state and can absolutely be done without posing any risks to virtually anyone, provided utmost care is used and the most suitable, isolated location is chosen.

4) The Uranium already in the ground is radioactive anyway. We won't be making the place any more radioactive just by putting some waste here. It won't produce a meltdown or blow up or anything, that isn't actually possible. It won't have any effect on anything if you actually read up on how this waste dump will work.

South Australian residents should not pay the price of a greedy government interested in short term gains, 1000's of generations will have to live with this choice.

Nuclear fission is outdated technology. The most advanced countries in the world are phasing it out as an energy source. Japan would abandon nuclear if only they could afford to, but they are stuck with it, unfortunately. South Australia has far too many options in the areas of wind, solar and wave generation to even consider nuclear fission as an option for our electricity.

While I agree in principle that we could consider being home to a low/moderate waste dump, I wonder how the economics of such an arrangement will work. Will a country really pay us huge sums of money upfront to store their waste for thousands of years? Are we going to charge at the end of each year? If so, what happens when they stop paying? Will future generations be stuck with a load of waste and no income?

Michael Hornsey, could you please not cut and paste the same answer anywhere. It makes it look like you are just a government employee trying to shut down someone's opinion. You've had your say. If you have nothing original to add, please don't interfere with the integrity of this forum.

We should not burden future generations with a waste product, which will require ongoing spending for 300,000 years. No one has had to deal with this waste for even 200 years, so let's not take a quick buck for the present day and let our grandchildren suffer the consequences.
Our state is not the world's dump. We are not obligated to take it, because other countries use nuclear power. If they choose this form of energy they also have to have a plan to deal with the waste. Don't tell me we have a moral obligation. It's not true.
Furthermore our government can't successfully deal with trams, desalination plants or water mains. So they are in no shape to deal with radioactive materials. You can see the articles now "Truck misplaced in storage facility" etc. and the endless interviews with ministers who will assure us that "that shouldn't have happened" and that "questions will be asked", "victims will be compensated".
Yes, our homes are getting flooded, train lines can't be built properly, roads need to be done three times, but at least this incompetency does not put the whole state at risk.
Our state needs to stop looking for a quick fix that will make us an even bigger joke amongst the other states ("SA the world's nuclear toilet") and get some leadership which takes the potential of this great state and builds an economy which is productive, resilient and secures employment.
No nuclear dump ever, please.

NO nuclear!

I believe that as a major exporter of uranium, Australia should bear some responsibility for storing the waste. It's also the most seismically stable continent on Earth as well. SA may not be the right place for it, however - or at least not YET.
The Ranger mine in the Northern Territory is played out, there's no more useful ore there so the mine is disused. The site is already radioactive so the logical place for the first nuclear waste facility in Australia is to put it right back where it came from.
When SA's mines are finished, that's when to put the waste there.

I believe that as a major exporter of uranium, Australia should bear some responsibility for storing the waste. It's also the most seismically stable continent on Earth as well. SA may not be the right place for it, however - or at least not YET.
The Ranger mine in the Northern Territory is played out, there's no more useful ore there so the mine is disused. The site is already radioactive so the logical place for the first nuclear waste facility in Australia is to put it right back where it came from.
When SA's mines are finished, that's when to put the waste there.

My thought is this... Most people powering their computers, televisions right now are either unaware or oblivious to the fact that most of the power produced in Australia is done by burning fossil fuels of one form or another, with varying levels of air pollution produced as a result. We cannot see this pollution but it every person on the planet breathes it in, with varying degrees of health consequences or premature death. Instead of acknowledging the real health consequences of oil, gas, coal being burnt for power, people cling to the nuclear incidents as stand alone reasons to exclude any nuclear waste. The only byproducts produced from nuclear power plants are solid waste and steam. Solid waste can be managed effectively as opposed to air pollution caused by the fossil fuels, especially in a country like Australia which is stable politically & geographically. Many would argue that renewables are a solution to the worlds power needs but they simply cannot meet the demands of the energy rich world we live in.

No no no! Let's stop thinking about money and the economy and instead start thinking about the heath and wellbeing of our pristine country. We are one of the best countries in the world for solar power so why don't we invest in this instead? It isn't a light decision to make and no matter how safe they think it is currently why would we want to jeopardize what we have currently? If the basis of this is money then this government has its priorities all wrong.

I would really like to know what the REAL benefit is for accepting the rest of the worlds nuclear waste and why other countries are NOT so eager to keep it and accept more if its so attractive! Why do they not want the so called billions of dollars that a dump would make.
South australia has been, and will continue to be, the worlds dumping ground if we let it and I for one won't be here to see this happen. If approved I'll be on the first flight out of SA. I will not raise kids or invest in a timebomb waiting to explode. If it does though, gee i hope Jay Wheatherill is there to see it up close and personal since he is so eager to sell out his own state. Why?

Definitely not in favour of selling out my children's and grandchildrens future for thirty pieces of silver!
There are good reasons why the rest of the world will not accept this waste, and the government is putting us all at risk just to solve the financial problems that they have created.
There are no guarantees that this waste can safely be stored for such a long time and I am not prepared to put our state or country at risk.
Also I think that we would become a target for every ratbag terrorist out there.
I cannot fathom why any political would want this state to become the world's garbage dump.surely we deserve better than this.