South Australian govt ‘disappears’ Submissions from its Nuclear Royal Commission website

The very short time allowed for people to submit for the draft Terms of Reference nevertheless was enough for over 1000 submissions to be sent – the overwhelming majority raising issues that I bet the

nuclear lobby would not want raised.  No surprise then that the promised web page of all these submissions just vanished within  a day or two.

However, here below is  a sample of some of these excellent submissions. It is from  DR. PETER BURDON ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ALEXANDER REILLY MR. PAUL LEADBETER of the University of Adelaide

 

To Whom It May Concern, RE: Royal Commission – Our role in nuclear energy

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the terms of reference for the Royal Commission into South Australia’s nuclear industry potential. We note the short window for submissions, but hope that we have the opportunity to contribute to the broader consultation between 23 February – 13 March.

While it is not part of the terms of reference, we think it is important that at least one-third of the appointed independent experts have demonstrated outstanding service, concern, and public interest in environmental policy. Moreover, given the likely impacts of any proposed expansion on aboriginal communities, we think that an additional two experts should be of Aboriginal descent.

  • With regard to the terms of reference, we contend that the commission should be charged to investigate in detail: 
  • The environmental legacy of the uranium industry in South Australia; 
  • All questions of safety of humans and the natural environment related to proposals to develop nuclear power in South Australia; 
  • The required regulatory framework to safeguard the environment and Indigenous interests in the areas affected by the development of a nuclear industry; 
  • All questions of safety of humans and the natural environment related to proposals to store radioactive waste in South Australia, including risks of transportation and how the technical integrity of the facility could be ensured over the period of radioactive decay of the wastes; 
  • The technical, engineering and construction requirements of the facility itself to protect against leakage of radioactive material to the surface, into the atmosphere and into groundwater;
  • The impact of nuclear waste storage on Indigenous communities; 
  • Any conflict that might arise within local communities during consideration of the proposal and subsequently affected by the construction and operation of the facility;
  • The reputational risks associated with proposals for South Australia to host an international repository for high-level nuclear waste; 
  • The impact of nuclear power on South Australia’s carbon reduction targets, including the carbon dioxide emissions which would result from construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power facilities; 
  • Impact of nuclear facilities on the insurance industry; 
  • The economic implications of proposals for uranium enrichment in South Australia, including realistic assessment of the scale of public subsidies that would be needed to establish and operate the industry; 
  • The workforce implications of creating a nuclear industry in terms of predicted labour force participation in the industry, the types and sustainability of the jobs created; 
  • The political security/policing arrangements that would need to be applied within Australia as a consequence of the construction and operation of a facility and what ,if any, implications they would have for freedom of speech and freedom of association for Australians; 
  • The impact of nuclear energy development on alternative energy sources and energy consumption patterns;; 
  • The measures necessary to ensure Australia has secure and environmentally sustainable energy supplies in the future; and 
  • The relationship of the uranium and nuclear industry to the stated goal of Ecologically Sustainable Development. Yours faithfully, DR. PETER BURDON ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ALEXANDER REILLY MR. PAUL LEADBETER
Advertisements

3 Responses to “South Australian govt ‘disappears’ Submissions from its Nuclear Royal Commission website”

  1. brettbstokes Says:

    and here is my communication to the Scarn re the terms of reference

    NOTE:
    Scarn – Sounds like ScareCon without the “Co”
    SCARN (pronounced s-k-air-n) a convenient abbreviation for the Scarce Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
    also a second meaning:
    “a scarn” is a government funded exercise using judicial processes for marketing with malicious intent

    MY SUGGESTIONS TO THE SCARN:

    to submissions@agd.sa.gov.au

    re Nuclear Royal Commission – suggestions for the Terms of Reference

    16 Feb 2015 by Brett Burnard Stokes

    I suggest that the Commission investigate the following propositions:

    Proposition A
    That the Commission has come about because of a complex ongoing fraud, with

    1- false pretences including:
    (a) false statements used in promotion of uranium mining
    (b) false statements used in promotion of nuclear power
    (c) false statements issued with the authority of Adelaide University
    (d) false statements issued with the authority of the Government of South Australia

    2- financial aspects including:
    (a) theft from future generations
    (b) spending of money by Government of South Australia
    (c) collection of “crowd funding” by Ben Heard
    (d) manipulation of share prices in BHP Billiton and other uranium miners
    (e) benefits to BHP Billiton and other uranium miners
    (f) benefits to Adelaide University
    (g) benefits to individuals including Barry Brook, Corey Bradshaw and Ben Heard.
    (h) liability for harms caused by radioactive poisons
    (i) liability for harms caused by false assurances of safety

    3- associated malfeasance including:
    (a) manufacture of radioactive poisons
    (b) transport of radioactive poisons
    (c) administration of radioactive poisons to children
    (d) administration of radioactive poisons to pregnant women
    (e) administration of radioactive poisons to future generations
    (f) pollution of environment with radioactive poisons
    (g) false assurances of “nuclear safety”
    (h) false assurances of safety from exposure to radioactive poisons.

    Proposition B
    That the Commission has a duty to find that

    1- uranium mining is a crime against humanity.

    2- the South Australia government needs to wind down and stop uranium mining activities, for both moral and financial reasons.

    3- corrective actions (including criminal proceedings) need be instituted.

    4- radioactive poisons are a real threat to life, human and dolphins especially – our young, our unborn, are particularly vulnerable to radioactive poisons.

    5- the Royal Commission on Nuclear needs to be wound up and replaced by a Royal Commission Into Cetacean Deaths, to include Port River Dolphins and Sperm Whales and all the recent cetacean deaths in South Australian waters.

    =======================================
    =======================================
    Supporting documents:
    Notice of Demand to Cease Fraud 12/12/12 (see below, Attachment I)
    Open Letter to Chris Daniels 23/12/14 (see below, Attachment II)
    Notes re Core Lies by Nuclear Advocacy Fraudsters 13/2/15 (see below, Attachment III)

    =======================================
    =======================================
    Attachment I

    Notice of Demand to Cease Fraud 12/12/12 at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=497582423606035&set=a.497576736939937.113968.100000628465779&type=3&theater
    (text follows)

    Notice of Demand to Cease Fraud 12/12/12 – worded as follows –

    Notice of Demand to Cease Fraud

    to: The University of Adelaide
    for the Urgent Attention of the Vice-Chancellor

    At 8am on 6th December 2012, a false statement was published on the “The Environment Institute” FaceBook page operated by The University of Adelaide.

    This is a notice of demand for urgent corrective action.

    The false statement “nuclear power, a zero-carbon generation source” was made in a public post which contained a hyperlink to a fund-raising web site soliciting funds for one Ben Heard to support Heard’s active advocacy of nuclear power in partnership with Barry Brook.

    The University of Adelaide has ignored prompt and persistent demands for immediate retraction or qualification of the false statement.

    The false statement remains, as at 8am on 12th December 2012, on the “The Environment Institute” FaceBook page operated by The University of Adelaide.

    So it has now been six days that this false statement has been published by the University.

    And it has now been six days that I have been requesting immediate retraction or qualification of this false statement which is, in conjunction with soliciting of funds, a fraud.

    This is unacceptable behaviour by The University of Adelaide.

    I demand that the persons responsible be identified and dismissed.

    I demand that the false statement be retracted and repudiated by The University of Adelaide.

    The longer the University waits before acting, the worse the offence by the University.

    The University will need to go further and will need to look into the circumstances where this fraud has been allowed to occur.

    I am energised by my experience and knowledge, as a scientist with wide experience in diverse fields.

    I am motivated by a sense of deep personal loss, with my twin grandsons dying unborn three weeks after I first challenged Brook over his ludicrous statements during March 2011 – as I have said before, if, instead of false re-assurances, Brook and co had issued appropriate warnings (“Do not eat fresh green vegetables, do not drink fresh milk, especially if you are pregnant” … ) then maybe my twin grandsons would be alive and well today.

    I am also motivated by a sense of duty, to all our children.

    As a graduate of The University of Adelaide, I am diminished by this fraud.

    As a human being and a parent and a grandparent, I am threatened by this fraud.

    Notice issued December 12th 2012
    reference Notice121212
    by Brett Burnard Stokes phone 0438 814 302

    (end Attachment I)

    =======================================
    =======================================

    Attachment II
    Open Letter to Chris Daniels 23/12/14 :

    an open letter to Chris Daniels from Brett Stokes 23rd December 2014

    Chris – I love your book about magpies. I have heard you speak well, live and on the radio. But now I find your name attached to a recent article by Barry Brook, the infamous nuclear advocacy fraudster who disgraced Adelaide University and Australia with his ludicrous predictions during March 2011.

    Please consider making a clear public renunciation of Brook and his pro nuclear mendacity.

    You bring discredit and shame upon yourself, if you maintain support for the lies that Brook promotes: the lie that nuclear is low carbon, the lie that nuclear is affordable, the lie that radioactive poisons are safe, the lie that there is an actual real solution to the problem of nuclear waste, the lie that nuclear is “24/7”, the lie that renewables are somehow unable to meet our needs, the lie that disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima are acceptable, the lie that nuclear proliferation is okay.

    I wish you well and I ask you to read the following which I wrote recently:

    The Long Shadow.

    In just three months, it will be four years since the start of the 311 tragedy, four years since the sad deaths of my twin grandsons who were in utero in Sweden when the fallout hit and expecting mothers were given no warning.

    The long shadow of those events is again brightened by the birth today of my grand daughter, a sister for my two year old grandson.

    The long shadow of the tragic loss of my grandsons – my world has been transformed as I deal with the corruption and complexities of radioactive poisons politics.

    Today, while my daughter in law was busy giving birth in Dubai, I visited the tranquil Himeji Gardens in Adelaide – I love the Japanese culture of nature and peace.

    The long shadow of the explosive meltdowns at Fukushima in March 2011, clearly the source of the radioactive poisons that killed my grandsons, driving me to confront and challenge the corrupt.

    The long shadow of the atomic bomb mushroom clouds and the fallout that filled the world when I was a child, still poisoning and threatening all of us and our children.

    In these years of Fukushima fallout and increasing resistance to planet raping child murdering business as usual, hope comes from the many initiatives that clarify the call to action.

    DeNuclearise or we are doomed.

    Stop poisoning the precious air and water of our planet, the life support system for us and our children.

    The long shadow of extinction of the human species – see the shadow, do not look away, please.

    ======================================================
    to Professor Chris B. Daniels, Director, Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia, Australia. chris.daniels@unisa.edu.au

    (end Attachment II)

    =======================================
    =======================================

    Attachment III

    Notes re Core Lies by Nuclear Advocacy Fraudsters 13/2/15

    Work In Progress …
    1 the lie that nuclear is low carbon,
    2 the lie that nuclear is affordable,
    3 the lie that radioactive poisons are safe,
    4 the lie that there is an actual real solution to the problem of nuclear waste,
    5 the lie that nuclear is “24/7”,
    6 the lie that renewables are somehow unable to meet our needs,
    7 the lie that disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima are acceptable,
    8 the lie that nuclear proliferation is okay.
    =====

    1 the lie that nuclear is low carbon,

    1A- The carbon footprint of severe failure is huge – and the risks are very real. There is a history of at least 5 severe failures in approximately 500 reactors. We have the ongoing Fukushima tragedy, the Chernobyl disaster, the Monju fiasco, and many more such.

    1B- The carbon footprint of construction is huge – and the time to build is many years. There is a history of cost and time blow outs.

    1C- The carbon footprint of normal operation is huge – the fuel needs be mined and transported and enriched and fabricated and carefully handled at all times.

    1D- The carbon footprint of de-construction (de-commissioning) is huge – more highly radioactive waste is produced which requires isolation and protection for many generations.
    The only approach so far is to create sacrifice zones.
    =====

    2 the lie that nuclear is affordable:

    2A- The dollar cost of severe failure is huge – and the risks are very real.
    No insurance is available, operators have limited liability.
    There is a history of at least 5 severe failures in approximately 500 reactors.
    The law suit with sailors of USS Ronald Reagan versus TEPCO may lead to other such actions including against enablers and suppliers.

    2B- The dollar cost of construction is huge – and the time to build is many years. There is a history of cost and time blow outs.

    2C- The social and dollar cost of normal operation is huge – highly radioactive waste is produced which requires isolation and protection for many generations, plus thermal pollution, plus water use, plus emission of radioactive poison gases which have been shown to cause childhood leukemia clusters, plus the site requires total protection from terrorist attack or bushfire or earthquake or flooding, plus the site becomes a significant military target in the event of hostilities in the region.
    Local health and property values are affected.

    2D- The cost of de-construction (de-commissioning) is huge – and is a money pit for future generations – more highly radioactive waste is produced which requires isolation and protection for many generations.
    The only approach so far is to create sacrifice zones.
    =====

    3 the lie that radioactive poisons are safe,

    3A- Biologist/chemist John Gofman made the Plutonium for the first bombs, then went on to describe the “hot particle problem” which is when we breathe or eat little bits of radioactive poison.

    3B- Alice M Stewart was responsible for restraint on use of Xrays, by proving that ionising rays harm the unborn and the young.

    3C- Nobel prize winning chemist Linus Pauling led the campaign against atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, emphasising the damage being done to children.

    3D- These three scientists gave clear warnings as to the health impact of radioactive poisons.

    3E- To ignore these warnings is a crime against future generations.

    =====

    4 the lie that there is an actual real solution to the problem of nuclear waste,

    4A- failures/fiascos

    =====
    5 the lie that nuclear is “24/7”,

    5A- Scheduled outages average two months, for refuelling and maintenance, every two years or more often.

    5B- Other outages occur in extreme weather (cold, hot, floods), just when the power is most needed.

    5C- Other outages occur due to unforeseen circumstances such as jellyfish blocking water flows.

    =====
    6 the lie that renewables are somehow unable to meet our needs,

    6A- Wind is the new base load, said RenewEconomy last year.

    =====

    7 the lie that disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima are acceptable,

    8 the lie that nuclear proliferation is okay.

    (end Attachment III)
    =======================================
    =======================================

    Best wishes
    from
    Brett Stokes

    • Christina MacPherson Says:

      Thank you, Brett
      A great submission.

      Of course, the Royal Commission, (in its ?wisdom) will not publish your submission – or indeed pay any attention to it. But they won’t pay any attention to Dr Caldicott’s either.
      Or mine, or probably anybody’s except AREVA’s EDF’s NuScale’s, Terrestrial Energy’s, GE Hitachi’s, Terra Power’s Cameco’s, SNC Lavalin’s – etc. And those companies don’t have to have their submissions published. So we’ll probably never know.

      Anyway, I’d like to put up your Submission as a post – but do this a little later. People have enough to digest at the moment.

      I can envisage Kevin Scarce baling out of this thing, if it gets too hard – he’s one that would always have his eye on the main chance (for Kevin Scarce, that is)

  2. brettbstokes Says:

    All good, thanks.

    I recently posted on Facebook as follows:

    26 June at 22:49 ·

    Fully out of the closet now, radophile Scarce is clearly on a mission to Manage The Media to get a Social Licence for radioactive poisons activities.

    Who will not condemn Scarce for his attempts to promote the lies that are used as alibis to authorise the sacrifice of our children?

    ===================

    I also asked Scarce the following at Adelaide Uni session 22 May :

    I acknowledge the Kaurna people.

    Thanks for the chance to speak here at the Uni where I did genetics and chemistry and physics and post grad maths many years ago, where I was employed on early emotion research and where I collaborated on national climate data projects.

    Today I have questions, directed at civil action costs issues.
    I have an easy question and a hard question.
    And more hard ones later if you want.

    The easy question is – as a Navy person, what is your view about the case where sailors of the USS Ronald Reagan are suing TEPCO for a billion dollars or more.

    Sick sailors, formerly healthy young men and women who four years ago were exposed to radioactive poisons because of lies told by TEPCO.

    The hard question – as a person who has connections with Adelaide Uni, you may already be aware of the future cases where radioactive poisons victims will be suing TEPCO and also suing enablers of TEPCO, such as Adelaide Uni and BHP Billiton and the South Australian Government.

    In particular I say that there will be legal actions, by plaintiffs such as myself, against Adelaide University, for telling lies and failing to warn about radioactive poisons being administered to pregnant women, without their knowledge or consent, including my daughter in law whose twin sons died in utero April 2011.

    I predict that this tsunami of legal actions will bankrupt TEPCO, Japan, BHP Billiton and Adelaide University.

    Will you take account of this scenario in your “sensitivity analysis” and “mathematical modelling”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: