Shortcomings of #NuclearCommissionSAust will be its undoing

CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING ENERGY UNION  excerpt…

Submission Impossible”The fact that the Commission has made the process of making a submission so complex and
bureaucratic, indicates that the views that they consider relevant are extremely limited. For example Aboriginal representatives, who have stated that the difficulty in translating the papers alone is going to prevent many of their communities from participating in this process at all.
In addition, each and every question posed in the Issues Papers is fundamentally biased in favour of what the government is proposing. Not only that, but parties wishing to make a submission are limited to the questions given – and if any further comment is to be made, it is only allowed to be annexed to answers to the questions. It must also be noted that most (if not all) of the questions posed in these Papers have already been answered in various research papers, submissions and inquiries into these issues over the last decade or so…..
 URANIUM FREE NSW   ISSUES PAPER ONE: EXPLORATION, EXTRACTION AND MILLINGThe first 6 questions seemed to be aimed at industry to easily to enable their argument for expansion. They are akin to the Royal Commission/Government asking “how can we facilitate the expansion of the industry?” UFNSW is opposed to the expansion or the nuclear industry in SA or anywhere, hence has not answered these questions………
1.13 Would an increase in extraction activities give rise to negative impacts on other sectors of the economy? Have such impacts been demonstrated elsewhere in Australia or in other economies similar to Australia?
• It would undoubtedly have a negative impact on tourism.
• It would mitigate against the movement of families/residents choosing to stay or move into the area…….
highly-recommendedAPPENDIX ISSUES
  • Only deals with economic viability, but even then ignore issues of reparations, compensation, or insurance costs in the event of exposure, spills, accidents, or even routine emissions.
  •  The paper quotes the International Energy Agency (IEA) as saying that the expansion of the nuclear industry “depends on listening to, and addressing public concerns, about the technology.”
  • Doesn’t address fundamental question of should uranium be mined at all. The entire process is underpinned by an assumption that uranium mining is good and looks at the supposed best ways to go about it.
  •  Nothing regarding keeping profits in Australia
  • Environmental impacts are minimised to native vegetation, water is not separate. Scope very narrow • Minimisation of environmental impacts is not a good enough aim given time of radioactivity, it is unmanageable and difficult or impossible to remediate or rehabilitate sufficiently • This Issues Paper does not provide information regarding direct or indirect Government funding of the nuclear industry, in the past, present or potential future.
  • No mention made of the social or environmental costs of Radium Hill, Roxby Downs, Honeymoon, Beverley and Four Mile. Traded price of uranium is provided in a graph, but not costs
  • Paper states that international demand for uranium is primarily driven by its use in electricity generation, however it is undoubtedly influenced by the supply and demand for uranium to be used in weapons. Market is influenced by uranium from dismantled nuclear weapons is released onto the uranium market, which is presumably harder to predict
  • The issues papers seem to ignore the impacts of radiation on health • No mention of ionising radiation
  •  The issues papers questions ask about economic and some environmental impact, but completely ignore any cultural or social impacts • No mention on the length of time materials are radioactive and need to be managed for
  •  Seems to treat uranium like coal or iron, materials that have far lesser risks  The questions seem to be written in such a way as to set up opposition to nuclear expansion as emotional and hence discredit it.
Advertisements

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: