Sign the open letter to Keith Pitt: Be responsible about radioactive waste, keep our communties safe!

This is an unnecessary, short sighted and unlawful project which should not go ahead. NSW had facilities to deal with their nuclear waste so let it stay there. who wants to live in the nuclear waste state? Don’t think that will be on a number plate any time soon.

Ban nuclear weapons and nuclear power

The selection process has not been fair for us

If you hypocrites don’t like a safe Engineering design of a DGR; then sigma legal document that you will never undergo cancer treatment from the Technicium-99 generators in hospitals.

Ignorant green fools

A handful of politicians and their mates are forcing this nuclear dump onto Kimba and our state. ANSTO doesn’t need to make this waste. It is trying to export isotopes to the world market and make South Australia take all the waste from these exports. Cyclotrons could make these isotopes with much less waste. ANSTO shut down our National cyclotron that used to produce Iodine123, and now we have to import that from Japan at huge costs. COVID has shown a network of Australia wide cyclotrons would produce much less wastes and be much more reliable and cheaper

We live 27kms from this proposed site and say NO. I wasn’t allowed to vote, the whole system has been unfair.

Not on farming land! Not where there is so much devision in the community and not with such little information. We don’t know how it will be moved or which towns it will effect. NO

Nuclear waste should be the responsibility of the uranium miner.
In South Australia, it should be BHP. Why export or sell uranium ore or yellow cake without having a solution to legacy waste. This stuff has consequences. We are not baking cakes!
If uranium were any other ingredient, it would be removed from the market.
It is pointless telling all that South Australia has 500 years of uranium left, to extract. No one will want it in the future. And why create more legacy nuclear waste? Without a solution or input into disposal?
This stuff has now has come back to bite. BHP, allowed by government, in my opinion, has taken a historical stance, of saying NO, to anything to do with nuclear waste disposal, as it does not fit in with their vision, even when asked by the Rann Government in SA during it’s first term in office. And asked again, in 2016, on research.
No new uranium mine in Australia in 2020 should be approved without within its design, capacity to retake nuclear waste as a responsible cradle to grave disposal.
Why pollute the planet with this ingredient, having consequences.
Mining companies like BHP should be responsible for the ingredient they sell with the approval of the Australian Federal and State Governments. I do not see them putting their hands up to help solve a problem created by them.
We need a solution, not a site for nuclear waste. Another site could be Ranger Uranium mine, in the Northern Territory as well as Olympic Dams. These holes could be filled progressively with nuclear waste as part of customer paid for rehabilitation. The townships are there and the infrastructure.
Government is showing us they will push on with a nuclear waste site, rather than a solution. EVEN IF THE DECISION WAS WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE. What exactly has everyone voted for? or was this just a PR exercise? Were all the questions answered inclusive of the design specifications, and environmental impact statements. After all, this is just like a new mine approval. You are placing a reverse uranium mine in the vicinity of citizens.
And no one will stop this, even if the initial decision was wrong.
Indigenous Australians have suffered enough, Politicians do not have to live with a nuclear waste dump in their back yard.
I remind all. A nuclear waste dump is just a ‘reverse uranium mine’. And everyone should see it this way.
Uranium miners are getting away with it, and protected by government in my view.
Place nuclear waste in the hole of where it came. This way no new environment or farm will be harmed by the process. We are one of the few countries exporting uranium ore. Overseas, some are exploring nuclear waste recycling as a market.
We may not need to export uranium ore in the future or approve new mines.
Uranium mines are tailored to their tailings dam, when this is full, project is over. Extending dams past their use by date have been shown to have consequences.
No one talks of the hundreds of birds that die when using these toxic, never to be rehabilitated tailings dams as wetlands. And how many will we have, without any plans, other than on paper for rehabilitation..
The deciders, have made their decision for a nuclear waste dump on a farm, that will domino onto the next. The consequences are many. All will leave town, and not one will be a politician.
No options were allowed in the initial discussion for a nuclear waste disposal solution, Australian having had more than 40 years to do so.
A farm is not it,
The solution is a current uranium mine void.
We have one in South Australia.
Ask the mining company, again!
The worst outcome, is they could say No.
At this point, we should ban uranium exports.
Permanently. We also need to know what our uranium ore is really being used for, at a time of countries building more nuclear powered weapons, whilst threatening others.
How ironic, if we were to be struck by a nuclear missile powered by our uranium ore, and made from our iron ore in the future!
URANIUM MINERS ARE MAKING OTHERS DO THE DIRTY WORK FOR THEM!
It is time to ban uranium exports.

Wenjie Yuan

I beg and pray the government industries be sensible and just choose 100% safe options when developing, it is worth it if they were young surely they would want more of a guarantee of a long healthy life as well!

Jeff Telfer

This facility would violate South Australia’s NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITY (PROHIBITION) ACT 2000, an act which prohibits the establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in South Australia; and for other purposes.
South Australians rejected Jay Wetherill’s proposed nuclear waste storage facility in 2016.
I am very much opposed to continued actions which disrespect indigenous people by disregarding and riding roughshod over their very valid concerns. Countless environmental disasters could have been avoided if their wisdom had not been ignored.
There is NOT ‘nothing’ at Kimba. Such a facility would majorly endanger the local agricultural industry which contributes to South Australia’s exports.
Local ‘consultation’ deliberately excluded the indigenous people to whom the land belongs. It also failed to include the rest of South Australia as well as regional communities in New South Wales through which truckloads of this waste would have to travel. Considering the high number of road accidents involving trucks and road transports occurring on Australian roads every year the potential for disaster is inevitable.
It is horrifyingly irresponsible to carelessly shuffle dangerous waste around, endangering large areas of agricultural land, regional residences and precious groundwater.

Why is there a policy change to relocate storage of nuclear waste away from their current purpose built storage facilities at Lucas Heights to Kimba in SA which will be done by road transport, which puts the process at risk.
What’s in it for SA and who made the decision.
What recourse do the local Traditional owners have after 65,000 years?
Out of sight – out of mind……
I smell a rat !

Why interfere with an arrangement already in place to store the waste?
The present facility is not under pressure to find a new site.
There is no long term safe alternative being considered, so what is driving the rush to shift the nuclear waste. Trucking it for long distances across the country is potentially dangerous.
why has there been no consultation or explanation for the indigenous communities on whose land the waste will be dumped? This is a disrespectful and arrogant abuse of power. on top of that the government is moving to legislate against any claims arising from this waste transfer and dump.