Great news or too good to be true?
Forty five jobs have suddenly appeared. Triple.
Suddenly we are told the government has only now decided to put the intermediate level waste at the nuclear waste site, when clearly it was always there.
Low level waste does not need guards.
It is the long lived highly radioactive intermediate waste that the original security guards were guarding.
The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS) is very worried it will lose the vote.
Forty five jobs sounds great.
Understandably people will want to believe it’s true.
But DIIS have said so much that is untrue already- can you trust them?
Or ANSTO, the source of so much spin?
Do they think we have no memory?
Intermediate level waste, including from the nuclear reactor, has always been part of the deal.
Because it is highly toxic (over 90 per cent of the radioactivity, needing to be kept safe for 10,000-100,000 years) they have always played it down.
DIIS has actively sold the whole dump concept with displays of harmless looking gloves and gowns.
But intermediate waste, including reactor waste, was always the main game.
DIIS has pushed nuclear medicine as a main reason we have this waste; but almost never mentions the vast majority of countries do not have reactors to make nuclear medicine.
Certainly the UK and the US import theirs.
We get ours from South Africa when the reactor is down.
The medical information they have put out is wrong or deliberately misleading.
A couple of years ago I thought they just had dopey advisers, but having pointed out many false statements to them in person and in writing they (or their advocates) keep trotting out the same wrong or distorted claims.
They claim there is no stigma to having nuclear waste - yet Lucas Heights (the suburb) changed its name to Baden Ridge to try to improve the property values.
If you doubt this, look on the internet.
They have claimed there is an international shortage of nuclear medicine, when in fact the NEA/OECD predict a glut.
There has never been a cost benefit analysis of isotope production - none.
ANSTO costs the tax payer about $200 million a year, yet it cannot show a credible cradle-to-grave benefit from massively ramping up waste production in future.
They are even fighting the choice of who votes.
There is no transparency. No accountability.
No guarantees of these magically appearing new jobs being local or even existing at all.
No real plan for long term disposal of this incredibly toxic material.
At Woomera drums are leaking, and several Maralinga clean-ups have still left a poisoned land.
For 20 years they have tried to foist this second rate “100 year store” on a community.
We urgently need an independent inquiry into nuclear waste production and storage.
The department has told way too many half-truths. “Forty five jobs” simply does not pass the pub test.
DR MARGARET BEAVIS
THANK YOU COWELL
I would like to thank the Cowell Community for supporting the Biggest Morning Tea.
Special thanks to the business houses for purchasing take aways.
Thanks also to anyone who donated food and helped serve.
A total of $1210.00 was raised.
Well done Cowell and thank you.
COWELL IGA BIGGEST MORNING TEA
Australia's Biggest Morning Tea held at Cowell I.G.A. Fresh raised $2138.
Once again the staff donated the grocery hamper, which was won by Brenda Williams.
We would like to acknowledge our sponsors and thank them for their generosity.
A community member donated the goods for our second prize, won by Geoff Piggott.
JC's Quality Foods donated the nuts for the third prize, which was won by Betty Franklin.
Deep Cut donated a substantial amount of fruit and vegetables for the fourth and fifth prizes, won by Jill Kaden and Natasha Bastiaens.
The management and staff wish to thank the community for their support in raising this incredible amount, and also those who donated goods for the trading table.
Next year will be our 20th event and we look forward to the community's ongoing support.
Our tally for the 19 events is $25,420.
On behalf of Cowell IGA Fresh
Letters to the editor
All submissions must include an address and contact number. (The address and phone number are not for publication.)
Letters must carry the writer’s name for publication.
The editor reserves the right to edit letters and not to publish them.
Letters can be sent to email@example.com.