Opinions shared as Kimba district votes

VOTING: Ballots have been sent for the Kimba community ballot on the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
VOTING: Ballots have been sent for the Kimba community ballot on the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.

Vote 'yes' for Kimba's future

I write in response to the letters to the editor from Barry Wakelin and Rachel Yates on October 3.

Barry I am disappointed in your political propaganda and fear tactics and expect more from you as a member of this community.

Implications on the level of waste and its source are not what all local people know to be the facts.

And we all know that non-residents only receive one vote for the rateable property they own within the district.

In 2018 the Australian Radioactive Waste Management Framework was released and on page 4, I quote: "The NRWMF will primarily be a facility for the management of waste generated, possessed or controlled by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth entity."

ANSTO (Australia's Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) are experts in their field when it comes to managing their own waste so my guess is since they are a Commonwealth entity it will be them running the facility since they have the most experience.

I have seen droughts and hard times on the land and this community needs a new industry.

What other non-rainfall reliant industry can Kimba expect that will bring a $300 million construction, $31 million community benefits package, 45 full time jobs and be here for 100 plus years?

Vote YES for Kimba's future!

AUDREY SMART

Kimba

Vote 'no' to nuclear

To actually nominate SA's land to store another state's waste lacks vision.

Nuclear needs a vile (political) process with most damaging impacts, producing highly hazardous risks, including hereditary diseases, for many millenia to come.

No one anywhere wants to keep their produced (nuclear active) waste otherwise why spend millions, introduce risks by transporting waste, create new legislation, hide facts, negotiate behind closed doors, and misrepresent crucial nuclear information to later blame a few local voters to have 'ignored' impacts of another's waste?

Why force electorate responsibility onto such few, introduce non-productive 'emissions intensive' concrete, solely for another state's city?

Will nuclear proponent tourism really continue when waste containers leak? If 'safe jobs' and 'funds' are guaranteed, why would NSW dismiss those 'worthwhile opportunities'?

Australia wastes literally billions on nuclear subsidies, and now is to destroy another state's image?

Please convince yourself, research beyond tainted brochures and return morals like self responsibility and accountability, and ensure quality of life, by voting 'no' to any other's (nuclear active) waste proposal.

SEBASTIAN TOPS

Port Lincoln

Letters

  • Send letters to the editor to rachel.mcdonald@eyretribune.com.au. All letters must include the writer's name and contact details. By submitting your letter for publication you agree the Tribune may edit the letter for legal, clarification, space or other reasonable reasons and may, after publication, reproduce the letter on the internet or in other media.