from Noel Wauchope

Thanks, Referendumdrivensociety

I was very surprised that people, who are apparently supporters of nuclear power, took umbrage at my article in favour of the nuclear proponents' next step towards nuclear waste dump importing.

So it was a relief to see, at last, a comment that recognises the importance of finding out community attitudes, and making democratic decisions.

A referendum is indeed the clearest way to do this. Citizens' Juries, Deliberative Polls, are a step in the right direction, but not enough on their own.

As to relying on nuclear industry experts, for opinion on the whole picture, we might recall the words of Upton Sinclair:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Of course the plebs have their own agendas, politics, fears and phobias. They are ones who elect the politicians after all! There is no guarantee of an unbiased representation of the rest of us. Picked from a hat, nobody knows what they think, or what they will do. Look at rubbish that came from the talkfests organised by Rudd, and by Hawke. South Australians have paid for an intense enquiry, chaired by Rear Admiral Scarce, last governor of the state, peopled by scientists and experts. What more does a government need to make a decision! Citizens, including me, have nothing in the way of knowledge or experience to be involved in the matter at all. They can approve or protest as much as they like, but in the end, if we have not elected people who can make a decision based on professional knowledge and fact, then there is no point in electing governments; we might as well have mob rule. Now that "Noel" as revealed herself as a notorious activist, she is one of the 'ordinary people' we could have in a farcical 'jury' that we should certainly take no notice of. It should also be remembered that the climate scare-mongers, costing us billions, are also the same people who are tell us that we we should listen to scientist and experts. That same doesn't go for them, it appears, when it comes nuclear waste storage, which is just as much a fact of life as climate change.

This sounds like a hugely expensive way to avoid making a decision.

I have to agree this is a copout. I say that as one who both supports nuclear power and also believes SA is probably politically and geologically better than other parts of the world for such a facility. However there are no customers signed up yet and they may yet decide to keep the stuff at home. Since the estimated setup cost is $41 bn the citizen juries might also pose the question "are you prepared to pay higher taxes for a number of years?". Instant death I suggest.

SA is now about 40% wind and solar, 15% imported coal power and 45% gas fired with AEMO (see the newsletter on their homepage) telling us that eastern Australia should expect hefty gas price rises after 2019. Combine that with the SA-Vic connector doing a Basslink or Hazelwood throwing a spanner then perhaps the scene will be set for SA based nuclear. That will change public perceptions from money making to necessity. Until then the citizen panels are irrelevant.

This concept is used often. You get a diverse bunch of people in a room, and gauge their reaction to an concept or an idea.

This is not generally known as a citizen jury, but as a focus group, and its purpose is to determine public opinion, not science.

SM,

Looks as though we won't be getting anything new to talk about today, so, how are individuals chosen for these groups? I don't see how it is possible to screen people with various views. The for as well as those against, and people who have no firm ideas until to pros and cons are discussed. With a proper jury, lawyers are able to question prospective jurors to get what they think will be best for their purpose; but anyone can lie. People with their minds already made up are going to pretend they are open-minded. If this bizarre cop out proposed by the SA government goes ahead, it will turn into a contest that will not reveal the wishes of the 'silent majority' - silent only because everybody cannot be realisticall consulted, and 25-50 people certainly cannot speak for the rest of us. What do you think about that?