And we are to believe this person because he says so?

He is entitled to his opinion as are you.

Sorry Tony, Your assurances of non bias flies straight in the face of published antidump advocacy! From deep inside the allegedly Unbiased Jury!

Malcolm Turnbull often waxes lyrical on tax reduction as a way of boosting our economy! And if correct how much better off could we be, if nobody needed to pay tax?

First we need a state owned energy company, who would build several molten salt thorium powered reactors, which apart from providing the world's CLEANEST SAFEST CHEAPEST electricity, would be tasked as slow breeder reactors to burn and reburn nuclear waste, desalinate copious seawater, create our entire liquid fuel needs from seawater, and be paid billions. And in combination earn trillions

The cash returns, paid straight into internal revenue. The same energy could be applied to state owned rapid rail, some of which would be double decker container carrying trains, transporting bulk freight the length and breadth of the nation and onto a national fleet of nuclear powered fast ferries and on-offloaded as whole trains.

Bulk freight forwarding remains one of the most profitable enterprises on earth.

A 100 MW reactor able to process 41,000 barrels daily? A 300 MW reactor, able to produce the entire fuel requirements of the US navy?

Two or three able to manage the entire needs of this nation?

With all the net profit returned to consolidated revenue.

If nobody paid tax and we had the lowest costing cleanest safest energy in the world? Shackled to cooperative enterprise! What other nation could compete with us?

Particularly if we were one of half a dozen nations supplying all the made from seawater, endlessly sustainable "carbon neutral" liquid fuel?

Think about that and what we could do if the national interest was genuinely first and foremost!?

Then watch what our leaders do instead? Thorium reactors? Where? Show me a thorium reactor! What? Are they serious? OK, I'll just go get the magic wand!
Alan B.

Ateday,

If you are addressing we without actually indicating that you are, the difference between 'he' and me, is that I wasn't on the jury; he was, and clearly indicated that he wasn't too keen on nuclear - just like the female ratbag who showed up on OLO in a once only performance to tell us that she was anti-nuclear, period, well before she was selected for the jury. 'Entitled' is not the right word in this case.

I don't care whether SA has a nuclear storage or not (I am South Australian) and I loathe our Socialist government. But I totally agree with the premier's liking for a referendum so that ALL South Australians, not 350 unrepresentative scrapings off the the footpaths, can have a say. That is not going to happen because the dropkick Liberals, not knowing whether it is fashionable here to be Right, Left or just the hapless idiots they are, are opposing a referendum just because they can (they will have done nothing else in the 14 years the Comrades have been in government).

Frankly, I find the idea off us taking waste from other countries a touch bizarre; none have asked us to; they store their own, and we only use a little nuclear material for medical and research purposes. I don't believe that we will have nuclear power in the foreseeable future, and the same people who are frightened of nuclear are also frightened of coal, the cheapest source of energy yet, and the one that helped Australia be the economic power house it was, until recently, when the Green climate madness took hold. Now, I agree that you are entitled to disagree with me, but I firmly believe that this author and all Green freaks and a climate wonks have well and truly used up their entitlements.

I see that one commentator has already written off the Citizens Jury members as "350 unrepresentative scrapings off the the footpaths".

I watched the videos of the jury sessions, and followed the process as far as possible. It was clear to me that the jury members were taking their tasks very seriously and responsibly.

Had they come out with a "Yes" to nuclear waste dumping, Jay Weatherill and the nuclear lobby would have been full of praise for these "ordinary citizens"

In this time of glorifying the "ordinary citizen" - the result was a shock to them. Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis solved that problem, suggesting that the elite witnesses told the jurors what to think.

I have supported the jury process all along, though I am disappointed to learn about some biases in the system this time.

In legal cases, we accept that common sense and intelligence will guide the ordinary citizen, provided they are given the evidence.

Surely the same concept applies here. By having non experts as jurors, we avoid the conflict of interest that would be inevitable if the decision were left to nuclear experts.

If making any state or country the word's nuclear garbage dump were such a brilliant idea it would have been developed somewhere else long ago.

Certainly some people will make a mint, but the average South Australian probably wouldn't benefit. Thank you jurors.