It's a good idea that needs to be considered on the cold hard facts/evidence.

Rather than the mountains of vexatious mischievous misinformation from the pen of a blatant anti-nuclear activist!

If this ALLEGED environmentalist was in fact, the least bit concerned about the environment, or the plight of the first nation?

He would simply shelve his BS Anti-nuclear, anti-aboriginal anti-development activism. As evidenced in this garbage that is claimed, to be considered and "weighed on the facts", statement.

#1/ Nuclear power is carbon-free power!

#2/ The world is not being threatened by nuclear power but by carbon pollution!

#3/ Nuclear power if done properly, will burn up the nuclear waste that leaves our shores as uranium and therefore, we still have some responsibility for!

#4/ With power prices as low as 2 cents per KwH. Already affordable desalination becomes even more so and allows arid land to be converted into veritable gardens of Eden!

Moreover, CLEAN, SAFE, AFFORDABLE thorium-based power is arguably the only thing missing in intended aboriginal self-determination!

And all that prevents it as our literal reality is folk (like the author) nearly as dense as thorium, the most energy dense material in the world. We don't need to bury any of this waste or actually unspent fuel, when in fact we could be paid annual billions to burn it in thorium powered MSR's!

Leaving just 1% as waste, which is not just eminently suitable as long life space batteries! Most Aboriginals recognise HUMBUG when they see it and the article is full of it! As is its, bah humbug, author!
THE TIMES THEY'RE A CHANGING.
IF YOU CAN'T LEND A HAND?
GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Alan B.

First Nations? The first, and only nation, the one we live in, was created by white settlers as part of the British Empire. Aboriginal people were the ‘first people’. They were never a nation, but, rather, disparate tribes and wandering family groups. This ‘nation’ business to describe stone age people is nonsense. Also nonsense was the cowardice of the Wetherill Labor government acquiescing to 233 dingbat citizens in the matter of a nuclear waste storage facility, which will inevitably be installed somewhere in Australia when the penny finally drops that, to survive, we need coal or nuclear power. We are constantly nagged on how ‘dirty’ coal is, so it will have to nuclear.

But the biggest nonsense of all is that an elected government felt/still feels that it has to kow tow to a miniscule number of non-contributing people posing as ‘aborigines’ (who actually died out a long, long time ago) in order to stop Australia from its continuing drift into non-productive poverty. How can a bunch of useless, minority no-hopers be allowed to blackmail a country for purely emotional reasons because some Marxist jerks, skulking in their ‘safe place’ universities, have invented the fiction that anyone with a drop of aboriginal blood is ‘feeling the pain’ of wrongs done to their ancestors!

“The …. Traditional Owners (no such thing) have to fight industry, government, and the ecomodernists as well”. No they don’t. They need to be told to get over themselves and get out of the way of progress and security - for themselves as well as the majority.

Ever contemplated getting a productive job, Jim Green? You have added pretty much zero value apart from tenacity in your campaign as a paid apologist for the anti-nuclear and anti-science brigade, year after year.

Isn't it about time that you responded to the many requests for Greenpeace, your employer, to demonstrate conclusively that its funding does not come from the fossil fuel industry which is the ultimate enabler of the expensive, subsidised, inadequate, unstable, unreliable and vastly environmentally unworthy "100% wind + solar" industry? Without fossil fueled electrical generation whether coal, liquid or gas fired to support it, there would be little role for W+S in a modern electricity supply system that does not include nuclear power. Greenpeace's actions are condemning the world to a fossil fuelled future while avoiding their true purpose. Greenpeace's antinuclear campaign against nuclear power (and against nuclear medicine, but that's for another day) is a campaign against the very things that Greenpeace claims to value.

Ultimately, the true role of the anti-nuclear campaign run by Greenpeace is not to promote clean and green, but to prolong and to extend the impacts of fossil fuels, because without at least a substantial fraction of nuclear power in the mix, attempts to decarbonise any economy that is above subsistence level has utterly failed, with Germany's annually rising carbon emissions as the poster child. That is what your backers want from Greenpeace and it is what Greenpeace is delivering.

It is long past time for Greenpeace's representatives in Australia and abroad to show publicly where the money comes from and thus where Greenpeace's real interests lie.

But Greenpeace won't do that, will it?

I have no expertise to speak about the pros and cons of nuclear waste storage but I will comment on his outrage over aboriginal spirituality being referred to as “ mumbo jumbo”.
Aboriginal spirituality is a religion, like every other religion in the world and as such has to be subject to the same level of debate as the others, especially Christianity.No one gets their knickers in a twist when Christians are called god botherers and the like.
We live in a country where the freedom to believe or disparage any religion is a right.
The fact that the religion is that of aboriginal people gives it no special privileges.

The pantomime of a "consultation" run by the SA government had zero chance of getting a positive response. A "citizen's jury made up of people with zero knowledge of the topic bombarded with a constant stream of fear by people with a political agenda cannot make a rational choice.

The factor that always seems to be missing from these discussions is how much are the current owners of the nuclear waste willing to pay to store it in South Australia.

My guess is they want to pay as little as possible and they would rather pay consultants, lobbyists and middle men to move it through government channels on the sly, rather than compensate the people of South Australia for the risks and inconvenience they have to bear.

Jim Green says: "138,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste (about one-third of the world's total) and 390,000 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste." $30,000/tonne for the high level and $10,000/tonne for the intermediate level would pay $8 billion. You can buy a lot of land (5 km buffer zones) and build some really good infrastructure for $8 billion. There would be money to build infrastructure in the neighbouring communities and the communities representatives could all be a part of the decision process about how it was all going to work.

If the current owners of the nuclear waste don't want to adequately compensate the people of South Australia then they can look elsewhere for final disposal sites.