Nuclear polling shows more South Australians in favour of storing spent fuel
Polling completed by the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) early this month found that more South Australians support the storage of spent nuclear fuel in a high level repository than don’t, with 41.6% in favour.
SACOME’s independent polling was conducted by ReachTEL, the same organisation that the Australia Institute enlisted to conduct their polling, and just two days before the Australia Institute’s research was conducted. Surprisingly, the Australia Institute results, summarised in The Advertiser (21 March 2016), reached a substantially different conclusion.
Dr Nigel Long, Director of Policy at SACOME, said “When we conduct polling, our aim is to uncover real perceptions to help shape the direction of our activities, not to hear what we want to hear. We need results that accurately represent community opinions - otherwise we’re wasting our money.”
“In the case of this recent nuclear polling, our sample size was almost 50% higher than the Australia Institute’s, giving our results greater accuracy. Our questions were direct and unbiased, and we polled a random selection of people across South Australia.”
SACOME’s survey found that 41.6% are in favour of a high level nuclear waste facility with 20.1% neutral and only 38.3% opposed in contrast to The Australia Institute’s 37%, 14% and 48.5% respective results – a massive 10% difference in overall opposition.
The other largest differential is in the female response where SACOME’s result is 10% less than what the Australia Institute quoted. Of those intending to vote Liberal, Labor or Greens the polling showed 53%, 40% and 16% support, as opposed to the Australia Institute’s survey that found 49%, 28% and 12% respectively.
Dr Long said “We found that more people are supportive of a spent fuel facility, and this aligns with previous polls including those by ReachTEL and Galaxy.”
“Groups affiliated with the Greens, such as The Australia Institute, tend to perpetuate that opposition is much higher than it really is, as that suits their agenda. We continue to find this outdated policy surprising, due to the obvious benefits of uranium as a clean, low carbon emission fuel.”
“The science and experience behind ensuring solid spent nuclear fuel is handled safely, with no harm to the public or environment, is immense and robust.” Dr Long said.
Engineers test storage containers by crashing trains and trucks at high speed (+100kph) into them, setting them on fire and dropping them from great heights - with no breach of containment. South Australia is geologically, technologically, politically and socially the perfect host for a spent fuel storage facility, which would provide excellent benefits to the State well into the future.
Polling completed by the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) early this month found that more South Australians support the storage of spent nuclear fuel in a high level repository than don’t, with 41.6% in favour.
SACOME’s independent polling was conducted by ReachTEL, the same organisation that the Australia Institute enlisted to conduct their polling, and just two days before the Australia Institute’s research was conducted. Surprisingly, the Australia Institute results, summarised in The Advertiser (21 March 2016), reached a substantially different conclusion.
Dr Nigel Long, Director of Policy at SACOME, said “When we conduct polling, our aim is to uncover real perceptions to help shape the direction of our activities, not to hear what we want to hear. We need results that accurately represent community opinions - otherwise we’re wasting our money.”
“In the case of this recent nuclear polling, our sample size was almost 50% higher than the Australia Institute’s, giving our results greater accuracy. Our questions were direct and unbiased, and we polled a random selection of people across South Australia.”
SACOME’s survey found that 41.6% are in favour of a high level nuclear waste facility with 20.1% neutral and only 38.3% opposed in contrast to The Australia Institute’s 37%, 14% and 48.5% respective results – a massive 10% difference in overall opposition.
The other largest differential is in the female response where SACOME’s result is 10% less than what the Australia Institute quoted. Of those intending to vote Liberal, Labor or Greens the polling showed 53%, 40% and 16% support, as opposed to the Australia Institute’s survey that found 49%, 28% and 12% respectively.
Dr Long said “We found that more people are supportive of a spent fuel facility, and this aligns with previous polls including those by ReachTEL and Galaxy.”
“Groups affiliated with the Greens, such as The Australia Institute, tend to perpetuate that opposition is much higher than it really is, as that suits their agenda. We continue to find this outdated policy surprising, due to the obvious benefits of uranium as a clean, low carbon emission fuel.”
“The science and experience behind ensuring solid spent nuclear fuel is handled safely, with no harm to the public or environment, is immense and robust.” Dr Long said.
Engineers test storage containers by crashing trains and trucks at high speed (+100kph) into them, setting them on fire and dropping them from great heights - with no breach of containment. South Australia is geologically, technologically, politically and socially the perfect host for a spent fuel storage facility, which would provide excellent benefits to the State well into the future.