Yes, the wonderful traditional owners at Muckaty did have a landmark win, after their 7 year battle to stop a radioactive waste dump on their land.
And yes – informed people world-wide ware applauding their courage and conviction. And yes, Australia’s mainstream media is pretty much ignoring it.
The next sally by the pro nuclear forces will be to portray thos courageous indigenous people as ‘victims’ – manipulated by ‘outside forces’ – by which they mean the environment movemnt.
We would be naive to think that the nuclear lobby and government will now give up on dumping nuclear waste on Aboriginal land. They could give up, and select a site at Lucas Heights for teh storage of the small amount of highly radioactive waste that Australia is bound to take back from overseas.
But that is not the real aim of Australia’s pro nuclear Liberal and Labor parties. The old greedy dream of John White and others is to make Australia the radioactive trash importing country for the world.
It will indeed be tragedy, if they are able to blackmail and or bribe Aboriginal communities to host this toxic dump. It is understandable that many indigenous people, living in conditions of poverty, could see such deals as beneficial to their families
The nuclear lobby is determined to keep both their thriving nuclear weapons industry and their failing commercial nuclear industry going.
A major impediment for them is the ever- growing piles of toxic radioactive trash, including the dead reactors themselves. So, amongst the many nuclear lies (about radiation being OK for health, about solving climate change, about cheap costs, about helping under-developed nations) – amongst these lies – the top ones today are the:
LIES ABOUT NUCLEAR WASTES
1. THE LIE about new nuclear reactors turning nuclear wastes now into valuable resources. “The new nuclear reactors will consume the former ‘wastes’,that we now call ‘valuable fuel resources’ ” .
This is supposed to happen through Mixed Oxide Fuel reactors (MOX) or through pyroprocessing as in Molten Salt fuelled Reactors(MSRs) such as Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs) But all in fact greatly increase the volume of radioactive waste.
2. THE LIE that new gee-whiz Thorium Nuclear Reactors do not produce wastes. They do, some lasting the mere 3 centuries, some lasting for many thousands of years
The Thorium lie is often linked to promotion of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) . They sound sweet and harmless, but require plutonium and/or enriched uranium to function. That means that the conventional nuclear industry must keep going- to supply them – and hey presto! they will solve the waste problem!. Wrong! As they themselves produce and indeed become – radioactive trash.
Thorium reactors and SMRs are unlikely to ever happen, due to their exorbitant cost, technical problems, and public resistance.
BUT because communities are unwilling to host radioactive trash dumps, thorium promotes are touting their wares to governments – a cowardly escape from the hard decisions that are needed.
The hard decisions needed are:
1. Stop nuclear power in all its forms – stop making the stuff
2. Confront and deal with the necessary task of deep burial of the existing radioactive trash, with equitable and full community participation and understanding
Right now the Federal Court case is on with hearings in Melbourne, Tennant Creek and Darwin, examining the Federal Government’s plan for a radioactive waste dump on Aboriginal land at Muckaty near Tennant Creek. The Court’s focus will be on issues of consent and control, regarding the Traditional landowners.
Australia is obliged to take back high level radioactive wastes that were sent from Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, in Sydney, to UK and Europe. So this, not huge, volume of nuclear wastes has to go somewhere. There is also the continuing problem of more nuclear wastes being churned out by the. Lucas Heights reactor. Still, not now a huge volume. There is a sound case for it to be stored onsite
The underlying motive for the planned Muckaty waste dump could well be what Bob Hawke has been suggesting – the start of a lucrative (for some people) international nuclear waste import business.
No surprise that it is planned for Aboriginal land. This is the the time honoured traditional way – privileged societies make money out of industrial processes, and make sure that indigenous peoples cop the environmental degradation and the health costs. If absolutely necessary, bribery or blackmail are used to help this process along.
The nuclear nations are now, very late in the peace, beginning to face up to the foul thing that they have created – nuclear radioactive trash. USA, UK, Europe, Russia even China face the turmoil of where to put it.
It is simple insanity to keep on making the stuff.
Australia has already trashed the land of Aboriginal people, by allowing Britain to atomic bomb huge expanses of South Australia, where teh radioactive wastes linger. But we have the opportunity to remain one of the many nations that are now intrinsically nuclear free. We can shut down Lucas Heights, (get medical isotopes from non nuclear sources) and say NO to radioactive trash dumping on Aboriginal land
The world faces a dangerous and ever more pressing problem – nuclear wastes. In Australia – “new nuclear” is being hyped as the answer- don’t believe it!
The logical steps to deal with nuclear wastes are:
1. Stop making the stuff. Close down the commercial and military nuclear reactors that produce plutonium and other long-lived radioactive materials
2. Choose the “least worst” option to dispose of the existing nuclear wastes - (a) Interim storage of radioactive wastes into above ground containers (b) Deep burial underground permanent repositories.
The nuclear lobby, desperate to stave off the death of its industry, comes up with grand promises of new Generation IV systems, reactors that will reprocess, “recycle” plutonium wastes into Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) to fuel for other Gen IV reactors. At the end, highly toxic radioactive wastes are still produced.
And all this – despite the enormous costs, the very dangerous transport of plutonium, the risks of terrorism, the increased risks of weapons proliferation.
The nuclear lobby’s cries for Very High Temperature Reactors (VHTR)s, Super Critical Water Reactors (SCWR)s, Molten Salt Reactors (MSR)s, Gas Cooled Fast rectors (GCFR)s, Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors (SCFR)s, Lead Cooled Fast Reactors (LCFR)s – all desperate and conflicting cries for their own salvation, rather than any solution to wastes, costs, climate change, energy needs.
The worry is that the nuclear lobby might win, by manipulating governments and populations into buying their expensive and dangerous new toys – because nobody really wants a nuclear waste tomb in their area.
The trouble is – nuclear cemeteries, however unappealing, are still the least worst option.
As the nuclear lobby is busy persuading the world that ionising radiation is OK really, the facts are different. The most recent National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation ( BEIR VII) in studying the cancer risk, supplied tables that showed the clear difference between radiation effects on males and females.
This lifespan graph (By Ian Goddard, deriving data from those tables) shows increased cancer risk by exposure to a given amount of radiation. Note the high risk for infant and little girls.
The pink line shows the risk for girls, the blue line for boys. Look at left hand part of the graph. It covers from zero to 5 years, and includes pre birth. We see a striking difference between the blue line and the pink line. The nuclear regulators assume that the risk shown here at age 30– in the blue line- is the same for every individual regardless of age or gender, – this is marked by the green circle. Yet, even at ages 40 – 60 the cancer risk from radiation is significantly more for women, than for men. - Mary Olson
That’s just looking at cancer risk. Not even considering risks to reproductive system pregnancy, and genetic effects.
A woman is at significantly greater risk of suffering and dying from radiation-induced cancer than a man who gets the same dose of ionising radiation.
This is news because data in the report on the biological effects of ionizing radiation published in 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has been under-reported.
It is more often acknowledged that children are at higher risk of disease and death from radiation, but it is rarely pointed out that the regulation of radiation and nuclear activity (worldwide) ignores the disproportionately greater harm to both women and children. http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radhealth/radiationwomen.pdf
It is scandalous that these facts are not generally known. It is scandalous that the so-called “permissable levels” of ionising radiation are based on the “normal person” – that is, a 30 year old male. Foetuses, children and women are far more susceptible to radiation harm than men are.
Women are consistently reassured by narrowly educated nuclear physicists, and other technocrats, that nuclear power is safe, and that they have nothing to worry about in regard to ionising radiation.
Decisions on nuclear power, nuclear weapons, nuclear wastes are almost exclusively made by men.Yet the brunt of nuclear-caused cancer is suffered by women and children, as is the brunt of nuclear war, and of depleted uranium spread.
Opinion polls over many years, and in many countries, consistently show that women are opposed to nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
More women than men are concerned about health and environmental effects of the nuclear industry.
Yet they are consistently reassured by narrowly educated nuclear physicists, and other technocrats, that nuclear power is safe, and that they have nothing to worry about in regard to ionising radiation.
Decisions on nuclear power and ionising radiation. The nuclear power heirarchy is almost uniformly male, though the nuclear lobby tries hard to pretend that they have equal rights credentials by getting a few token women to show off. And, a favourite male trick, – put a woman in an untenable position – as for example, Anne Lauvergeon was put at the top of France’s rather wobbly pinnacle of nuclear expansionism – AREVA.
In Australia they’ve given the CEO job for Toro Energy – with its unlikely-to -be profitable uranium enterprise to Vanessa Guthrie
The latest propaganda from Australia’s nuclear lobby came from the BHP-funded Grattan Institute’s submission to the Energy White Paper, (due in September). They suggest a chain of small modular nuclear reactors along the East Coast.
Nuclear power and sea level rise – All reactors on sea coasts endangered by sea level rise Over the next hundred years there will be significant sea rises, one meter or more, and many closed nuclear reactor sites could be flooded, including the stored nuclear waste. That could contaminate much of the coast lines for decades.
Nuclear power and water shortage – Climate Change is already bringing droughts and changed rainfall patterns. Even if the vloume of rain might be the same, or greater, with the warming planet – it’s not much help if it falls in the oceans, or if it falls intermittently – in flooding torrents.
As water becomes scarcer, and more expensive, nuclear power becomes a very uneconomic way to use it.
As temperatures rise, nuclear reactors will more and more often be forced to shut down – adding to the already well known diseconomics of nuclear power
I felt that I must go back to a “theme” for this month, because this one is such an important one.
The nuclear industry has put it over the world with a number of lies. Yet one by one, each nuclear lie has been exposed.
Nuclear power is not clean. It’s not cheap. It’s not safe. It’s notnecessary.
Today – those nuclear promoters who in the past denied that global warming was happening – are now changing their tune.
The only seemingly valid argument for nuclear power is that it will “combat global warming” because nuclear is “emissions free. It is “low carbon”
But that’s just another lie.
Global action on Climate Change is urgently needed. Australia used to be the leader in this. Now we are going backwards, under the leadership of Big Business puppet Prime Minister TonyAbbott.
The global nuclear lobby looks to Australia to be the sucker again – not just for uranium mining, but for nuclear militarism, nuclear power, and nuclear waste dumping.
But – hows to sell this to the public?
Here’s where they come up with the latest and biggest lie. And Abbott is just the man to spout the complete fallacy that nuclear power can do anything to combat climate change.
Fukushima still out of control February-2014 The World is at a critical crossroads. The Fukushima disaster in Japan has brought to the forefront the dangers of Worldwide nuclear radiation.
The crisis in Japan has been described as “a nuclear war without a war”. In the words of renowned novelist Haruki Murakami:
“This time no one dropped a bomb on us … We set the stage, we committed the crime with our own hands, we are destroying our own lands, and we are destroying our own lives.”
Nuclear radiation –which threatens life on planet earth– is not front page news in comparison to the most insignificant issues of public concern. While the long-term repercussions of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are yet to be fully assessed, they are far more serious than those pertaining to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine…..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz1j4IHcsP4
Dr Helen Caldicott – Fukushima Nuclear Disaster http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITrXVJMKeQ
Nuclear Facts you’d be more comfortable not knowing from a very clued up professional who will not be bought or intimidated into silence: Dr Helen Caldicott, true to style, tells it as it is/as she sees it/like you wont usually hear it.
The nuclear power lobby and the fossil fuel lobby spend $billions in publicising their industries and in combatting established information on nuclear dangers and on global warming. This is done through “front groups” such as (for pro nuclear) the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition., (for climate denial) American Enterprise Institute.
It’s getting more difficult to spot these propagandists, because increasingly, they are using sophisticated Internet techniques. These have been beautifully explained in How to spot an astroturfer or an online fake -some of the organisations and techniques are summarised in the sidebar at right.
However, the words alone can help you to spot a fake. Look out for these two types of language:
BIG WORDS – in long complicated sentences – guaranteed to confuse the ordinary reader. The aim is to make you think that the writer is much smarter than you, and his opinion must be right. Amongst the big words, some quack science ones – like hormesis, adaptive radiation, andradiophobia Also,you are referred, by links, to obscure articles in even more complicated language.
SMALL WORDS and CLICHES – short positive ones, with no backup information, e.g. “clean -green-safe-cheap nuclear power”. Or negative cliches e.g. “hysterical- paranoid- emotional – irrational – delusional – extremists -alarmist – scare mongerer” applied to anti nuclear people, or those who want action on climate change.
Moving away from his previous obviously belligerent and direct style -e.g. “climate change is crap”, Tony Abbott now uses weasel words. These are words that sound good, but in fact convey no clear meaning. For example: “the government accepts that climate change is real and that humanity does make a contribution, but the important thing is to take strong and effective action to deal with it.”
With statements like this, no detail given, Abbott nevertheless covers all bases – looks good. while his spokesman Maurice Newman expresses Abbott’s real attitude.“The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade, is crumbling” Abbott’s “Direct Action Plan -is it simply an empty charade devised by a skeptic wanting to give the impression he is prepared to do something about climate change?
Tony Abbott is smart. He uses weasel words to appeal to appeal to all sides, while saying nothing concrete. In the case of nuclear power- well, Tony’s other (well known) strategy is silence. Abbott again appoints someone who speaks for him – the next Governor General, Peter Cosgrove. - a strong advocate for nuclear power.