Australia’s clean, non nuclear, soil giving hope to Japanese farmers
Japan farmer harvests hope in our soil, BY: SUE NEALES The Australian May 23, 2012 JAPANESE farmer Takemi Shirado still sounds grief-stricken and shell-shocked when talking about last year’s Fukushima nuclear disaster that so devastated his rural community.
Catastrophic radiation contamination of the soil means his family won’t be able to sow rice on their Iwaki rice paddies, about 60km from the crippled defunct power plant, for at least 300 years. Other local farmers are starting to grow leafy vegetables on less-contaminated fields, but are finding consumers too scared to buy their risky produce.
But Mr Shirado is clearly not a man to moan and mope. Instead he has come to Australia as head of a consortium of Fukushima farmers to see if north Queensland’s fertile Burdekin valley might hold the solution to his prefecture’s long-term fallout-affected food problems.
Mr Shirado’s dream now is to turn the sugarcane fields around Ayr into fertile flooded rice paddies growing Japanese rice varieties in traditional organic ways, to supply the people of his ruined home prefecture once again with their staple food…… ”So far this looks like being a very good area for growing rice; I think we can grow four crops a year here and the water is very pure too.”……http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/japan-farmer-harvests-hope-in-our-soil/story-e6frg6nf-1226363955828
Western Australia’s inadequate laws on uranium tailings
WA’s uranium tailings laws fall short: independent review, SMH, May 14, 2012 Western Australia needs to completely revise its ageing laws governing the storage of uranium tailings and update its regulations to allow greater transparency of the uranium approvals process, an independent review into the state’s uranium regulations has found.
The review comes as Toro Energy braces for final approvals to mine uranium in the Northern Goldfields, after the WA Government removed the state’s ban on uranium mining in 2009. The Uranium Advisory Group led by University of Western Australia and CSIRO researchers, made nine recommendations to the Department of Mines and Petroleum targeted at ensuring more transparent and safer guidelines for the fledgling industry in a report…….
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/was-uranium-tailings-laws-fall-short-independent-review-20120514-1ymqu.html#ixzz1v5miLFpI
Australia does a poor job, (no job?) of monitoring radiation levels
Less Than 1% Of Base Stations In Australia Have Been Radiation Tested LOGAN BOOKERGIZMODO AU MAY16, 2012 For something that has been a massive source of concern for general public for decades, it doesn’t appear the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), responsible for “protecting the health and safety of people … from the harmful effects of ionising and non-ionising radiation”, is in much of a hurry to allay anyone’s fears…..
The Australian reported the news earlier this week and managed to get a follow-up from ARPANSA yesterday , which said it’s organising a “panel of experts” to help it review the body of new information on mobile radiation published in the last 10 or so years.
The Australian’s beef seems to be with the fact that Australia’s limits, while in line with those of the European Union, are much, much more generous than those of Russia, Switzerland and Belgium. …. http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/05/less-than-one-percent-of-base-stations-in-australia-have-been-radiation-tested/
Mega Uranium’s Ben Lomond project, dangers to water supply, and Bob Katter
Jim Green, 14 May 12, The Ben Lomond uranium (and molybdenum) deposit is located 50 kms west of Townsville. It is owned by Mega Uranium, which purchased it in 2005
As at May 2012, Mega Uranium was undertaking prefeasibility studies with a view to determining the project economics, the preferred mining and processing options and the key steps in mine development. The recently-elected Liberal National Party state government has thus far maintained previous government policy of banning uranium mining, but Mega Uranium is betting on a change of policy.
Far-right pro-uranium federal MP Bob Katter had this to say in Parliament on 1 November 2005:
” there is a limit to the dangers we will accept. In the case of Ben Lomond, the company said that there had been no spill. The government agency—the forebears of what we now call the Environmental Protection Agency—also said that there had been no spill. That was for the first three or four weeks. When further evidence was disclosed, they said, firstly, that there had been a spill but the level of radiation was not dangerous and, secondly, that it had not reached the water system from which 210,000 people drank.
For the next two or three weeks they held out with that story. Further evidence was produced in which they admitted that it had been a dangerous level. Yes, it was about 10,000 times higher than what the health agencies in Australia regarded as an acceptable level. After six weeks, we got rid of lie number 2. I think it was at about week 8 or week 12 when, as a state member of parliament, I insisted upon going up to the site. Just before I went up to the site, the company admitted—remember, it was not just the company but also the agency set up by the government to protect us who were telling lies—that the spill had reached the creek which ran into the Burdekin River, which provided the drinking water for 210,000 people. We had been told three sets of lies over a period of three months.
So I say to the people of the Northern Territory: make sure that ordinary people have some sort of oversighting mechanism. Do not leave it up to the government or its officials. They will dance to the tune played by whatever piper is in charge money-wise or politically. They will not answer to the tune of protecting the people. That has been my experience.”
It looks as if the Northern Territory govt will allow uranium mining in water catchment area!
Exploration in dam catchment http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2012/04/18/299461_ntnews.html NIGEL ADLAM | April 18th, 2012 TEN mining exploration licences have been granted in the water catchment for a possible new dam. Resources Minister Kon Vatskalis denied any of the licences had been issued specifically for uranium. ”Rather the authorisation allows the holder to undertake exploration within a specific area,” he said.
The licences are in the catchment for Warrai Dam, 8km upstream from Adelaide River township, 100km south of Darwin.
Power and Water Corporation boss Andrew Macrides said the $500 million dam may not have to be built for at least 20 years – and possibly not at all.
Radioactivity over Sunshine Coast likely to have come from Lucas Heights Nuclear Facility
In a long article, Paul Langley traces the history of nuclear radiation releases and coverups. Marcus Grezechnik of Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) was reassuring, and vague about the origin of this radiation But – this same Marcus Grezechnik is one of the authors of the only research study done on radioactive clouds in Austtralia. That study of radioactivity in the atmosphere above Melbourne, in 2008 and 2009 found that the source was the Lucas Heights nuclear facility, in Sydney. - Christina Macpherson
That cloud of reactor gas reported off the Sunshine Coast – Not Fukushima. It’s Lucas Heights, Paul Langley’s Nuclear History Blog, 14 Jan 2012,
Quote: “Evaluation of radioxenon releases in Australia using atmospheric dispersion modelling tools.
The origin of a series of atmospheric radioxenon events detected at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) International Monitoring System site in Melbourne, Australia, between November 2008 and February 2009 was investigated. Backward tracking analyses indicated that the events were consistent with releases associated with hot commission testing of the Australian Nuclear Science Technology Organisation (ANSTO) radiopharmaceutical production facility in Sydney, Australia. Forward dispersion analyses were used to estimate release magnitudes and transport times. The estimated (133)Xe release magnitude of the largest event (between 0.2 and 34 TBq over a 2 d window), was in close agreement with the stack emission releases estimated by the facility for this time period (between 0.5 and 2 TBq). Modelling of irradiation conditions and theoretical radioxenon emission rates were undertaken and provided further evidence that the Melbourne detections originated from this radiopharmaceutical production facility. These findings do not have public health implications. This is the first comprehensive study of atmospheric radioxenon measurements and releases in Australia. Crown Copyright (c) 2010. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Rick Tinker, Blake Orr, Marcus Grzechnik, Emmy Hoffmann, Paul Saey, Stephen Solomon. Evaluation of radioxenon releases in Australia using atmospheric dispersion modelling tools. Journal of environmental radioactivity. 2010 May;101(5): 353-61 ” end quote.
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, Victoria, Melbourne 3085, Australia. rick.tinker@arpansa.gov.au
Journal of environmental radioactivity 2010 May http://www.nextbio.com/b/search/article.nb?id=20346548
Mysterious radioactive cloud detected by Geiger counter over Sunshine Coast
Radiation cloud ‘not harmful’ , Sunshine Coast Daily, Kate Clifford | 14th January 2012 A RADIOACTIVE cloud lingering off the Sunshine Coast on Sunday was not dangerous, according to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.
Caloundra IT manager Peter Daley picked up the cloud’s radioactivity on his Geiger counter, a device that measures ionizing radiation in the atmosphere. The reading was taken at 6.30pm and measured 0.80 microsieverts, which is eight times over the average level of radiation in the atmosphere.
Mr Daley said he was concerned the cloud could have formed from a radioactive fall out from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. ”This may be just a one off but even still, any exposure to an increase in radiation is not good,” Mr Daley said. He first noticed the hike when his Geiger counter began erratically beeping.
He then watched the rise in radiation fluctuate for three hours, peaking for 20 minutes at 0.80. ”I was shocked to hear the Geiger alarm going off, I have been recording radiation in the atmosphere for four years and the highest it has ever gone was 0.20 microsieverts.”
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency senior environmental scientist Marcus Grezechnik said the reading was unusualbut not concerning for the Coast…..
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/01/14/radiation-cloud-not-harmful-sunshine-coast/
Australia participating in 23 States monitoring radiation in Pacific Ocean
Considerable volumes of radioactive contaminated water entered and
polluted the Pacific Ocean following the March 11 Nuclear accident. It
raised concern among countries in the Pacific region that radiation
releases may reach and damage coastal zones with possible consequences
for communities and economies.
IAEA Project To Monitor Radioactive Substances In Pacific Ocean Region (RTTNews) 13 Dec 11 – The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is implementing a Technical Cooperation (TC) Project for countries
throughout the Pacific Ocean region to monitor radioactive substances in the marine environment in the wake of the release of radioactive particles into the Pacific from the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. Read more »
Australia’s Northern Territory allows free groundwater to mining companies, not to any other users!
Mataranka residents surprised by mining’s right to ground water, ABC Rural News, By Steven Schubert, 02/12/2011 Members of a committee formed to develop a water plan for the Northern Territory town of Mataranka say they were never told mining operations could gain unrestricted access to ground water.
Mining operations don’t require a licence from the water controller under the NT Water Act, while other users have to apply for an allocation of ground water. Committee member Hamish McFarlane says if a mining project is formed near the town, there could be less water for irrigators and other users.
“Keeping in mind that you said before that the Water Act gives priority to mining, if a mining company came in here at this point in time and took the consumptive pool there would be no growth in Mataranka outside the mining industry.”… http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201112/s3382086.htm
Secretive and inadequate plan for Toro Energy’s uranium mining project at Wiluna, Western Australia
Toro Energy acknowledges that it has not fully verified the accuracy or completeness of its own application, and does not accept responsibility or liability for its application.….A mining agreement with Traditional Owners has not yet been negotiated…Uranium mining and tailings disposal in this region would occur below the water-table and be connected to aquatic ecosystems. There is a risk of contaminating the aquatic ecosystems….The mine rehabilitation plans are incomplete and Toro Energy’s preliminary costing for rehabilitation is being kept secret.
Submission to the Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia on behalf of the Conservation Council of WA, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and the Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA. This submission was prepared with the help and advice from Dr Jim Green, Dr Gavin Mudd and Dr Nic Dunlop.
re: Toro Energy Ltd Wiluna uranium project Environmental Review and Management Programme (ERMP) Wiluna ERMP Submission_Final.doc
Australian uranium mines have a history of leaks, safety breaches and failed rehabilitation. Accordingly a 2004 report by a Senate References and Legislation Committee found “a pattern of under-performance and non-compliance” in the uranium mining industry and identified many gaps in knowledge. To date, not a single uranium mine in Australia has been rehabilitated to the point that radiological conditions are stable and ongoing monitoring is no longer required.
The history of the wider mining sector in WA has also been problematic as detailed in a recent Auditor General’s report . Read more »
Few Australians aware of the environmental disaster that will be Olympic Dam uranium mine
The project was vigorously opposed from the start by both the local Arabunna and Kokatha peoples …..
The mining operations are expected to produce 8 million litres of radioactive tailings every day – which will eventually leach into local aquifers – and will create 9 billion tons of radioactive waste that will need to be monitored for the next 10,000 years,
Virtually every adult Australian citizen was aware of the “carbon tax” …Very few, however, were aware that at much the same time, a project had been set into motion that made a complete mockery of any pretensions to act in a an environmentally responsible manner.
Learning To Shine Through The Ruins, By Vincent Di Stefano, 30 October, 2011,Countercurrents.org ”…….Despite the fact that the Chernobyl melt-down 25 years ago has already cost nearly a million lives , and despite the fact that hot Strontium from the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant has been detected on the rooftops of houses in Yokohama 250 kilometers away, the nuclear industry, together with its marketing arm, the International Atomic Energy Commission continues to aggressively pursue their deadly interests.
On October 10th 2011 , both the Australian Federal Government and the South Australian Government obligingly rubber-stamped a massive industrial development at the Olympic Dam mine complex at Roxby Downs in South Australia that will, over the next 10 years, see an additional 19,000 tons of uranium oxide (yellow cake) produced annually for export every year. Australia already exports over 10,000 tons of yellow cake every year.
This mammoth project will result in the creation of the world’s largest open-pit mining operation. Read more »
BHP Billiton’s proposed desalination plant to exterminate Australia’s iconic Giant Cuttlefish?
Save the Giant Australian Cuttlefish and Upper Spencer Gulf The Point Lowly Peninsula is the only known place in the world where hundreds of thousands of Giant Australian Cuttlefish gather to breed. We need your help to urge the State Government of South Australia to protect this wildlife phenomenon from proposed industrial impacts.
Other fish species also spawn in the area including Snapper, Western King Prawns, Squid, Eagle Rays and Port Jackson Sharks. The Upper Spencer Gulf ecosystem also supports resident dolphin pods plus visiting whales, endangered sealions and turtles.
A desalination plant is currently proposed for the Point Lowly Peninsula. If approved, its operation will release salty brine into this sensitive ecosystem. Scientific studies have shown that increased salinity kills cuttlefish and squid eggs.
The Giant Australian Cuttlefish and Upper Spencer Gulf fish nurseries need your help. Sign and share our petition and urge our State Premier to insist on relocating the proposed desalination plant to a less vulnerable area. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/7/save-the-giant-australian-cuttlefish-upper-spencer-gulf/
Obscenity of BHP Billiton’s Control of Huge Water Resources in Olympic Damn Uranium Mine Deal
VIDEO Mine expansion draws more water from basin ABC News, Paul Klaric, October 14, 2011 Scientists are concerned that the the proposed Olympic Dam mine expansion will put a strain on Australia’s greatest underground water supply. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-14/mine-expansion-draws-more-water-from-basin/3572500
GREEN LIGHT FOR OLYMPIC DAM EXPANSION THE BLOGGER IS A BHP BILLITON SHAREHOLDER. On 13 May 2011 the company announced a proposal for six-fold expansion of Olympic Dam Mine in South Australia – to extract the most valuable single mineral deposit in the world. The mine will consume up to 42 million litres of water a day from the Great Artesian Basin for plus 40 years.
USE OF THE GREAT ARTESIAN BASIN BY THAT MINE IS THE ISSUE WHICH THIS BLOG ADDRESSES
On 10 October 2011 the South Australian (SA) Government granted approval for the BHP Billiton (BHP) Olympic Dam expansion. The Indenture Bill, signed on 12 October by representatives of BHP and the State Government, will now be submitted to vote in the SA Parliament. The SA government will not terminate or suspend the current licence which entitles BHP to take 42 million litres of water each day for Olympic Dam from the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) - but BHP will in the future pay for GAB water. This failure of the SA Government to protect the best interests of the GAB represents an enormously significant strategic win for BHP.
One small concession to Australia’s environment – BHP to pay a bit for future water grab
(once again – so much news about BHP Billiton and Olympic Dam uranium mine – more items at http://nuclearnewsaustralia.wordpress.com/ )
BHP forced to pay for Great Artesian Basin water, ABC Rural By Annabelle Homer , 13/10/2011 The South Australian Government and BHP Billiton have signed an Indenture Agreement to enable the Olympic Dam mine expansion to go ahead. The Indenture Bill will be introduced to State Parliament next week to enable this agreement to be backed by the full force of South Australian law.
As part of the agreement, the company will now be charged for the water it extracts from the Great Artesian Basin and $350 million a year in royalties will be generated once the project is at full capacity….. BHP has accepted reluctantly they will now come under Environment Protection Agency, they are paying for the first time ever for the Great Artesian Basin water.”
BHP will be charged on the current NRM Board levy rate (currently $0.0318/KL) for the region (capped at $0.10/KL), for a period of 30 years from the commencement of the project.The charge will then revert to the current NRM Levy rate.
BHP will not be required to pay for water being taken on the Special Mineral Lease.
Independent environmental consultant David Noonan says the BHP is not paying enough. ”He says the company will be paying $1.3 million to $1.5 million a year for essentially a precious water resource.”
The Bill also includes a 12-month sunset clause, which means the company has one year from when Parliament passes the Bill to get the approval from its Board of Directors to formally begin the expansion. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201110/s3338957.htm
How Australian governments gave BHP special treatment, and free groundwater
Public resources for private profit: free water for the largest open-pit mine in the world Coober Pedy Regional Times, by: Nectaria Calan, 13 Oct 11 In August mining giant BHP Billiton announced record financial results for the 2011 financial year, recording a total net profit of US$23.95 billion, nearly double its 2010 figure of US$13.01 billion.This month
For international news, go to nuclear-news ion for Western Australia’s energy future
http://ifyoulovethisplanet.org/?p=5755 Mary Olson on how women are more vulnerable to atomic radiation
- Muckaty Gathering 25 May 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1J9q-OeEO4 - NuclearKop http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpMhhzkeYjk
Anti nuclear action below: - more info at Action Australia « Antinuclear and at Event details « Antinuclear
- http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/put-the-brakes-on-toxic-trucks-no-nuclear-waste-at-muckaty
- Online Petition - against the proposed national radioactive waste dump at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory http://www.gopetition.com.au/petitions/no-nuclear-waste-dump-at-muckaty.htmlUranium Free WA Sign the online charter saying no to uranium mining in Western Australia http://ccwa.org.au/takeaction/uraniumnotforsaleSIGN THE PETITION TO STOP LYNAS RARE EARTH EXPORTS TO MALAYSIA http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban-rare-earth-exports/
EVENTS
- May 29 – Melbourne - Amnesty International panel on weapons and war .
- May 29 – 30 Melbourne - Wind Farms conference
- May 30 Darwin - expert Panel on Nuclear Waste Dump plan for Muckaty
- June 2 - Nuclear Abolition Day
- June 13 - Melbourne -Lizards Revenge -Shut Roxby Down
- June 14 Melbourne Beyond Zero Emissions ZCA 2020 plan.
- June 19 - Melbourne Public meeting US FORCES IN AUSTRALIA: SECURITY OR THREAT? USforcesflyer-2.pdf
The Nuclear/uranium industry and WOMEN - theme for May 2012
Deceptive information given to women about breast cancer. Women are repeatedly told about “genetic causes”, about “risks of obesity:. about “diet factors”, about “not having babies”, or “having a baby at a later age” even about “stress” – as causes of breast cancer. The not so subtle message is that it is THEIR FAULT – a problem caused by the individual woman, so – the only preventive actions must be those made by individual women.
The facts are otherwise. The single most proven cause of breast cancer is ionising radiation. After that, other environmental causes exist, amongst the wash of chemicals, and synthetic hormones, that pervade our environment. After that – probably some hereditary susceptability, amongst some women.
Why is this so? One could conclude that breast cancer is a growth industry. There’s money at every point in this sorry cycle – from the radiation from nuclear fuel through to the medical radiation used to detect and treat breast cancer. There is no money clearly involved in shutting down a toxic industry, and preventing millions of breast cancers.
How does ionising radiation cause breast cancer? Ionising radiation comes in several forms. for example, Gamma rays, x-rays, and some sub-atomic particles such as alpha particles and protons In ionising radiation, a tiny electron is released from an atom, and enters a body cell, hitting the DNA in the cell’s nucleus, and damaging it. The damaged DNA sends out ‘wrong’ messages telling the cell to divide in an uncontrolled manner – cancer develops.
“...the time between radiation exposure and breast cancer development is longest in young women and shortest for older women; young children do not show a detectable elevation in breast cancer occurrence for some 35 to 40 years after exposure. Radiation-induced breast cancers appear to occur later in life during the same ages when breast cancer rates, in general, begin to increase. It appears that a single exposure of sufficient dose during early life can increase breast cancer risk even 50 years later...
the relationship between radiation dose and breast cancer risk can be described by a straight line which implies that no matter how low the dose, there is some small risk associated with the exposure.…
The risk of subsequent breast cancer from very high doses is lower than that which might be expected from the effects of lower doses. This is because radiation at high doses is an effective killer of cells and dead cells are not able to develop into cancer…..
Young girls are at highest risk …when a young girl is exposed to radiation, she will have menstrual cycles for several decades that might enhance the development of any underlying damage caused by the radiation. There is evidence to suggest that exposure to the immature breast during early development, and around the age of beginning menstruation, carries a higher risk than at other times of a woman’s life.
It is unclear how radiation exposure of the breast during pregnancy affects a woman’s breast cancer risk. However, a recent study of women treated for Hodgkin’s disease concluded that pregnancy might be a time of increased sensitivity of breast tissue to the cancercausing effects of radiation……”
.” John D Boyce, Jr, DSc, Scientific Director,Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors in New York State.. Ionizing Radiation and Breast Cancer Risk
