Olympic Dam and Four Mile uranium mines will promote nuclear weapons spread

The terror of Hiroshima

ONLINE opinion, Dr Sue Wareham, 6 August 09

“………………….The Hiroshima bomb was a very small weapon by today’s standards, and yet an estimated 90,000 people died immediately and many tens of thousands more died slowly of burns, multiple injuries, radiation sickness or, later, cancer.

For nearly six and a half decades, the survivors’ message has been clear: Hiroshima never again. And yet not only do these worst of all weapons of terror remain, but they are now held by nine nations. One of the reasons is in our own backyard – uranium.

As our sales of uranium, the raw material for bomb fuel, appear set to increase with a massive expansion of the Olympic Dam mine, and the proposed opening of the Four Mile mine, both in South Australia, it is time to seriously examine the weapons proliferation record of the industry that our exports support.

In the 1970s, the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry found that “the nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war”. That remains as true today as it was then.

The need to ensure that nuclear weapons are not used again, as articulated by the people of Hirohima, is making a political comeback, spurred on particularly by President Obama’s commitment to “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”. Nuclear weapons abolition is both essential and feasible. Feasible, that is, if all existing fissile material is brought under strict international control and we stop creating more. That means leaving uranium in the ground.

Australia, with our large uranium reserves, is blessed with leverage in this issue. Even if mining and export were to continue at some level however, there is one thing at least that should be non-negotiable. No Australian uranium should go to any nation that has nuclear weapons.

That would include a number of our current customers – the US, the UK, France and China. All of them, in addition to Russia which does not (yet) receive Australian uranium, are in violation of their Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligation to disarm. Do we really want to supply fissile material to NPT non-compliers who continue to threaten mass destruction? That question should concern the Australian government, especially with the NPT Review coming up in early 2010.

While the nuclear industry has been plagued by a litany of major problems, its most grievous failing lies in its deliberate obfuscation regarding the civilian-military nuclear links. Its glib reassurances might help sell uranium, but at the cost of the nuclear weapons free world that has eluded us since the terror of Hiroshima.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9269&page=0

August 6, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, uranium, weapons and war | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear weapons, uranium | Leave a comment

Growing concern over the safety of Olympic Dam Expansion

(more Australian news at nuclear news Australia )

Greens growing concern over the safety of Olympic Dam Expansion

MINING SAFETY

5 August 2009

GREENS MLC Mark Parnell says that BHP Billiton ‘s Olympic Dam Expansion Environmental Impact Statement contains glaring omissions alongside startling impacts.

Parnell claims that there are holes in this EIS almost as big as the mine’s open pit. For example, there is a woeful description on the 242 million tonne waste rock heap – a heap that will be so large it will be visible 30 kms away, soar higher than the Santos building and contain millions of tonnes of uranium and acid.

Parnell says the EIS is also silent on long term dust management. More than 25,000,000 litres of water will be sprayed around the site each and every day to prevent toxic dust storms, but what happens when the mining stops?

In many sections of there statement there are reportedly ‘options’ given – some sound, but expensive; others cheap and nasty. The huge concern is that the Federal and State Governments will approve the mine first, and leave it to the company to decide which options they pursue later.