Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Australia’s coal and gas profit at the cost of climate change

climate-change

Fossil-fuel demand is being stoked by massive subsidies, particularly in the Middle East, with the global total rising $US20 billion ($21.4 billion) in 2012 to $US544 billion. That total will rise to about $US600 billion a year by 2020, Dr Birol said.

By contrast, subsidies for renewable energy rose about $US10 billion in 2012 to $US101 billion, and will reach about $US220 billion by 2035, the agency forecasts. Despite continuing to lag in support at roughly a five-to-one ratio with fossil fuels, renewable energy will account for almost half the increase in power generation to 2035, Dr Birol said.

Climate change: Golden energy age for Australia will cost the world dearly , November 13, 2013  Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald Surging energy demand in Asia will deliver ”a golden age” for the Australian economy but also set the world on a path of dangerous climate change as fossil fuel-sourced emissions soar, according to the International Energy Agency. Continue reading

November 12, 2013 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

Australia’s racial discrimination against Aborigines

censorship-blackAboriginal affairs: why Australia is allowing racial discrimination, Scan, 12 Nov 12, Annie Underwood asks why we are simply standing by while Australia enforces discriminatory policies against their native people.  In a country where the majority will not accept any form of racial discrimination, how can we justify simply standing by and doing nothing whilst one of our greatest allies, Australia, enforces hugely discriminatory policies against their native people – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders?……..

the Native Title Act of 1993, which facilitates the granting of native title (i.e. right to historically held land) to indigenous communities, is seen as a step towards equality. However, the Native Title Act clearly states that when the native title rights and rights of a non-indigenous person conflict, the rights of the non-indigenous person always prevail, despite indigenous people being the ‘First Peoples’. Such a ruling breaches international human rights, as the “promotion of the interests of the many can never justify violating the human rights of the few”.

Again and again the same thing can be seen within Australian politics. Self determination is a UN defined basic human right for people to be able to freely define who they are “without external compulsion or interference”. Yet the Liberal Australian government under John Howard in 2005 abolished ATSIC (the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) – a purpose-built democratic institution for indigenous self-determination – on the grounds that it was causing racial segregation. ATSIC was the primary means by which indigenous Australians participated in the political and decision-making system, and the subsequent mainstreaming of indigenous services into the government were seen by many as an attempt to inhibit indigenous self-determination, and limit indigenous people’s freedom to govern themselves. As noted Aboriginal anthropologist Jon Altman stated: “It is ironic that at a time when Australia engages in high risk projects to install democracy abroad, its national government is seeking to eliminate a purpose-designed democratic institution at home.”………http://scan.lusu.co.uk/comment/aboriginal-affairs-why-australia-is-allowing-racial-discrimination/

November 12, 2013 Posted by | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL | Leave a comment

As USA’s nuclear plants bite the dust, so do Australian uranium mines?

burial.uranium-industrySouth Australian uranium Honeymoon mine to stop production, jobs in doubt  NEWS.COM.AU NOVEMBER 11, 2013 THE Honeymoon uranium mine in South Australia’s far northeast is expected to be mothballed. Low uranium prices and production difficulties at the plant have put pressure on the mine. The future of about 70 employees was not immediately known but far fewer employees would be needed when the mine is put under “care and maintenance”.

Honeymoon, which began producing uranium in 2011 , became wholly owned by Russian state company JSC Atomredmetzoloto in mid-October.

Previously it had been 49 per cent owned-and-operated by Canada’s Uranium One……..

Honeymoon is about 500km north by road from Adelaide, 80kms northwest of Broken Hill.It uses an in-situ leach method – where liquids are pumped underground to dissolve the uranium with the mineral extracted from the pregnant solution at the surface. SA is Australia’s leading uranium producer with Olympic Dam and Beverley in operation. Ranger in the NT is the only other mine. The Four Mile mine – near Beverley – has been approved but is yet to be built….. http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/south-australian-uranium-honeymoon-mine-to-stop-production-jobs-in-doubt/story-fnii5yv4-1226757697638

November 12, 2013 Posted by | business, South Australia, uranium | Leave a comment

Exploration company Thundelarra reduces costs, sell uranium assets

graph-down-uraniumThundelarra sells non-core Hayes Creek uranium asset November 11, 2013 byProactive Investors   Thundelarra (ASX:THX) will sell its Hayes Creek uranium assets for a total value of $1.5 million, while neatly retaining an exposure to any future exploration success from the Northern Territory project…….The sale is part of a new “look” Thundelarra that has rationalised non core projects, taken costs from the system and is focusing on core copper, base metal and gold exploration..

…the deal removes the rent, rates and exploration commitment overheads that accompany the Hayes Creek interests…..Today’s deal further illustrates the new broom through Thundelarra, disposing of non-core assets, while focusing on core projects.  http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/50073/thundelarra-sells-non-core-hayes-creek-uranium-asset-50073.html

November 12, 2013 Posted by | business, Northern Territory, uranium | Leave a comment

VIDEO: the nuclear lobby’s push to move people back into irradiated areas

Belarus has all the information Japan needs

November 12, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nuclear Establishment puts focus on “stress”, denying the facts on radiation and illness

Fear is not the problem – It is our last safeguarding against an invisible enemy  November 11, 2013 by Mikkai 妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ   Fear and stress are not the problem! They are our last safeguarding! Against an invisible enemy: RADIATION

http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/how-the-nuclear-industry-first-kills-the-children-and-then-the-parents/

text-radiophobiaThe nuclear industry helps irradiating and murdering Children, assisted by IAEA, WHO, ICRP, BEIR, UNSCEAR and local and national health authorities. With Cover Up, Dose Limits and Do not evacuate Policy.

Here is a belarusian Example: CORE / ETHOS Program:

http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/core-a-chernobyl-aid-program-that-kills/

= learn how to live in irradiated areas (no word about evacuation) & avoid stress (instead of radiation protection) & build industry, infra structure, accept the radiationresettlement of people in contaminated areas <- instead of evacuation!

! This is PRO NUCLEAR!

Now in Japanhttp://www.globalgiving.org/projects/http-fukushima-kids-org/

“Even in the present, over one year after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, there are restrictions on children playing outside in areas of Fukushima”

Of course it is. Children still live in irradiated areas and are massively more vunerable to it, than their parents. Children = Mitosis = faster cell division = FAST CANCER GROWTH & silent death

“their physical strength has declined greatly due to insufficient exercise and they are also experiencing mental stress.”

Is stress the problem? Or is a Cesium 137 radionuclide in their heart tissue the problem? A plutonium atom in the lungs? Strontium 90 in bones and teeth? Is stress really the problem? Continue reading

November 12, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Uranium industry wants special royalty discounts from Queensland government, despite its existing burdens on taxpayerite

 exclamation-Royalty discounts for uranium disputed  http://www.northweststar.com.au/story/1901524/royalty-discounts-for-uranium-disputed/?cs=191 Nov. 11, 2013,  URANIUM projects should receive royalty discounts, according to Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche. `Royalty relief should be something that’s offered not just in the Galilee Basin but around Queensland, and I mean it for coal and I mean it for minerals,” Mr Roche told ABC radio. “The concept has already been raised in relation to proposed uranium projects, for example.”

 Anti-nuclear campaign co-ordinator Mark Bailey hit back, saying uranium mining was “already a huge burden on the taxpayer, with the Mary Kathleen uranium mine near Mount Isa still an environmental mess more than 30 years after it closed.

“The QRC are irresponsibly pitching to reap in larger uranium profits by paying less royalties at the expense of Queensland taxpayers if they are responsible economic managers.”

Mr Bailey called on the Newman government to reinstate the ban on uranium mining, saying it was an ongoing liability on the public purse. `The Newman government has no mandate from the people of Queensland to allow uranium mining as they explicitly ruled it out before the election,” he said.

Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear-free campaigner Dave Sweeney said the uranium sector was a minor contributor to employment and the economy, was a major source of domestic and international risks and was overdue for an independent inquiry into its effects on the environment, health, safety and security.

“Instead of backroom deals to facilitate an underperforming and contested industry, the LNP government should honour its responsibilities to the community and the environment by commissioning an independent public inquiry into the full costs and consequences of any uranium mining in Queensland,” Mr Sweeney said.

November 12, 2013 Posted by | politics, Queensland | Leave a comment

Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott repeats misconceptions about renewable energy

Abbott-destroys-renewablesPollie Watch: PM Abbott’s first comments on wind farms, Yes 2 Renewables   November 12, 2013 by Leigh Ewbank Renewable Energy Target Tony Abbott has made his first comments on wind energy and the Renewable Energy Target as Prime Minister…….The Prime Minister cites two common misperceptions about renewables energy: Firstly, that renewables aren’t up for the job of powering the Australian economy because they’re intermittent. And secondly, that the Renewable Energy Target makes up a significant portion of electricity bills.

Let’s break down these misconceptions for the Prime Minister to assist his government’s energy policy making.

Misconception #1: Australia needs backup for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

Reality: It is technically feasible for Australia to meet it’s electricity needs from renewable energy alone.
According to the energy experts, shifting to 100 percent renewable energy is both technically viable and affordable. Studies by the think tank Beyond Zero Emissions (PDF), and follow up studies from the Australian Energy Market Operator (PDF) and University of New South Wales (PDF) confirm the technical feasibility of renewable energy. In terms of cost, the 100 percent renewable energy system is cheaper the fossil fuel based business-as-usual approach.

Modelling is one thing, what about real world applications?

South Australia is leading the nation with it’s renewable energy rollout. The state now meets 31 percent of it’s electricity demand from renewable energy sources. Wind farms are doing the heavy lifting, providing 27 percent, while the rapidly growing rooftop solar contributes 4 percent. South Australia is expected to reach 50 percent renewables in a decade.

Misconception #2: Renewable energy is a significant part of power bills, driving up costs. 

Reality: John Howard’s Renewable Energy Target makes up a small portion of Australian power bills. The rollout of renewable energy is making power bills cheaper.

Data from the Australian Energy Market Commission (PDF) shows the RET accounts for less than one percent of the average household electricity bill – or a mere $35 from a $2000 bill. That’s around $0.70 each week over a year. It is transmission, distribution, and wholesale electricity prices which are the largest contributors to power bills.

Renewable energy is putting downward pressure on power bills. Energy analysts agree wind farms are causing South Australia’s wholesale electricity prices to drop. This trend resulted in the SA Essential Services Commission directing energy companies to cut retail prices cut by 8.1 percent. The move will lower the average power bill by $160 a year.

So, what are Australians getting for their $35 investment in renewable energy? Cheaper bills, less pollution, and action on climate change. Most Australians would agree that’s a win, win…….

Retired Liberal Senator for Tasmania, Peter Rae shows you can be a proud Liberal and a strong supporter of renewable energy. Mr Rae believes the Liberal party has a tradition to uphold when it comes to supporting renewable energy.

Mr Rae was vice president of the World Wind Energy Association (now honorary VP) and is Vice Chairman of the International Renewable Energy Alliance, REN21. With impeccable renewable energy credentials, Mr Rae knows what he’s talking about. Perhaps the PM will draw on the expertise of Peter Rae when undertaking a review of the Renewable Energy Target next year.http://yes2renewables.org/2013/11/12/pollie-watch-pm-abbotts-first-comments-on-wind-farms-renewable-energy-target/

November 12, 2013 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Ionising radiation – its effects on children

text ionisingHow the Nuclear Industry first kills the Children and then the Parents April 14, 2013 by Mikkai  妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ translated by Jan Hemmer, NGO “For the Children of Chernobyl”

original Text by Dr. Dörte Siedentopf, IPPNW Germany, for the NGO “For the Children of Chernobyl”http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/130219SiedentopfRadioaktivit%C3%A4t.pdf

 Stochastic effects and children:

There is statistical health damage caused by the so-called low-level radiation (above ZERO up to 500mSv.) That is not assigned to any particular people, but occur in a defined population. This issue is the subject of thousands of studies all over the world since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and I will discuss in detail below with reference to examples. Factors such as age, gender, health, immune system, nutrition, social situation and the duration of exposure of the radioactivity influence the onset of cancer and other diseases.Until the Chernobyl disaster, the biological effects in the body of the
radioactive isotopes have been undervalued.

It is now clear: Any radiation poses a risk especially for children who are extremely radiosensitive.

1) A child is constantly increasing in weight and size, it grows from the intrauterine embryo to adult, the younger, the faster. Therefore, the cells divide much more frequently than an adult. Cells in the division phase (mitosis) are more vulnerable to radiation than cells in the resting phase.

2) The ability of the body to recognize “defective” cells and to  eliminate them develops during childhood. An embryo has not yet this ability. Therefore  “defective” cells can multiply unimpeded and later lead to cancer or heritable diseases.

3) A child that grows must hold more substances than emiting them, more than an adult. The body of a child takes in more radioactive substances in food, drink and air we breathe than adults. Especially dangerous are 137 and Cs-134 and 137 and Sr-90 – deposited in the muscles or in the bone (see below)…………ekknorg.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/how-the-nuclear-industry-first-kills-the-children-and-then-the-parents/

November 12, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Even France now looking to renewable energy as cheaper than nuclear

EdF’s major shareholder, the French government, is looking to reduce the share of nuclear in France’s generation to around 50 per cent from more than 70 per cent, and intends to fill that hole with (cheaper) renewables.

EdF has effectively handballed the risk of new nuclear to consumer and the UK government. The consumer is picking up the tab through higher electricity bills, and the UK government is using taxpayers money to guarantee 65 per cent of the project cost. 

nukes-hungryNuclear Energy Verdict:” Very Disappointing “ Clean Technica, Giles Parkinson, 112 Nov 13 (very good graphs, diagrams) …..we have received an analysis from Deutsche Bank, which makes some other observations about the cost of nuclear, the comparisons with gas, the price of abatement, and the cost of upkeep for France’s existing fleet.

The first point made by Deutsche is that this deal underlines the fact that nuclear is not cheap, but really, really expensive – a point that should not be forgotten in Australia, where there is still a push for nuclear in some quarters despite the abundant alternatives (in particular solar) that are not available to the UK. Continue reading

November 12, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

By 2015 Australia’s gas prices to triple

dollar 2Gas Prices Could Triple (Or More) In 2015 http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4018  11 Nov 13,   According to AGL’s CEO, east coast gas prices could skyrocket soon.  The situation will occur as a result of the effects of LNG plants being constructed at Gladstone. An article on The Australian says when these plants start up in 2015; spot gas price spikes are likely to be exacerbated by demand for Australian gas from Asia.

“For industrial and commercial gas users, I have no doubt there will be demand destruction,” said Mr. Fraser.
“You start with baseload gas power generation, that is the first load that will get knocked off because it doesn’t work without a price on carbon, those gas prices.”

The situation will also impact households; but Mr. Fraser claims average per-household annual increases are likely to be less than $100.
However, with households being pummelled by energy price rises in recent years and the much vaunted carbon tax repeal perhaps unlikely to deliver the savingspromised; any further increases in energy bills could be the proverbial straw.

Earlier this year, Matthew Wright, Executive Director of Zero Emissions said common major gas appliances already have an electric competitor that beats them on price and performance; including induction cooktops, heat pump hot water units and reverse cycle heat pump air-conditioners.  In July, Mr. Wright also forewarned the push to develop more gas fields in Australia had little to do with securing domestic supplies and lowering prices and more to do with export profits.

“Do not be fooled by the fossil gas miners – they’re not here to give Australia a competitive advantage, only renewable electricity generators can do that as there is no way to export renewable electricity,” he said.
Financial costs aside, the other impact of Asia’s thirst for Australia’s gas reserves is the cost to the environment from the rush to dot the landscape with coal seam gas wells.

November 12, 2013 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy | Leave a comment

Chernobyl radiation caused birds to have smaller brains

text ionisingChernobyl Birds Have Smaller Brains PLOS 1 Anders Pape Møller mail, Andea Bonisoli-Alquati, Geir Rudolfsen, Timothy A. Mousseau   

Abstract

Background

Animals living in areas contaminated by radioactive material from Chernobyl suffer from increased oxidative stress and low levels of antioxidants. Therefore, normal development of the nervous system is jeopardized as reflected by high frequencies of developmental errors, reduced brain size and impaired cognitive abilities in humans. Alternatively, associations between psychological effects and radiation have been attributed to post-traumatic stress in humans.

Methodology/Principal Finding

Here we used an extensive sample of 550 birds belonging to 48 species to test the prediction that even in the absence of post-traumatic stress, there is a negative association between relative brain size and level of background radiation. We found a negative association between brain size as reflected by external head volume and level of background radiation, independent of structural body size and body mass. The observed reduction in brain size in relation to background radiation amounted to 5% across the range of almost a factor 5,000 in radiation level. Species differed significantly in reduction in brain size with increasing background radiation, and brain size was the only morphological character that showed a negative relationship with radiation. Brain size was significantly smaller in yearlings than in older individuals.

Conclusions/Significance

Low dose radiation can have significant effects on normal brain development as reflected by brain size and therefore potentially cognitive ability. The fact that brain size was smaller in yearlings than in older individuals implies that there was significant directional selection on brain size with individuals with larger brains experiencing a viability advantage……..http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016862

November 12, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

British takeover, and their goal of genocide – true history of Aboriginal Australia

Thus there were no treaties concluded with Aboriginal group and no arrangements were made with them to acquire their land, or to regulate dealings between them and the colonists.

 Some notable colonial legislation that targeted Aboriginal peoples included:

·         1816 Martial Law (NSW). This proclamation declared Martial Law against Indigenous Australians who could then be shot on sight if armed with spears, or even unarmed, if they were within a certain distance of houses or settlements

·         1824 (Tasmania). Settlers are authorised to shoot Aboriginal peoples

·         1840 (NSW). Indigenous Australians forbidden to use firearms without the permission of a Justice of the Peace

·         1869 (Victoria). The Board for the Protection of Aborigines is established. The Governor can order the removal of any child to a reformatory or industrial school

·         1890 (NSW). In a denial of human rights the Aborigines Protection Board could forcibly take children off reserves and “resocialise” them………

Despite the veil of FIRST WORLD superiority we need to remind all First World nations that they are what they are because of the stolen riches of the countries they have turned into THIRD WORLD and continue to keep them as Third World nations by controlling world trade, the international laws, international rights and justice mechanism and the international media

text-historyBritain’s Mass Murder of Indigenous Australians (Aborigines), Lanka Web  November 9th, 2013 Shenali D Waduge  To those that do not know of Britain’s colonial crimes in their eyes Britain is the epitome of justice, equality, the nation that rears gentlemen of breed and holds the seat of democracy. To those that are aware of British mass murder as ordered by British Governments, the scale of cataloguing these crimes becomes a task in itself and should nullify all claims of any gentlemanly behavior.

The invasion and decimation of Aboriginal Australia was and is entirely a British affair. When Britain devastates a 65,000 year old culture in just 200 years and carries out unthinkable crimes to take over land and exterminate the indigenous population how do we term Britain other than a mass murderer? The Aboriginal experience is depressingly similar to that of Native Americans in the United States. European settlers viciously drove the Aborigines from their land, massacring thousands with impunity. Why does the world remain silent and ignorant of these crimes against humanity?

 When the British arrived in Australia in 1788, Australia was NEVER a white country. It was occupied for over 65,000 years by indigenous black Australians later called ‘Aborigines’ by the British. How did these black Aborigines suddenly disappear? British colonial terrorism is the answer. How would the English, such respectable and gentlemanly people get rid of possibly close to 1million indigenous people and take over their lands after their arrival in 1788? How did the Aborigines become less than 100,000 by 1901? The very respectable English settlers cut their food resources and began genocidal massacres and David Cameron speaks to the world on HUMAN RIGHTS! Aborigines did not invade nations or take over lands – the British did and moreover these Aborigines were not warlike people – their culture and livelihood never left room for dissent of the kind that warranted defense. Continue reading

November 12, 2013 Posted by | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, history | Leave a comment