Red Cross research shows 80% of Australians want legally binding treaty to ban the use of nuclear weapons
Aussies Want Nuclear Weapons Ban – NFP Report http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2014/12/aussies-want-nuclear-weapons-ban-nfp-report#, December 2, 2014 More than 80 per cent of Australians support a legally binding treaty to ban the use of nuclear weapons, according to new research on attitudes towards nuclear weapons released by Australian Red Cross.
The survey found an overwhelming majority – 84 per cent – of the 1,001 Australians interviewed in the nation-wide survey feel the world would be a safer place if there were no nuclear weapons.
“A resounding 88 per cent said there would be no winners in a nuclear war given the devastating humanitarian consequences that would result. People over 65 were significantly more likely to feel there would be no winners in a nuclear war,” Australian Red Cross said.
“The message from the Australian community is clear,” Australian Red Cross’ CEO Robert Tickner said.
“It’s time for the international community to create a treaty to ban the use of nuclear weapons and ensure they are not passed as an inheritance of horror to future generations.
“Even a limited nuclear war would have immense human, environmental and agricultural destructive consequences transcending national boundaries. This situation would be beyond the power of governments and aid agencies to respond with any meaningful humanitarian assistance.”
Since their first use in Hiroshima in August 1945, Red Cross Red Crescent has voiced deep humanitarian concerns about nuclear weapons.
“While other weapons such as chemical weapons, land mines and cluster munitions have been conclusively dealt with by international treaties, nuclear weapons have not,” the humanitarian NFP said.
“The International Red Cross Red Crescent Movement has been appealing to Governments to prohibit the use of and eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binding international agreement for some time.
Movement representatives – including Australian Red Cross delegates – will join Governments and non-governmental organisations from around the world on 8 and 9 December when they come together in Vienna to further examine the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.
Key Survey Findings
· 81 per cent of Australians support a legally binding treaty to ban the use of nuclear weapons.
· 84 per cent feel the world would be a safer place if there were no nuclear weapons.
· 88 per cent said there would be no winners in a nuclear war given the devastating humanitarian consequences.
· 43 per cent rate the risk of an accidental explosion or intentional use of a nuclear weapon as high or medium.
As usual, Tony Abbott is obeying his masters, Rio Tinto and BHP, on nuclear power
As the debate over nuclear power is thrown open again, Rio has told the Abbott government’s energy white paper taskforce that it is important to ensure Australia — a major uranium exporter — has the “broadest possible” range of options to bolster energy security……….
Rio Tinto says [this] in a new submission in response to the energy green paper released in September.
“The lead time for nuclear energy is long, and it would be prudent to start taking steps now towards building the capability to make informed decisions by 2020 on whether nuclear energy should be part of Australia’s energy mix.”………. The debate comes as a raft of submissions push for debate on nuclear power and companies including BHP Billiton, ANZ, Peabody Energy and Qantas Airways have made fresh submissions weighing into the debate on the nation’s energy future.
BHP, which like Rio is a major uranium producer, has told the taskforce that Australia is well-positioned to capitalise on an expected growth in demand……..
The government’s energy green paper says nuclear energy remains a “serious consideration for future low emissions energy”.
Australia has not deployed nuclear power because of government policy, including legal bans, community sentiment, and the abundance of cheap energy. Also, Australia’s glut of electricity generation is expected to last until 2023-24. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/rio-pushes-for-nuclear-power-in-energy-debate/story-e6frg9df-1227141384763
Tony Abbott’s laughable comment about “no subsidy” for nuclear power
Tony Abbott is currently being caught up in the embarrassment of his many recent lies.The government has received a number of submissions to its energy industry review calling for nuclear power to be part of the mix.
Some companies and scientists say small modular reactors, similar to that used in submarines, could be operational within a decade with the right policies in place.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has “no theological objection” to nuclear energy as a way of providing carbon emissions-free baseload power. But Australia didn’t have the same energy shortages as other countries because of the abundance of coal and gas.
“If someone wants to put a proposal for nuclear energy generation here in Australia, fine, but don’t expect a government subsidy,” Mr Abbott said in Canberra on Monday.
“If it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen because it is economically feasible, not because the government runs around offering a subsidy.”
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said on the weekend nuclear power was an “obvious direction” for Australia as it contemplated new carbon emissions reduction targets.
Ms Bishop will be in Peru on Monday for a UN climate conference to discuss reduction targets beyond 2020.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott “fine” with the idea of nuclear power for Australia
Prime Minister Tony Abbott says has no objection to nuclear energy and would be ‘fine’ with a proposal, ABC News 2 Nov 14 By political reporter Nick Pedley Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he would be “fine” with someone putting forward a nuclear energy proposal and described the Fukushima meltdown as a “problem”.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop earlier told Fairfax Media nuclear energy was an “obvious” way to reduce carbon emissions…….Senior Labor frontbencher Jenny Macklin said it was unnecessary for more nuclear energy in Australia.
“It’s both not necessary in Australia and I’d like Julie Bishop to tell those Australians where she thinks she’s going to put those power stations,” she said…..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-01/tony-abbott-says-he-has-no-objection-to-nuclear-energy/5931252
Family First Senator Bob Day pushing for nuclear submarines for Australia
Poor South Australia! I don’t know what it is about South Australia. Such a beautiful State,with an amazing and interesting history.
And – it’ s the State that can truly boast of success in renewable energy.
Unfortunately, South Australia is also saddled with that white elephant – the uranium industry.
It is also the hub of pro-nuclear promotion. There are the nuclear propagandists like Barry Brook, the universities infiltrated by pro nuclear proponents like Prof Simons, and the pro nuke business groups – all promoted by BHP. (Below Adelaide pro nuke promoters of nuclear power)
Now we have Senator Bob Day urging the government to develop nuclear submarines, as a recent Family First media release (3/12/14)revealed
Tasmania’s anti renewable energy Senator Lambie snubs Granville Harbour Wind Farm project
Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie snubs Granville Harbour Wind Farm project meeting, The Advocate By SEAN FORD Dec. 2, 2014,
RENEWABLE energy target critic Senator Jacqui Lambie has been accused of refusing to meet proponents of a West Coast wind farm, with 200 construction jobs hanging in the balance.
Investors were “lined up” for the $150 million project, director Alex Simpson said yesterday.
However, they needed bipartisan certainty at federal level……..
PUP-turned-independent Senator Lambie has been scathing about the RET, describing it as the “mainland RET” and saying it pushes up Tasmanian power prices and threatens jobs despite Tasmanian energy generation being renewable.
Mr Simpson said Westcoast Wind had been seeking a meeting with Senator Lambie since August, but had been told she was “too busy”.
He questioned whether there would be a bigger project she could influence.
The project has the necessary federal, state and council approvals.
Mr Simpson said it could proceed if the target was left alone, but a decision was needed.
“The federal government needs to say ‘This is what we’re going to do,’ then Labor goes tick so there’s bipartisan support.”
Some in the Coalition argue the RET should be scaled back, due to declining power use.
Mr Simpson said an excess of generation would be a good thing, as it would tend to put downward pressure on prices.
He also argued the economic case for wind, saying: “Any power station that has no fuel cost has to be cheaper in the long run.” If a lower RET was introduced, he said, the Granville project would be “very challenging for the industry”.
Comment was being sought from Senator Lambie. http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/2735194/lambie-snubs-project-meeting/
Huge rise in anencephaly babies near Hanford nuclear site
New data shows babies missing brains at 2,500% national rate in county by nuclear site — Mother: Officials “shut me down the minute I mentioned Hanford!… WE NEED ANSWERS!” — Experts: No birth defect is more extreme; It’s the most significant impact of radiation on developing embryos (AUDIO) http://enenews.com/79334?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29
“Nothing [is] more extreme than anencephaly” –Dr Michael Grodin, Boston U. School of Medicine
‘Fatal Birth Defects Surge’ – Dr. Kathy Lofy, Washington Dept.of Health (emphasis added): Anencephaly is a rare birth defect in which the brain and the skull of the baby do not fully form [and is] not compatible with life… The most well known risk factor… is a deficiency in folic acid… that’s one of the possibilities we’re looking into [note that mothers in the birth defect cluster had much higher rates of folic acid consumption than the control group chosen by officials]…Hanford nuclear facility has been one concern of the community. We worked really closely with our radiation experts… who work closely with… Hanford. There have been no recent releases [note how she rephrases this] — no recent CHANGE in radiation releases. We can’t really determine any pathway by which radiation could affect all the women in the 3-county area [note all 3 counties surround Hanford]… We’re working with the doctors to make sure we’re identifying all the cases… It’s very important to figure out the rates.
Dr. Wladimir Wertelecki, MD, (Chair of Medical Genetics at U. of S. Alabama), Dr. Helen Caldicott’s Crisis Without End, Oct 2014: “The most significant negative impact of radiation on a developing embryo includes anencephaly… Two US studies… sponsored by the[CDC and published in 1988] sought to determine the… impact of ionizing radiation nearHanford… One study detected higher neural tube defect rates [e.g. Anencephaly, Spina Bifida] in two counties near the nuclear complex and the other demonstrated higher rates of neural tube defects in parents exposed… to low levels of radiation.”
Physicians for Social Responsibility: Hanford documents [reveal] incredible contamination of the environment and exposure of large numbers of citizens to dangerous amounts…Eight plutonium production reactors dumped a daily average of 50,000 curies of radioactive material into the Columbia... [In 1949] 8,000 curies of iodine-131 were [secretly] released [over] an area o 200 by 40 miles, no warnings were given… [`400 times TMI’s release of] 15 -24 curies — PSR: Contamination has not and will not stay inside Hanford’s boundaries… Over 300 miles of the Columbia… are threatened… [Fires in] 2000… burned three radioactive waste sites [and] plutonium was detected in nearby communities. — PSR: Hanford is the most contaminated site in the Western Hemisphere… At least 200-square miles of groundwater… is contaminated and migrating to the Columbia.
Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen on Nuclear Hotseat, Nov. 12, 2014 (at 34:00 in): Birth defect issues occur in the 2nd [generation after radiation exposure] — especially the 3rd and 4th.
Washington Anencephaly Investigation, Oct 2014:
- Anencephaly in Benton, Franklin, YakimaCounties (next to Hanford) from Jan 1 to Oct 17, 2014: 9 cases in 290 days with est. 6,423 births (based on 8,084 in 2013) —RATE: 14 cases per 10,000 births
- Anencephaly in Yakima County from Jan 1 to Jun 6, 2014: 2 cases in 157 days wirh est. 1,700 births (based on 3,953 in 2013) – RATE: 11.8 cases per 10,000 births
- Anencephaly in Yakima County from Jun 7 to Oct. 17, 2014: 3 cases in 133 days out of est. 1,440 births (based on 3,953 in 2013) — RATE: 20.8 cases per 10,000 births (2,860% of US national rate)
CDC 2010 statistics, released 2013: Anencephaly 313 cases; RATE: 0.73 per 10,000 births.
Instead of using the 0.73 rate, officials claim the national rate is 2.1, nearly 3 times higher. The rate of 2.1 is from a study using data from 2004-2006 that estimates the anencephaly rate, andonly uses data from less than 15 states — unlike the CDC report above which is based on the most current data, uses data from all 50 states, and is not an ‘estimate’.
Nikki Shelton, mother of baby w/ neural tube defect (e.g. Anencephaly, Spina Bifida) 13 mi. from Hanford, Nov 6, 2014: This is not something that is going away… the numbers are increasing. The last teleconference I was in shut me down the minute I mentioned Hanford! … let’s not let the department of health just sweep this under the rug…WE NEED ANSWERS!
Faith in nuclear power – a religious belief for corporate-backed Abbott government
Nuclear power keeps the corporates in charge. No wonder it’s conservatives’ preferred solution to climate change, Guardian Tim Hollo, 2 Dec 14
Tony Abbott says he has ‘no theological objection’ to nuclear power. That’s fair – only blind faith could justify his belief in a power source that’s so costly and risky “I have no theological objection” to nuclear power, Tony Abbott said on 1 December, responding to Julie Bishop’s relaunch of the right’s preferred “solution” to global warming this week.
Abbott’s choice of words is fascinating. On the face of it he’s suggesting that opposing nuclear power is a faith-based, rather than rational, view. But it is the right’s consistent promotion of a technology that has been shown repeatedly to be too slow, too costly and too risky (see, for instance, here and here) that is underpinned by several right wing articles of faith. It’s worth unpacking this credo, because it reveals what’s really going on when nuclear power is raised………. Continue reading
Nuclear power doesn’t make sense if you look at the numbers
Nuclear: the power source for innumerates and socialists , Crikey by Bernard Keane. Monday, 1 December 2014 According to Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop, “it’s an obvious conclusion that if you want to bring down your greenhouse gas emissions dramatically you have to embrace a form of low or zero-emissions energy, and that’s nuclear”.
Well, it’s an obvious conclusion if you can’t count, or you’re a raving […](registered readers only) http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/12/01/nuclear-the-power-source-for-innumerates-and-socialists/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
89% of Australians support Renewable Energy Target
Almost 90% of Australians support renewable energy target, says poll, Guardian, Lenore Taylor, political editor Tuesday 2 December WWF poll finds overwhelming support for RET, particularly in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, as senators consider deal. Almost 89% of Australians want the renewable energy target increased or kept the same, according to new polling designed to shore up Senate opposition to plans by the government and some crossbench senators to wind back the policy.
The polling found support for the policy – which requires that 41,000 gigawatt hours of electricity be sourced from renewables in 2020 – was even higher in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, the home states of crossbench senators Ricky Muir, Nick Xenophon and Jacqui Lambie who hold deciding votes on any attempt to push RET change through the Senate.
Commissioned by WWF, the Reachtel polling found a strong majority of voters in the three states thought it was “very important” for the federal government to invest in renewable energy (60% in South Australia and 62.4% in Victoria and Tasmania, compared with 59.8% nationally).
Talks between the Abbott government and the Labor opposition to find a bipartisan agreement on the RET have broken down and a “compromise” plancirculated by Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm is understood not to have the support of senators Bob Day, John Madigan and Jacqui Lambie.
The government had originally signalled it wanted very deep cuts to the target – and commissioned the businessman and self-professed climate sceptic Dick Warburton to undertake a review, which recommended it be slashed to about 16,000 gigawatt hours……..
The poll found very high support for the RET among swing voters – those considering changing their voting preference from 2013. Some 88% of those voters think the RET should be increased or stay the same and 64% of those considering a change in vote supported an increase to the RET, with only 12% supporting a decrease. And 62% were more likely to vote for a party that supports keeping or increasing the current RET.
“Cutting the RET makes no sense. It will see Australia’s carbon pollution go up, sustainable energy jobs lost and investment shut out. It’s also out of line with public sentiment which is clearly in favour of supporting growth in Australia’s renewable energy sector, including wind and solar,” said WWF spokeswoman Kellie Caught.
Polling has repeatedly found very strong voter support for renewables. Another recent poll by the Australia Institute found 64% of self-identified Liberal voters supported an increased target.
But the current impasse has seen investment dry up, and if it is not resolved, electricity retailers will run out of new renewable energy to buy to meet their legislated requirements – forcing them to pay a “penalty” price.
The Reachtel poll, conducted on 26 November, contacted 5,036 voters around Australia, including 1216 in Victoria, 934 in Tasmania and 873 in South Australia. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/02/almost-90-of-australians-support-renewable-energy-target-says-poll
Former Australian Liberal Party leader John Hewson calls for keeping Renewable Energy Target unchanged
Federal Government should drop plans to wind back RET: Hewson, ABC News, By business reporter Emily Stewart 1 Dec 2014,
Former Liberal leader Dr John Hewson says the Federal Government should abandon its bid to scale back the renewable energy target, calling it a political barnacle that needs to be removed……..Dr Hewson, who is also an economist, said that the target needs to be maintained.
“If you’re talking about barnacles, get rid of this one,” he argued.
“He had a pre-election commitment to keep it … It costs him nothing to leave it there. It has no impact on the budget.”
Dr Hewson said the Abbott government is off the pace of worldwide climate change developments……..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-02/federal-government-should-drop-plans-to-wind-back-ret-hewson/5934756
Benefits and harms of ultraviolet radiation
How to protect your skin while getting enough vitamin D , The Conversation 3 December 2014, Terry Slevin Honorary Senior Lecturer in Public Health at Curtin University; Education & Research Director, Cancer Council WA; Chair of the Occupational and Environmental Cancer Committee at Cancer Council Australia
“..….While limited dietary sources of vitamin D are available, exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is the most effective source of vitamin D for the majority of the world’s population.
Vitamin D deficiency is unquestionably linked to compromised bone health. While levels of evidence vary, it is also associated with a wide range of other potential health problems.
On the other hand, excess UVR exposure is strongly linked to increasing risk of skin cancer.
To confuse the issue further, a recently published papersuggested sun exposure might help reduce blood pressure and influence heart disease risk. But not through vitamin D. This research is still in its early days, but it may be that some of the benefits previously ascribed to vitamin D occur through other mechanisms related to sun exposure…………
What should we do?
So what does make sense when it comes to sun exposure, skin cancer and vitamin D? The trick is, of course, getting the balance right and avoiding extremes, in one direction or the other.
Adjusting sun exposure according to the time of year and time of day is important. The UV Index will be in the extreme range in the middle of the day through most, if not all, of summer. So avoiding exposure for the few hours in the in the middle of summer days is smart. The World Health Organization recommends sun protection once the UV Index reaches or exceeds three……..
Depending on where you live, five minutes of mid-morning or mid-afternoon sun two to three times a week – and certainly avoiding any sun burning – is a helpful rule. But it’s best to keep the head, face and neck protected as they get lots of sun and are at highest skin cancer risk.
Terry Slevin is editor of Sun, Skin and Health, CSIRO Publishing. https:// theconversation.com/how-to- protect-your-skin-while- getting-enough-vitamin-d-34143
Australia in a good position to develop European style community wind and solar
Australia well placed to replicate European community-owned wind, solar and hydro power projects http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-02/community-owned-renewable-energy-projects-possible/5933150 Mike Pritchard Regional Australia has the sunlight and the knowledge to replicate the successful move to renewable energy seen in Europe.
That was the message delivered to participants at a clean energy conference in the New South Wales Hunter Valley.
Jarra Hicks, director and co-founder of the Community Power Agency, says Australia could learn a lot from Germany’s move to renewable energy.
“In Germany 46 per cent of all their renewable energy is owned by ordinary citizens, mum and dad investors, through cooperatives.
“Together they own wind turbines and solar panels and hydro power plants.”
She says a very stable policy environment has been an important factor.
“They have very clear rules that allow access to the grid network from communities.”
She said two community-owned wind farms already exist in Australia.
“They are owned by local people, they finance these projects and get returns on their investment, keeping money in the local economy.”
Ms Hicks said community owned renewable energy projects have the potential to contribute positive social, economic outcomes for regional Australia.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 