Four years on: Kakadu Traditional Owners remain saddened by ongoing Fukushima disaster
11 March 15 The Mirarr Traditional Owners of parts of Kakadu National Park including the Ranger and Jabiluka uranium deposits have expressed their continued sadness on the fourth anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Contamination from the failed reactors has forced over 150,000 people to permanently leave their homes and details of the ongoing human and environmental devastation continue to emerge with new leaks of highly radioactive water from the site detected just last month.
In October 2011 the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) confirmed the Fukushima nuclear crisis was directly fuelled by uranium from Australia. At the time Mirarr Senior Traditional Owner Yvonne Margarula wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon expressing her concern and sadness at the devastation that uranium from her lands was causing in Japan: “This is an industry we never supported in the past and want no part of in the future. We are all diminished by the events unfolding at Fukushima,” Ms Margarula wrote.
In August 2014 the Mirarr along with national environment, union and public health groups, hosted an Australian tour of Mr Naoto Kan. Mr Kan was Prime Minister of Japan when the Fukushima reactors failed and, though previously a supporter of nuclear power, is now a passionate advocate for safe renewable energy sources. Mr Kan was particularly affected by his visit to Mirarr country and the Ranger mine which has supplied Japan with uranium for over three decades.
Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation CEO Justin O’Brien said: “Mirarr country and Japan have been linked by nuclear issues for many years. On this fourth anniversary of the Fukushima disaster we send our thoughts to the people of Japan, whose lives have been irrevocably changed by that terrible event.”
“The impacts of the nuclear industry will be felt for generations in every place and amongst all peoples it touches. Here in Kakadu the legacy of uranium mining is all too evident and we are deeply saddened to learn of the ongoing and increasing impacts of the failed reactors on the people and country of Japan,” Mr O’Brien concluded.
South Australian nuclear lobby imports UK shill Tim Stone to spruik for nukes
Herald Sun reports – NUCLEAR energy is “cheap, safe and low carbon’’, world-leading nuclear expert Dr Tim Stone says
Office for Nuclear Development
- Tim Stone, Senior Adviser to the Secretary of State for BERR and to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury on new nuclear power: he is the Chairman and founder of KPMG‘s Global Infrastructure and Projects Group.
Protecting the nuclear industry from bad news
In July 2012, The Guardian revealed OND emails that revealed how it worked closely with E.ON and RWE to soften the impact of a major blow to plans for a new nuclear programme……
Sharing intelligence with the industry
In December 2011, The Guardian revealed how the OND was “quietly exchanging intelligence on key policies with multinational companies in an effort to protect and promote their plans for new nuclear power stations”.
It shared information about the handling of the EDF‘s application to build the first of the new nuclear stations at Hinkley Point, in Somerset.
It also sent EDF and the Nuclear Industry Association details of its court battle against Greenpeace, which is trying to block the Government’s nuclear plans…….http://powerbase.info/index.php/Office_for_Nuclear_Development
South Australian protest against expanding nuclear industry
Protesters warn of SA nuclear risks 9 News 11 Mar 15 Protesters have raised the spectre of the Fukushima nuclear disaster to warn against expanding the industry in South Australia.
The SA government has launched a royal commission to investigate whether the state should embrace nuclear enrichment, power production and the storage of waste.
Environmentalists have argued that the industry could generate catastrophic risks for the state.
Propping up a giant inflatable “nuclear waste” barrel, the protesters held signs reading “Aus Uranium Fuelling Fukushima” and “SA: Renewable not Radioactive”. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/03/11/13/05/protesters-warn-of-sa-nuclear-risks#5MFxGQZ8vrKyHfPv.99
SA Royal Commission Draft Terms of Reference Ignore Health Impacts of Nuclear Industry
11 Mar 15 The Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) and the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) are deeply concerned that the Royal Commission’s draft terms of reference are too narrow and do not protect the health of South Australians.
“The draft terms of reference do not address health impacts at all, for either industry workers or the general public,” said Dr Margaret Beavis, President of MAPW. “Nuclear reactors are associated with increased rates of childhood leukemia in surrounding areas, and there are already legacy health issues in South Australia resulting from previous nuclear activities and uranium mining,” she added.
“In addition, the large government subsidies reactors require may reduce funds available for public institutions like hospitals and health services in South Australia,” Dr Beavis added.
The MAPW and PHAA are calling for a comprehensive examination of the entire nuclear industry, including uranium mining and security risks.
“There are health threats associated with every step of the nuclear fuel cycle and ample scientific evidence regarding the hazards of low dose radiation exposure,” said PHAA spokesperson Dr Michael Fonda. “There needs to be a genuine and scientific assessment of the health impacts of the nuclear industry both from the past and for the future,” he added.
This Royal Commission provides an opportunity to explore energy solutions for South Australia. “Uranium is a non-renewable resource and Australia needs a 21st century Energy Policy that hastens the transition of our economy toward one powered by renewables, not one that ties us down in outmoded and potentially dangerous technologies,” Dr Beavis said.
Both organisations have offered to assist the Royal Commission in its inquiry.
Australia’s role in fuelling nuclear trade, and in contributing to Fukushima’s catastrophe
At this fourth anniversary it is time for Australia to stop making excuses and promises and start taking real steps to identify the costs and consequences of our role in fuelling the global nuclear trade.
Fukushima four years on – what lessons has Australia learnt? Fukushima remains a profound human, economic and environmental tragedy – and Australian uranium exports must shoulder some of that blame. SBS News By David Sweeney 11 MAR 2015 Four years ago this week the world held its breath as the nuclear emergency at the stricken Fukushima nuclear complex dominated our screens and headlines. The vision of smoke billowing from reactor 4 as it teetered on the edge of meltdown remains frighteningly vivid today.
On March 11, 2011 the earthquake and tsunami that ripped through much of Japan’s eastern seaboard also ripped through the Tokyo Electric Power Corporation’s (TEPCO) Fukushima-Daichi nuclear complex.
Later that year came confirmation from Canberra that the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima had its beginning in the back of a large yellow truck in Australia.
Giving evidence to a Parliamentary Committee in October Dr Robert Floyd, the head of Australia’s nuclear safeguards office stated: we can confirm that Australian obligated nuclear material [uranium] was at the Fukushima Daiichi site and in each of the reactors.
So radioactive rocks dug up in northern South Australia and Kakadu are the source of the Fukushima fallout threatening Japan and far beyond.
Fast forward to 2015 and at the end of this week – aptly enough on Friday the 13th – public comment closes on the South Australian state governments new Royal Commission into all things nuclear.
In the shadow of Fukushima – a continuing crisis directly fuelled by Australian uranium – it is important that the experiences lived and the lessons learned are not forgotten or ignored.
But it seems that not many in decision making positions in either Australian governments or uranium corporations are in a mood for listening. Following Fukushima the United Nations Secretary General initiated a system wide study into what happened and what is needed to avoid any future Fukushima’s.
One aspect of this review with particular relevance to Australia was the Secretary General’s call for ‘an in-depth assessment of the net cost impact of the impacts of mining fissionable material [uranium] on local communities and ecosystems’.
Hardly too onerous or unreasonable: Australian uranium had just fuelled a category seven nuclear disaster, the highest international crisis level – and all the promises of best practise and highest standards were looking as shabby as the Fukushima containment vessel – surely a review of practises and processes was warranted.
Not according to the Australian Uranium Association, or the two major uranium producers BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, or any state, territory or federal government.
No review or in-depth assessment has ever taken place. There have been numerous politicians prepared to rally in support of the under-performing uranium sector or to talk up future prospects for nuclear power – but not one politician or uranium industry leader has had the courage, capacity or courtesy to fulfil Ban Ki Moons modest request……. Continue reading
Community renewable energy taking off rapidly in Australia
Communities take lead on renewable energy as big projects stall http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/communities-take-lead-on-renewable-energy-as-big-projects-stall-81109 By Giles Parkinson on 10 March 2015
Dozens of projects have emerged as state governments tap into local ideas, offering grants for innovative projects that allow solar and other renewables to be developed at a local level, for innovative financing packages, and even the development of localised smart grid.
It’s a crucial step. Australia has nearly two million homes with some sort of solar appliance – rooftop PV arrays or solar hot water – and is probably leading the world in residential solar, with some 4,000MW of rooftop arrays, penetration rates of more than 25 per cent. It is at the forefront of the rise of the so-called “energy prosumer”.
The CSIRO last year predicted that up to one-half of total electricity needs will be generated locally, either on households rooftops, by business, or in community-owned or sponsored arrays.
What has been missing from the emergence of this “decentralized” energy system – which will ultimately turn the current centralised economic model on its head – has been concrete action at community level.
This is important because it will not just build up scale, it will also offer solutions to those not yet able to take part in the solar revolution, including low-income housing, apartment dwellers and renters.
And it will allow whole communities to look after their own energy needs, as some network operators are even encouraging. And, as pointed out by Beyond Zero Emissions Stephen Bygrave earlier this week, “all revolutions need to start from the bottom up,” as they had in Germany and Denmark in the energy space. There’s not much hope of leadership at the federal level in Australia.
Apart from a few groundbreaking projects, such as the Hepburn wind farm and a few smaller community-funded solar arrays, little has been done so far in Australia, although there have been plenty of ideas and aspiration of how to match the achievements in Europe, where much of the renewable energy is owned at community level in some form.
That is now starting to change rapidly. Continue reading
Tadmanian govt, Workers Union, Clean Energy Council push for decision on Renewable Energy Target
Pressure Builds For Renewable Energy Target Resolution http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/ret-resolution-urged-em4722/ March 11, 2015
February 17 marked a year of wrangling over the Renewable Energy Target, a situation that resulted in investment in large-scale renewable energy projects such as wind and solar farms plummet 88 per cent; putting Australia behind some developing nations.
Yesterday, the Tasmanian Government demanded certainty from the Commonwealth, stating the ongoing issue hurt Tasmania more than the other states due to its reliance on hydroelectric power.
The Australian Workers Union has also repeated its calls for an immediate resolution, stating tens of thousands of jobs are at risk. The AWU has a special focus on the exemption of the aluminium industry under the RET and says an exemption has been agreed upon by both major parties.
So, is there light at the end of the tunnel given all the competing interests? Yes, but the more pessimistic might say it still remains to be seen if that will be an oncoming train for some sectors. One thing is certain, the Clean Energy Council is fighting hard for its members; wanting a target somewhere in the mid to high 30,000GWh range and Labor is supporting this stance.
On the weekend, Environment Minister Greg Hunt held discussions with the Clean Energy Council and the Australian Industry Group, saying ‘huge progress’ had been made. It’s understood the Federal Government wants the impasse resolved by Easter.
The Australian Industry Group is very conscious of the fact things have dragged on for far too long.
“I think what you’ve got now is a sense of urgency and a recognition that this needs to be done quickly if it’s to be done at all with any sort of reasonable outcome to give industry the certainty needs, so the time for sitting on the fence is pretty much over and this deal just needs to be done,” said chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, Innes Willox.
A strong Renewable Energy Target isn’t just about overseas investment, jobs or environmental benefits – it’s been shown the RET will reduce electricity prices. A 2013 report stated that even by that point in time, Australia’s rooftop solar power systems alone were saving between $300 million and $670 million each year in wholesale electricity costs.
A nuclear industry in South Australia would move Australia towards having nuclear weapons
Study says SA plan would lift nuclear latency Sky News , 11 March 2015 South Australian plans for a nuclear industry would take Australia well down the path to a nuclear weapons capability, a new study says.
That’s termed ‘nuclear latency’ – the potential for a country to build atomic bombs.
‘The recent move by the South Australian government to examine nuclear industry development options would contribute significantly to Australia’s own nuclear latency,’ said analyst Michael Malyshev in a paper released by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute………
Mr Malyshev said that in the 1960s, US president John F. Kennedy expressed fear that 20-30 countries could develop nuclear weapons in a few years as nuclear knowledge and technology became more widely available.
To keep track, various international watchdogs such as the International Atomic Energy Agency established the concept of nuclear latency.
No developed nation has zero latency and about four dozen countries have significant nuclear latency. Most, including Australia, are also signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Mr Malyshev said nuclear watchdogs and other entities, including intelligence services, needed to remain vigilant.
Tony Abbott completely out of touch with understanding of Aboriginal culture
West Australian Greens Sentor Rachel Siewert joined the chorus of criticism, releasing a statement describing Mr Abbott’s comments as “unbelievably racist and completely out of touch”.
“The cultures that exist within these communities are thousands of years old and stretch far beyond the Prime Ministers bizarre idea of a ‘lifestyle choice’,” she said
By Rebecca Curtin and political reporter Jane Norman The Prime Minister backs a WA Government proposal to close a number of remote Indigenous communities, saying it is not the taxpayer’s job to subsidise “lifestyle choices”, prompting a backlash from Indigenous Australians. The Federal Opposition is demanding the Prime Minister apologise after he suggested it is a lifestyle choice to live in remote indigenous communities.
Rolf de Heer on Tony Abbott and”lifestyle choices” for Aboriginals
Rolf de Heer slams Tony Abbott over ‘lifestyle choice’ comments on remote Aboriginal communities, SMH March 11, 2015 Garry Maddox Australian filmmaker Rolf de Heer has lashed out at Prime Minister Tony Abbott for saying that indigenous Australians live in remote communities because of “lifestyle choices”.
Speaking after the Aboriginal drama Charlie’s Country won best film and best director at the Film Critics Circle of Australia Awards in Sydney, the director of such acclaimed indigenous dramas as The Tracker and Ten Canoes described the comment as “offensive”.
“It’s so inappropriate that it’s laughable,” de Heer told Fairfax Media after the awards. “It shows such ignorance that he has no right to be the prime minister of Australia.” ………
A fired up De Heer said that to make those comments about the residents of remote communities was “profoundly misunderstanding” of Aboriginal culture and economic reality.
“It’s hypocritical that our Prime Minister pretends to be the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and has so little understanding of what it is to be on country and that there is no choice involved,” he said.
“There are no jobs so they earn nothing. So they get welfare and they pay twice as much for their food as we do. Welfare is not enough here, let alone there. So they have a choice to move somewhere else?”
De Heer said David Gulpilil, the acclaimed actor whose struggles with alcohol, drugs and the law inspired the fictional central character in Charlie’s Country, had been forced to live in Murray Bridge outside Adelaide.
“He can’t afford to live in Darwin and somebody will put him up in Murray Bridge. That’s a lifestyle choice? Yeah. Thank you Mr Abbott.” http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/rolf-de-heer-slams-tony-abbott-over-lifestyle-choice-comments-on-remote-aboriginal-communities-20150310-140it3.html#ixzz3U1KMlmDc
Driving Aboriginals off their land is genocide
Of ‘lifestyle choices’ and genocide, John Passant, 11 Mar 15
“……..Our beloved PM thinks that Aboriginal people living on their land and that of their ancestors is a ‘lifestyle choice’. Racist shit that he is.
Let’s not pussy foot around. Driving Aboriginal people off their land is genocide. It has been going on since 1788 and this closure of up to 150 settlements in WA is the latest instalment.
I know of some lifestyle choices we do endlessly and needlessly support. The top ten percent of income earners get almost 1/3 rd of the superannuation tax concessions, all up about $15 bn revenue forgone a year. That would fund better services for remote communities.
And speaking of remote communities, the Abbott government and Shorten Labor Opposition are the two communities totally removed from the reality of every day life for most workers and the poor. Why do we endlessly subsidise politicians in their lifestyle choices?
Australia’s Prime Minister is an ignorant racist pig heading up a genocidal government and system.” http://enpassant.com.au/
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 