Australian news, and some related international items

#NuclearCommissionSAust might crash and burn, judging by these submissions


”The fact that the Commission has made the process of making a submission so complex and Submission Impossible
bureaucratic, indicates that the views that they consider relevant are extremely limited. For example Aboriginal representatives, who have stated that the difficulty in translating the papers alone is going to prevent many of their communities from participating in this process at all.
In addition, each and every question posed in the Issues Papers is fundamentally biased in favour of what the government is proposing. Not only that, but parties wishing to make a submission are limited to the questions given – and if any further comment is to be made, it is only allowed to be annexed to answers to the questions. It must also be noted that most (if not all) of the questions posed in these Papers have already been answered in various research papers, submissions and inquiries into these issues over the last decade or so…..

highly-recommendedURANIUM FREE NSW   ISSUES PAPER ONE: EXPLORATION, EXTRACTION AND MILLING The first 6 questions seemed to be aimed at industry to easily to enable their argument for expansion. They are akin to the Royal Commission/Government asking “how can we facilitate the expansion of the industry?” UFNSW is opposed to the expansion or the nuclear industry in SA or anywhere, hence has not answered these questions………

1.13 Would an increase in extraction activities give rise to negative impacts on other sectors of the economy? Have such impacts been demonstrated elsewhere in Australia or in other economies similar to Australia?
• It would undoubtedly have a negative impact on tourism.
• It would mitigate against the movement of families/residents choosing to stay or move into the area…….
  • Only deals with economic viability, but even then ignore issues of reparations, compensation, or insurance costs in the event of exposure, spills, accidents, or even routine emissions.
  •  The paper quotes the International Energy Agency (IEA) as saying that the expansion of the nuclear industry “depends on listening to, and addressing public concerns, about the technology.”
  • Doesn’t address fundamental question of should uranium be mined at all. The entire process is underpinned by an assumption that uranium mining is good and looks at the supposed best ways to go about it.
  •  Nothing regarding keeping profits in Australia
  • Environmental impacts are minimised to native vegetation, water is not separate. Scope very narrow • Minimisation of environmental impacts is not a good enough aim given time of radioactivity, it is unmanageable and difficult or impossible to remediate or rehabilitate sufficiently • This Issues Paper does not provide information regarding direct or indirect Government funding of the nuclear industry, in the past, present or potential future.
  • No mention made of the social or environmental costs of Radium Hill, Roxby Downs, Honeymoon, Beverley and Four Mile. Traded price of uranium is provided in a graph, but not costs
  • Paper states that international demand for uranium is primarily driven by its use in electricity generation, however it is undoubtedly influenced by the supply and demand for uranium to be used in weapons. Market is influenced by uranium from dismantled nuclear weapons is released onto the uranium market, which is presumably harder to predict
  • The issues papers seem to ignore the impacts of radiation on health • No mention of ionising radiation
  •  The issues papers questions ask about economic and some environmental impact, but completely ignore any cultural or social impacts • No mention on the length of time materials are radioactive and need to be managed for
  •  Seems to treat uranium like coal or iron, materials that have far lesser risks  The questions seem to be written in such a way as to set up opposition to nuclear expansion as emotional and hence discredit it.

August 10, 2015 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust addressing questions of WATER

text-relevantANNIE MCGOVERN Excerpt …

this writer has witnessed a declaration by on station owner to the North declare that their borefloqw had been significantly depleted by Roxby’s misuse and phenomienal extraction rate of Great Artesian Basin (G.A.B.) water. The people of the Marree region where this extraction occurrs, have been actively engaged in objecting to the Borefield activities for the past 32 years.

1.10 Any further developments to mine and mill Uranium would further compromise both the environment and the people of S.A. Roxby is already depleting the G.A.B. to the detriment of all in the vicinity, plus those dependant on its waters in both Queensland (Qld.) and New South Wales (N.S.W.). The draw-down effects of the 42 million litres/day licence has depleted the basin to its furthest extremities with little thought given as to why places like Longreach (Qld.) are in almost permanent drought despite rainfalls recorded in recent years that should have been able to sustain some productivity. This is the single largest body of water in S.A. and is no longer sustainable…..where is there water for any expansion?

1.11 The flow of water beneath the mine at Roxby Downs is part of an underground river system which flows to the top of Lake Torrens and empties into the underground sytem of Lake Torrens….to where does this highly contamminated water ultimately flow? The answer is unknown. Mining activities at every level contamminate the surrounds. Underground blasting, mining and fracturing destabilises fault zones that are prominently featured in this landscape. 10% of S.A.’s available electricity is designated for the production of the industry. Where is the room for more?

August 10, 2015 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

Some top submissions to #NuclearCommissionSAust on Issues Paper 1

scrutiny-Royal-Commission CHAINPAUL HARRIS  – EXCELLENT OVERALL submission covering all 4 Issues Papers  and ULRIKE HECK  Also very good overall

GLADSTONE UNITING CHURCH  SA Response to Issues Paper One…Exploration, Extraction & Milling ”  Excerpt..….

  • As responsible Australians we request an explanation as to why our government did not advertise more widely about the Nuclear Royal Commission as many people were unaware of this very serious issue.
  •  The safety of uranium exploration hasn’t been proven to be 100% safe in the world.
  • Will SA Emergency Services be supported adequately by our government for the events of accidents, spillages or radioactive fall out similar to Marralinga?
  • How would the finished product be transported?
  •  Major concerns are…underground water/soil contamination which will effect farmers etc & our environment…therefore touching every person’s life & for every generation to come in our area.
  • Huge concerns also for our native wild life as well as farm animals. This can also contaminate the animals making them unsafe for human consumption.
NGOPPON TOGETHER INC   Excerpt –  …. Mining uranium has caused immense suffering and displacement of Aboriginal communities. in SA as well as elsewhere in Australia. Some of our members recall the Kokatha in the sandhills of Roxby Downs in the 1980s in the desperate hope of stopping the Roxby uranium mine before such a mine wreaked havoc on Kokatha country and on the ancient waters of the Arabunna. Regarding the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam we know that the Traditional Owners were not even consulted. BHP Billiton held all the cards and merely had to say that they wanted to continue the (exremely favourable to them) previous conditions. ….

August 10, 2015 Posted by | Submissions to Royal Commission S.A. | Leave a comment

Vested interests in pro nuclear submissions to #Nuclear CommissionSAust

scrutiny-Royal-Commission CHAINSo far, I have been able to read only the 28 submissions published by the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Commission on Issues Paper 1. Exploration, Extraction and Milling. (All published submissions can be found here )

Of the 28 submissions, 13 are pro nuclear expansion, 12 against, and 3 appear to be sitting on the fence.

The pro nuclear ones come almost entirely from nuclear industry sources and pro nuclear agencies ANSTO, ARPANSA, and the AWU a long-time pro nuclear union, Of course some industry submissions are not being published.

Individual pro nukes are :

  • Professor David Bowman, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania. (a surprise, but perhaps co-opted by Australia’s top nuclear promoter Barry Brook)
  • Mark Chalmers –   Senior Vice President of Heathgate Uranium 
  • Colin Durbridge (possibly Managing Director & Proprietor at Product Services Ltd, formerly of  Integrated Electronics LtdAtlas Electronics Bhd.Atlas Electronics Ltd)
  • Professor Stephen Grano is the Director of the Institute for Mineral and Energy Resources at the University of Adelaide
  • Richard Yeeles  -Corporate Affairs Manager at BHP Billiton

August 10, 2015 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment