A demanding week in nuclear issues for Australia
The past week has been an exhausting week for those actively concerned about radioactive trash dumping. By and large, the mainstream media has been pretty much silent about the issue of the Commonwealth government’s hunt for a dump site for the Lucas Heights processed nuclear wastes returning from France and England – the first lot, due soon.
Meanwhile for 6 sites selected as suitable, the local communities have been very concerned, and overwhelmingly opposed to the dump. Previously “non political” country people have converged on Canberra. They, and other concerned Australians, have sent in submissions (due by 11 March) opposing the plan. Organisations such as Australian Conservation Foundation argue persuasively for Lucas Heights as the appropriate site, for the time being. (Others like myself, argue also for the shutting down of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor – stopping making this toxic radioactive trash).
The coming week is also a stressful one. Again, the mainstream media ignores that second nuclear waste dump problem – the shonky South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission. The Royal Commission announced its Tentative Findings – in a nutshell that it would be great for South Australia to become the global nuclear waste dump.
The Commission asks for responses, to be due in by 18 March. Not so hard to do.
Guidelines for comments are up on my website, (thanks to Beyond Nuclear) at Action Australia.
The nuclear lobby continues, aided by the media, to portray this as solely a “South Australian” matter – just for this State supposedly to get filthy rich by inviting in the world’s radioactive trash. If its gonna be such a bonanza, why hasn’t any other country thought of it?
Until 18 March, South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission will accept responses to its Tentative Findings
It’s a well kept secret from the whole of Australia, but the nuclear lobby plans to invite in the world’s most toxic nuclear trash – to poor old South Australia – the State with the greatest potential to be a world – leading renewable energy hub.
This plan can be stopped – as it has been before.
One step in exposing and stopping this noxious plan by a few greedy people is to RESPOND TO the ROYAL COMMISSION’S TENTATIVE Findings. their Guidelines are here
It’s not that difficult. The Commission put up fewer obstacles this time. Say what you really think.
You can find good advice on sending a response at Action Australia
By the way, the COVER SHEET has to be signed, which implies that the comments should be posted. I am posting mine, but because of concerns about the postal service these days, I am sending it by email, too. It’s not as hard as last time – much as the Royal Commission would probably like to intimidate us all into not bothering. Please bother! Comments can be lodged via email to: enquiries@nuclearrc.sa.gov.au
What does the Australian govt REALLY plan about long-lived intermediate-level nuclear waste
What should the government do about LLILW?
First, the government needs to carry out a thorough audit/inventory of LLILW, considering the following issues:
- volume/mass and radioactivity of LLILW at each current storage site;
- whether waste production is ongoing at each particular site and if so, whether storage capacity has been reached or is approaching and if so, whether increasing storage capacity is an option;
- nature and adequacy/inadequacy of current storage conditions;
- nature and adequacy/inadequacy of institutional control.
Second, the government should initiate a thorough, transparent process to consider all options for management of LLILW. There is no logical reason for the initiation of that process to wait until “the National Facility Project is underway” as the government now states. The delay is not only illogical, it also feeds uncertainty and suspicion.
What does the government plan to do with long-lived intermediate-level waste (LLILW)?
Jim Green, Friends of the Earth, 8/3/2016. Here is the government’s formal position (8/3/16 email from Department of Industry, Innovation and Science):“Australia’s current management approach toward long-lived intermediate-level waste is for long-term above ground storage pending future disposal. The preferred option for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, as identified in the Initial Business Case, provides for the centralised management of intermediate-level waste in a purpose-built storage facility. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science will undertake a detailed consideration of disposal pathways for Australian generated intermediate level waste once the National Facility Project is underway.”
What is the government really planning?
1. The government is already considering deep borehole disposal of LLILW. It might be at intermediate depth, perhaps 200 metres underground.
2. Deep borehole disposal of LLILW could possibly be pursued at the same site as a shallow repository for lower-level radioactive waste. That option is floated in an ARPANSA document (see below).
3. Or the government could go in a very different direction – a stand-alone shallow repository for lower-level wastes without co-location of a LLILW store (or a deep borehole for LLILW disposal). Government representatives have said in public meetings that ILW would not be moved to the shallow repository site (for above-ground storage) for 10-20-30 years after the shallow repository is established, and presumably the reason for that is that the government is considering alternative options (borehole disposal at a different site, or perhaps above-ground storage at a different site). Or perhaps the statement that ILW wouldn’t be moved to the site for 10-20-30 years isn’t true, or at least it certainly isn’t locked in, and it is simply designed to quell public opposition.
4. Even if the government does decide that borehole disposal of LLILW is the best way forward, it would likely take decades to progress that project. So above-ground storage of LLILW for many decades at the same site as the shallow repository remains a distinct possibility.
5. The government must be considering the potential to reduce opposition to a shallow repository for lower-level wastes by separating that project completely from its half-baked plans for LLILW. That separation could be enshrined in the MoU that the government plans to establish with the host community for the shallow repository. It could also be enshrined in legislation.
That separation might indeed reduce public opposition, although it wasn’t effective in SA in the early 2000s. From 1998–2003, the Howard government planned co-location, and by the time it reversed that position and decided to separate management of lower level wastes from LLILW, opposition was so entrenched and widespread that it made little difference. The Howard government established a National Store Committee to develop plans for LLILW disposal, but it was disbanded in 2004, at the same time as the government abandoned its plan to impose a repository for lower-level wastes in SA……… Continue reading
Joint civil society groups comment to the National Radioactive Waste Management Project.
(please note that this comment refers to the ANSTO radioactive waste, which Australia is bound to accept back from its processing overseas. It is a separate issue from the South Australian Royal Commission’s purpose to invite in the world’s radioactive trash, as a supposedly profit-making industry)
Recommendation:
We believe that extended interim storage of radioactive waste at ANSTO – which is already the site and source of most of Australia’s higher level radioactive waste – would provide the time and opportunity required to build on the foundation work of the NRWMP and Detailed Business Case process.
Coupled with an independent and robust assessment of the full range of radioactive waste management options, we would also support a joint federal-state process to audit the adequacy of existing waste storage facilities and address any deficiencies, identify legacy sites that may be retired and provide an accurate analysis of current and future waste streams and volumes.
The vast majority of Australia’s radioactive waste is currently stored at secured and defined Commonwealth facilities at Lucas Heights (NSW) and Woomera (SA).
Both of these facilities have confirmed they have the capacity to continue appropriate storage of this material for many years, providing an opportunity to revisit this policy arena in order to realise the most effective, equitable and lasting outcome.
Joint civil society groups comment to the National Radioactive Waste Management Project. March 11, 2016
Our groups represent many Australians across different regions and sectors who share a common desire to advance and realise responsible radioactive waste management in Australia.
We write to provide formal comment on the approach taken to facility siting in the revised National Radioactive Waste Management Project (NRWMP) that was established following the end of the protracted and fiercely contested plan to develop a national radioactive waste facility at Muckaty in the Northern Territory.
For over two decades, successive Australian governments have sought to manage Australia’s radioactive waste inventory through the development of a co-located remote central dump and store at locations chosen by the Commonwealth without adequate consultation or clear community consent.
This approach has repeatedly failed to win social license and has been characterised by division, contest and the inability to realise a site.
Our organisations welcome the commitment repeated through the course of the NRWMP to date not to impose a facility without broad community support.
It is our view that this essential project pre-condition has not been realised at any of the six sites currently being considered. Continue reading
Community struggle against government plans for nuclear waste dump
The Government should scrap these sites, admit they got it wrong, and then apologise to the people this has affected. They should then start a responsible and correct process to decide what to do with the waste- not just pushing it on regional and rural communities with promises of financial gain. They need to find out a way to stop making more nuclear waste and research what we can do or use instead.
We’re under a nuclear cloud but we’re not backing down, Beyond Nuclear March 11, 
2016/ By Robyn Rayner. Farmers contend regularly with fire, flood and drought, but fine wool producer Robyn Rayner never expected to be fighting off plans for a radioactive waste dump across the road from her property
How would you feel if you woke up one morning and was told via a media report that you could be living next door to a nuclear waste dump?
On November 13 last year the Federal Government announced a shortlist of six sites, from twenty eight volunteered properties around Australia, for a proposed national radioactive waste dump. A property at Hill End was named. Since then our lives have been turned upside down. My husband Geoff and I, along with our family, own and run Pomanara Merino Stud directly across the road from the proposed site. It is just 1.5km from our family home. We are second-generation woolgrowers and our son James would like to be the third. This may not be important to Government Departments, but it is to us. This nuclear waste will also be around for generations to come, wherever they put it.
We have worked long and hard to achieve the clean, green and sustainable label that we have today. Our region is renown for growing the best superfine wool in the world and we have won many major awards for the sheep we breed. At no time did the landowner who nominated his property consult with neighbours, nor did he take into consideration the environment or the village of Hill End, located nine kilometres away. Hill End is a historic precinct that host 5000 school children a year and over 100 000 other visitors. The nominated property backs onto the Turon River, a major waterway for the food bowl of Australia. Continue reading
South Australia to weaken Aboriginal Heritage Act -(nice for the nuclear industry)
Aboriginal Heritage Act changes give traditional owners less say: Indigenous groups ABC News By Nicola Gage 10 Mar 16 Proposed changes to South Australia’s Aboriginal Heritage Act will reduce powers of traditional owners, according to Indigenous groups.
Amendments to the act were introduced to Parliament a fortnight ago and today passed the Legislative Council.
South Australian Native Title Services chief executive officer Keith Thomas believed amended language in the act would give traditional owners less say over their heritage. “This is going to help people who want to access lands and destroy heritage, rather than improving the protection of Aboriginal heritage,” he said.
There are tens of thousands of sacred Indigenous sites across South Australia, from ancient song lines and springs to burial grounds.
The act is in place to protect them from different activities, including mining operations. Mr Thomas said the proposed changes would make it harder to prosecute companies if they had disturbed a site without approval.
“At the moment they’re very concerning, because it’s diluting Aboriginal rights, whereas the Aboriginal Heritage Act should be strengthening Aboriginal rights to protect their heritage,” he said. Mr Thomas said the changes would also remove clause 6-2 in the act, which stipulates the minister must delegate his or her powers to the traditional owners of a site.
Aboriginal groups from Lake Torrens have been trying to use that clause over recent years to stop a mining operation from going ahead. “I think the amendments are being rushed through for some reason,” he said. “It means that the minister doesn’t have to delegate his powers and it paves the way for the miners to come back and have another go.”
Some Aboriginal groups said they had not been properly consulted over the amendments.
Traditional owner Karina Lester grew up on South Australia’s Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands and did not know the bill was in Parliament. “That was quite concerning for us as native title [holders] because we hadn’t been informed,” she said.”Therefore, we didn’t know what changes were being proposed.”…..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-10/changes-aboriginal-heritage-act-give-traditional-owners-less-say/7236302
Australian uranium fuelled Fukushima nuclear reactors at time of the catastrophe
Fukushima five years on, and the lessons we failed to learn, Guardian, Dave Sweeney, 11 Mar 16 “…….In October 2011 it was formally confirmed to the Australian parliament that not only was Australian uranium routinely sold to the corner-cutting Tepco but that a load of true blue yellowcake was fuelling the Fukushima complex at the time of the disaster. Australian radioactive rocks were the source of Fukushima’s fallout.
Surely after directly fuelling disaster Australia would have taken some steps to review and possibly reconsider our role in the global nuclear trade?
The UN thought so. In September 2011 the UN secretary-general called on Australia to conduct “an in-depth assessment of the net cost impact of the impacts of mining fissionable material on local communities and ecosystems”.
This has never happened. It needs to, and Australia’s uranium sector deserves some long overdue scrutiny.
The most recent independent assessment of the Australian uranium industry – a Senate inquiry in October 2003 – found the sector characterised by underperformance and non-compliance, an absence of reliable data to measure contamination or its impact on the environment and an operational culture focussed on short term considerations…….http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/11/fukushima-five-years-on-and-the-lessons-we-failed-to-learn
Genetic damage to later generations from Maralinga radiation fallout
New generations of Australian families suffering deformities and early deaths because of ‘genetic transfer’,news.com.au MARCH 10, 2016 [EXCELLENT PHOTOS] PEOPLE who worked at Australian atomic bomb test sites claim they have produced generations of children with severe deformities and suffered a high number of stillbirths.
Documents obtained exclusively by news.com.au show hundreds of children and grandchildren of veterans exposed to radiation were born with shocking illnesses including tumours, Down syndrome, cleft palates, cerebral palsy, autism, missing bones and heart disease.
One veteran, who was posted to the Maralinga nuclear test site in South Australia in the 1950s as part of the British Nuclear Test (BNT) program, says the radiation contaminated his sperm and is to blame for the death of a child he never got to know.
But he is not alone, with the documents detailing a litany of miscarriages and stillbirths that has allegedly passed the devastation from generation to generation.
Australian ex-servicemen and their families originally made submissions to a Federal Government review in 2003 over deaths and disabilities they believe were caused by exposure to radiation from nuclear testing in South Australia and Western Australia in the 1950s and 60s.
The submissions were later compiled to use in a class action against the British Ministry of Defence, but the case was not allowed to proceed because it was deemed impossible to prove radiation caused their illnesses. Continue reading
Emerging thyroid cancer epidemic in Fukushima former residents. Australia take note!
Fukushima: The misery piles up https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/fukushima-the-misery-piles-up
Five years on from the Fukushima nuclear disaster there is now an emerging thyroid cancer epidemic and 174,000 people are still displaced By Associate Professor Tilman Ruff, Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne
Five years on, the Fukushima nuclear disaster is far from over – the dispersed fallout continues to irradiate and move around the environment; in the water, in the plants and animals, and blown on the wind.
Every day 300 tons of contaminated water leak from the wrecked nuclear plants into the soil and eventually the ocean. The Reconstruction Agency estimates 174,000 people remain displaced, with many families disrupted having lost their land and livelihoods and now facing an uncertain future.
Despite inadequate health monitoring of exposed people, ultrasound screening of almost 370,000 children in Fukushima has yielded clear evidence of an emerging thyroid cancer epidemic among children and adolescents in Fukushima.
Whereas across Japan three cases of thyroid cancer per million per year would be expected in children, a total of 166 have been identified in Fukushima children. Rates are up to 50 times the national average in the most contaminated regions. Nor are these cases of little long-term consequence, detected earlier than usual because of an active screening program. Post-operative findings indicate that over 90 per cent had spread outside the thyroid gland, to local lymph nodes, or with distant metastases.
It is highly likely that this emerging thyroid cancer epidemic will be the harbinger of increases in other cancers and chronic illness. However, there is regrettably no register of people exposed from the disaster or of the doses they are likely to have received to enable long-term follow-up of health outcomes and appropriate targeting of health screening services. Continue reading
Australia’s uneconomic and declining uranium industry
Fukushima five years on, and the lessons we failed to learn, Guardian, Dave Sweeney, 11 Mar 16 “…….As home to around 35% of the world’s uranium reserves, Australia has long been a significant player in the global nuclear trade.
Since the 1980s Australian uranium mining has been dominated by two major operations – Ranger in Kakadu and Olympic Dam in northern South Australia. Both operations and their heavyweight owners have been voting with their feet and their finances since 2011. Processing of stockpiled ore continues at Ranger but mining has ended and parent company Rio Tinto is now preparing to commence costly and complex rehabilitation work.
At Olympic Dam the world’s biggest mining company BHP Billiton stunned the South Australian government in 2012 when it shelved an approved and long planned multi-billion dollar mine expansion.
Smaller mines like Honeymoon in South Australia have been placed on extended care and maintenance, junior companies have abandoned the field and the sectors prevailing business model is to get the paperwork in order and wait in hope for better times.
Historically the sector has been constrained by political uncertainty, restrictions on the number of mines, a consistent lack of social license and strong Aboriginal and community resistance.
Recent years have seen fewer political constraints but a dramatic decline in the price of uranium and popularity of nuclear power following Fukushima.
Australia now accounts for approximately 11% of global uranium production, down from over 18% a decade earlier. Australia’s uranium production of 5,000 tonnes in 2014 was the lowest for 16 years.The industry generates less than 0.2% of national export revenue and accounts for less than 0.02% of jobs in Australia. Less than one thousand people are employed in Australia’s uranium industry.
In an attempt to jump start the flat-lining uranium trade, successive federal governments have preferred enthusiasm to evidence. They have failed to conduct the requested industry review and instead fast-tracked increasingly irresponsible uranium sales deals, most recently with India.
Approvals are fast-tracked, regulators are complacent, community concerns are air-brushed away and all for a sector that never really made sense and now doesn’t even make dollars.
In short, Australia’s uranium sector is high risk and low return. It leaves polluted mine sites and home and drives nuclear risk and insecurity abroad. And it fuelled Fukushima – a profound environmental, economic and human disaster that continues to negatively impact lives in Japan and far beyond.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/11/fukushima-five-years-on-and-the-lessons-we-failed-to-learn
Mainstream media played down the health risks of Fukushima nuclear meltdown
Pascale’s analysis initially characterized the risk to the general population in one of three ways: low, uncertain, or high. However, when examining the bases on which these characterizations were made, it was clear that all media characterizations of uncertain risk were subsequently interpreted as evidence of low risk.
“The mainstream media–in print and online–did little to report on health risks to the general population or to challenge the narratives of public officials and their experts,”
News coverage of Fukushima disaster found lacking http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/au-nco031016.php American University sociologist’s new research finds few reports identified health risks to public
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY (WASHINGTON, D.C.) March 10, 2016 –– Five years after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, the disaster no longer dominates U.S. news headlines, although experts say it is a continuing disaster with broad implications. A new analysis by American University sociology professor Celine-Marie Pascale finds that U.S. news media coverage following the disaster minimized health risks to the general population.
Pascale analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets following the disaster’s occurrence from March 11, 2011 through March 11, 2013. Only 6 percent of the coverage–129 articles–focused on health risks to the public in Japan or elsewhere. Human risks were framed, instead, in terms of workers in the disabled nuclear plant. Pascale’s research has published in the flagship journal for the International Sociology Association,Current Sociology.
Disproportionate access
“It’s shocking to see how few articles discussed risk to the general population, and when they did, they typically characterized risk as low,” Continue reading
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DENIES LINK BETWEEN RADIATION EXPOSURE AND ILLNESS
New generations of Australian families suffering deformities and early deaths because of ‘genetic transfer’, news.com.au MARCH 10, 2016 [EXCELLENT PHOTOSlifestyle/health/health-problems/new-generations-of-australian-families-suffering-deformities-and-early-deaths-because-of-genetic-transfer/news-story/5a74b7eab2f433402aa00bc2fcbcbea4 “…….. But the link between exposure to radiation at the test sites and subsequent illness of the BNT veterans and their descendants has never been accepted by the Australian Government.
Those who can prove they sustained an injury or disease related to their service are eligible for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRCA), and its antecedent Acts.
But BNT veterans told news.com.au they are continually rejected on the grounds that the levels of radiation they were exposed to were “too low” to cause their illnesses.
It’s a stark contrast to a 1999 study for the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, which found that 30 per cent of the nuclear test veterans had died, mostly in their 50s, from cancers or cancer-related illnesses.
In addition, a 2007 New Zealand study found that New Zealand sailors who had been exposed to the nuclear testing had three times the level of genetic abnormality and notably higher rates of cancer than the general population.
Following a British decision in 1988, the Australian Government negotiated compensation for a small group of Australian servicemen suffering from two specific conditions — leukaemia (except lymphatic leukaemia) and a rare blood disorder known as multiple myeloma.
But the bulk of BNT Australian veterans have never been compensated over radiation exposure during the atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 60s. Nor have their medical conditions been officially linked to their exposure.
While BNT service personnel have had access to disability pensions and health care under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) since July 1, 2010, and cancer treatments, many of them say they are not entitled to full benefits.
Mr Batchelor said he wasn’t even entitled to a veteran’s gold card despite all he has suffered, sacrificed and lost.
“Those (veterans) that are left could desperately do with a gold card,” he said.
“I don’t think that’s asking for too much.” http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/new-generations-of-australian-families-suffering-deformities-and-early-deaths-because-of-genetic-transfer/news-story/5a74b7eab2f433402aa00bc2fcbcbea4
Fukushima nuclear disaster has profound implications for Australia
Fukushima five years on, and the lessons we failed to learn, Guardian, Dave Sweeney, 11 Mar 16 After directly fuelling the disaster at Fukushima, Australia should have taken steps to review and reconsider its role in the global nuclear trade Five years ago this week the world held its breath, crossed its fingers and learnt a new word.
Fukushima went from being the name of a provincial Japanese city to becoming global shorthand for a costly and contaminating nuclear disaster.
Fukushima means “fortunate island” but the region’s luck melted down along with the reactors on March 11, 2011. The subsequent system failure, meltdown and uncontrolled release of large volumes of radiation at the Tokyo Electric Power Corporation’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex has become one of the defining events of our age.
It was a game-changer that highlighted the urgent need for the game to change. As the country that supplied the fuel that made it happen, the events at Fukushima held – and still hold – profound implications for Australia. Continue reading
“Bottom is falling out of uranium prices “
Nuclear power market still suffers from Japan’s Fukushima disaster -5-year disaster anniversary shows little nuclear power progress in Japan Market Watch, By MYRAP. SAEFONG MARKETS/COMMODITIES REPORTER 11 MAR 16 “……“Unfortunately, the uranium [and] nuclear market is still suffering significantly as a result of the Fukushima aftereffects,” said Jonathan Hinze, executive vice president of international operations at the Ux Consulting Company, the world’s leading nuclear-fuel consultancy.
In the wake of the nuclear accident, nuclear power became somewhat of an outcast……
Uranium supply ‘overhang’ Back in September, Jim Ostroff, senior editor of Platts Nuclear Publications, estimated that Japanese utilities had around 120 million pounds of uranium stockpiled, which was likely enough to have supplied all of Japan’s pre-Fukushima needs for six years.
Today, there remains an “overhang of excess supply to demand,” he said.
With such few active reactors, the Japanese are not buying uranium to make nuclear fuel and the companies that make the fuel from uranium, known as converters, are selling excess amounts because prices are so low, said Ostroff.
“With little, if any, demand to purchase [uranium] right now on the spot market, utilities are leery to buy any material because they are looking for a bottom” in prices, he said.
As of March 7, weekly spot uranium prices stood at $31.10 a pound, down from the March 7, 2011 weekly price of $66.50, according to data from UxC Consulting. UxC uranium futures UXM6, -1.60% are traded on Globex, with the June contract at $29 Friday, but volume is small.
The “bottom is falling out on prices again,” said Ostroff, noting that daily spot prices had stabilized at around $34.75 a pound earlier this year before its recent retreat.
In response to the low prices, it’s “fair to say that most of the world’s producers have abandoned any expansion plans and have curtailed their existing operations,” said Ostroff.
Year to date, shares of uranium producer Cameco Corp. CCJ, +2.69% has lost around 2.5%, while the Global X Uranium exchange-traded fund URA, +1.96% is down about 3.5%. But the losses pale in comparison to last year’s declines of nearly 25% for Cameco shares and more than 38% for the ETF……..http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nuclear-power-market-still-suffers-from-japans-fukushima-disaster-2016-03-11
A sober look at nuclear industry expansion in Asia
it’s unclear whether such plans will ever see the light of day. “It will be very difficult to find people willing to invest billions of dollars in this area, especially given the likelihood of another accident taking place in another part of the world,”
Nuclear energy booming in Asia, DW 12 Mar 16 Five years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, India and China have embraced nuclear power. Other countries in the region also want to build more plants – even in high-risk areas prone to earthquakes and tsunamis…..
China: on track to becoming number 1 Following the Fukushima disaster, China’s government initially suspended the construction of additional nuclear power plants. Instead, comprehensive security policies were adopted. But in the autumn of 2012, Beijing lifted the moratorium on future development – and since then, has pursued a more ambitious nuclear program……….
Nuclear power is considered a relatively “clean” alternative to coal. In daily congressional meetings, the Communist Party has been discussing plans for a massive expansion of nuclear energy. By 2030, a total of 110 nuclear power plants will be in operation.
China would overtake the US as the country with the most nuclear power plants connected to the grid. Greenpeace nuclear expert Heinz Smital views the speed at which the reactors are being developed as problematic: “The Chinese safety authorities do not have the capacity to examine the buildings properly,” said Smital. “They will likely wave things through, rubber-stamp everything and not mess with the state-run construction consortiums. There is a big security risk.”…….. Continue reading
Antinuclear 