Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

1835 (and counting) South Australians sign up to No Nuclear Waste Dump for SA

south-aust-greens-poster

The Federal Government has selected South Australia for their national nuclear waste dump – saying that Barndioota in the Flinders Ranges is their only option.

This is on top of the South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission promoting South Australia as the World’s high level radioactive waste dumping ground.

Constructing a nuclear waste dump in SA is currently illegal and the Greens want it to stay this way.  We ask:

• Is this the best our State can aspire to?

• Is the damage to our State’s reputation worth it?

Radioactive waste is not only dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, but its storage can never be 100% foolproof.

Last year in the US, a barrel of nuclear waste stored underground at an intermediate waste site in New Mexico ruptured, exposing 22 workers to radiation and costing an estimated $500 million to remediate.

Exposure to radiation can cause serious health problems – including cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and cataracts – and if it enters the soil can contaminate our food and water.

Add you voice and sign the petition below to call on the South Australian Government to enforce our laws and stop nuclear waste being dumped in SA.


We the undersigned residents of South Australia, call on the Weatherill Labor Government to enforce the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000, to prevent a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. signatures:http://sagreens.markparnell.org.au/no_waste_dump_for_sa So the current count is 25 to 1833?

December 12, 2016 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, South Australia | Leave a comment

25 prominent South Australians sign up to Ben Heard’s Bright New Nuclear Bullshit

12 Dec 16 Australian nuclear lobbyists have had remarkable success in making themselves famous internationally, which is probably their main aim. . Barry Brook set this off, with a thin veil of environmentalism covering his dedication to the nuclear industry, in Brave New Climate. He got a heap of well-meaning environmentalists to sign up to a pro nuclear letter.

logo-bright-new-worldNow Ben Heard has gone a step further, with HIS nuclear front group – Bright New World. He’s got 25 important people to sign up to a pro nuclear campaign for South Australia.  As with Brook’s disciples, some of these people seem quite altruistic and disconnected with the nuclear and mining industries.

Others do not:

Dr Ian Gould:   chairing South Australia Energy and Resources Investment Conference 23-24 May 2017  Adelaide, geologist with  40 years experience in the minerals industry in diverse and senior positions, mainly within the CRA/Rio Tinto Group, current Chancellor of the University of South Australia and was awarded an AM in the 2011 Queen’s Birthday Honours for services to mining.

David Klingberg is a South Australian businessman, civil engineer and former Chancellor of the University of South Australia. director of ASX listed companies E & A Ltd and Centrex Metals Ltd. Klingberg is chair of a technical sub-group working on the Australian Government‘s National Radioactive Waste Management Project. 

Dr Leanna Read is South Australia’s  Chief Scientist, Expert Advisory Committee of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission in South Australia.] Read is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering,[which advocated for nuclear power in Australia in August 2014.. Read is also the Chair of the South Australian Science Council.

Stephen Young  director or Chairman on a number of companies including ,Electricity Trust of South Australia, Australian Submarine Corporation ,The University of Adelaide ,E&A ltd and its Subsidiaries.

Mr Jim McDowell Chancellor of the University of South Australia   Jim McDowell is currently Chair of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and non-Executive director of a number of private and listed companies. He advises the Federal Government in a number of areas of Defence and Defence Procurement. He is a member of the First Principles Review of the Department of Defence and is currently on the Expert Advisory Panel for the Future Submarine. Formerly CEO OF BAE Systems Australia, the nation’s largest defence contractor.

Michael John Terlet  Primary qualification in Electrical EngineeringNon Executive Chairman of Sandvik Mining and Construction Adelaide Ltd, a Director of Australian Submarine Corporation Pty. Ltd. Served as the Chief Executive Officer at AWA Defence Industries, Chairman of SA Centre for Manufacturing, Defence Manufacturing Council SA (MTIA)

Graham Douglas Walters AM, FCA Mr. Graham Douglas Walters, AM, FCA, serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors at Minelab Electronics Pty Ltd. Mr. Walters serves as Chairman and Director at Minelab International Pty Ltd.

December 12, 2016 Posted by | Christina reviews, politics, reference, South Australia, wastes | 7 Comments

David Noonan dissects the draft ARPANSA Information for Stakeholders on nuclear radioactive waste facility


Effectively this is the same draconian situation that existed under the earlier Commonwealth Noonan, David
Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 introduced by the Howard government to override State and Territory interests to protect community health, safety and welfare from the risks and impacts of nuclear wastes and to nullify Federal laws that protect against imposition of nuclear wastes.

highly-recommendedPublic submission to the draft ARPANSA Information for Stakeholders & associated Regulatory Guide to Licensing a Radioactive Waste Storage or Disposal Facility

Summary

Revised ARPANSA “Information for Stakeholders” should address the following:

The nuclear fuel waste Store in the Flinders Ranges is intended to operate for approx. 100 years.

The ARPANSA “Information for Stakeholders” fails to be transparent and is not fit for purpose.

ARPANSA must inform the public on the proposed licence period for this nuclear fuel waste Store.

ARPANSA should also publicly acknowledge the Contingency that the proposed nuclear fuel waste Store may be at a different site to the proposed near surface Repository in the Flinders Ranges.

The proposed above ground Store in our iconic Flinders Ranges is unnecessary as the ANSTO’s existing Interim Waste Store (IWS) at the Lucas Heights Technology Centre can manage reprocessed nuclear fuel waste on contract from France and from the United Kingdom over the long term.

The ANSTO application for the Interim Waste Store was conservatively predicated on a 40 year operating life for the IWS, and ANSTO has a contingency to “extend it for a defined period of time”.

ANSTO also has a contingency option for the “Retention of the returned residues at ANSTO until the availability of a final disposal option” – which does not involve a Store in the Flinders Ranges.

The Lucas Heights Technology Centre is by far the best placed Institution and facility to responsibly manage Australia’s existing nuclear fuel waste and proposed waste accruals from the Opal reactor.

The Interim Waste Store (IWS) at the Lucas Heights Technology Centre can conservatively function throughout the proposed operating period of the Opal reactor without a requirement for an alternative above ground nuclear fuel waste Store at a NRWMF in the Flinders Ranges or elsewhere.

It is an inexplicably omission or an unacceptably act of denial for ARPANSA to fail to even identity or to properly explain Australia’s existing nuclear fuel wastes and proposed further decades of Opal reactor nuclear fuel waste production in the “Information for Stakeholders”.

Australia’s nuclear fuel wastes are by far the highest activity and most concentrated and hazardous nuclear wastes under Australian management, and must be distinguished from other waste forms. Continue reading

December 12, 2016 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, New South Wales, reference, South Australia | Leave a comment

Western Australia’s Premier (like South Australia’s) risks political oblivion in promoting nuclear power

text politicsWith a state election around the corner it is time for all candidates to understand that support for clean renewable power will increasingly be a community pre-condition for access to political power.

Premier’s nuclear push is proof of a government in meltdown,  http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18719 By Mia Pepper . 12 December 2016 “…..At the recent COAG meeting our Premier has gone out on a glowing limb in a bid to revive the debate on nuclear power. Now there’s nothing wrong with a healthy debate, but this debate has been had repeatedly and the answer is always the same. It is time to put this tired talking point to bed and get on with the energy transition we can no longer ignore.

In 2016 the SA Government’s Royal Commission into the Nuclear industry found that “it would not be commercially viable to develop a nuclear power plant in South Australia…”

A decade earlier in 2006 the Switkowski Report found that “Nuclear power is likely to be between 20 and 50 per cent more costly to produce” than existing power sources and acknowledged that the reality that disposal of “high-level waste including spent nuclear fuel remains an issue in most nuclear power countries.”

Both these reports were initiated with a pro-nuclear agenda. Both sought to progress the contested nuclear industry within Australia. Both found insurmountable barriers including cost, time, contest and the complexity of nuclear waste.

None of these key factors have changed and they are not likely to. Many in the community remain deeply sceptical of nuclear power – and in the shadow of the Australian uranium fuelled and continuing Fukushima nuclear crisis – this too is unlikely to change.

A mystery akin to whale beachings is why do conservative politicians periodically wash up demanding that ‘we should include nuclear in the debate’ when we all know that the numbers simply do not add up?

Well, in short it is not a real proposal rather a headline grabbing convenient distraction from the very real issue of the need to rapidly transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

The reality is that we do not have the decades that nuclear reactors take to build, license and start. Our emissions are rising alongside global temperatures and the global climate clock is ticking loud.

The Premier’s latest foray into the nuclear space shows how little he understands about the risks – both nuclear and climatic. In 2015 when there was talk of West Australia possibly hosting Australia’s nuclear waste his reaction was effectively ‘don’t worry about it as it’s just a couple of X-rays’. The national nuclear waste problem in Australia has zero to do with x-rays and everything to do with spent nuclear fuel from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney – material that is far more serious and long  Continue reading

December 12, 2016 Posted by | politics, uranium, Western Australia | Leave a comment

Julia Gillard on the need for education funding

a-cat-CANYou might wonder what this news item is doing on an antinuclear page. Well,it’s not because I’m a great fan of Julia Gillard.  However, I was so pleased to see what she is now doing.  I am convinced that education is the basic requirement for human society to survive.

America would not have got president elect Trump if that country had a decent, nation-wide, eductaion system. No wonder the under-priveleged battlers hate “the elites” – including the well-educated people who make fun of them.

The nuclear lobby, the climate deniers, thye bigots of all persuasions, will put it over a poorly educated puiblic.

Gillard,-Julia-1Education funding must be raised across globe or world will face crisis, Julia Gillard says ABC News, 11 Dedc 16 The world is facing a crisis if countries do not increase their education budgets and get more children into school, warns former prime minister Julia Gillard, now chair of global education funding agency the Global Partnership for Education (GPE)……..

Ms Gillard said this was a crisis not just for the individual children missing out on school, but also at the global economy level.

“One of things we have learned is that we can overcome these problems if we try,” Ms Gillard told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“This isn’t the equivalent of saying let’s go to Mars or let’s go to Pluto. This isn’t something that no human being has done before.

“It’s not that at all. If every country was improving its education system as the rate of the top 25 countries — in their income band — then we would solve all these problems and be on track to have a learning generation with every child in school.”

Ms Gillard, who was speaking ahead of a two-day conference on children’s rights in New Delhi, said it was imperative both domestic and overseas financing were made available as one of the first efforts to get children into school.

She said 20 per cent of government budgets, or 6 per cent of gross domestic product, would be an indication a country was trying to make a real difference to the education of children, yet many countries were failing to achieve that level.

According to the Education Commission, low- and middle-income countries’ expenditure on education was $US1 trillion ($1.3 trillion) in 2015, but should have been almost three times that, at $US2.7 trillion by 2030.

Ms Gillard said foreign aid was also meagre, with only 3 per cent of overseas assistance going towards education…..

“Education is a pretty patient investment in quite an impatient world. People want to see quick results. It takes years to educate a child.

“But if this continues, we will see a generation which simply doesn’t have the skills and capacities to make a life for themselves and the next generation of children will be less likely to survive infanthood, less likely to be vaccinated and less likely to go to school themselves.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-11/education-funding-must-be-raised-across-globe-gillard/8110204?pfmredir=sm

December 12, 2016 Posted by | Christina reviews | Leave a comment

Time that the Sunday Mail moved beyond pro nuclear spruiking

media-propagandaDennis Matthews, 12 Dec 16, Sunday Mail’s editorial on new ideas (11/12/16) strikes me as opportunistic and misguided.

After a bankrupt and desperate SA Government spent over $10million of our money in a failed attempt to foist a nuclear dump on SA we still have people who want to go ahead not just with the dump but with the whole nuclear disaster. They want the SA Government to throw good money after bad.

In doing so they not only want to disregard the citizens jury but the heavily pro-nuclear Royal Commission, which found that the only solution was to treat SA like some third world economy, which should be grateful to import the world’s growing stockpiles of nuclear waste. A thing that no other country has done or wants to do including those that have existing nuclear industries.

The pro-nuclear Royal Commission ruled out any other part of the nuclear industry. This includes nuclear submarines, nuclear power and nuclear fuel production.

Time for the Sunday Mail to move on.

 

December 12, 2016 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment