Australian news, and some related international items

Nuclear news Australia to June 1st

With the world still teetering about North Korea etc, and the famous Kim-Trump summit still supposed to be happening, the nuclear weapons industry continues to thrive.

The impacts of climate change will not affect all regions equally – they will be worse in places with already fragile social and ecological systems.   The nuclear waste time bomb will keep ticking – America’s 60 years of radioactive trash.    And, as if the facts were not enough to worry about, Margaret Attwood (of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale”), suggests a future dystopian world, as the result of climate change.


USA rejected Julian Assange’s offer to talk about Wikileaks and ‘Russiagate’.

Yet another failure for Australian uranium company Paladin – Namibia uranium mine  mothballed.

South Australian Parliament Bill to protect whistleblowers.

NUCLEAR.  There’s quite a disgusting silence both from the Australian media and Australian politicians, about anything nuclear, but especially about the plan for dumping nuclear waste, (which they call “medical” waste) on rural South Australia.  Also, were it not for REneweconomy, Australians would learn hardly anything about the renewable energy transition now going on.  But our media did a splendid coverage of the British royal wedding!

Federal nuclear waste dump plan    Federal Government National Nuclear Waste Dump Selection Process – a B-grade horror movie plot.   Sydney’s Opal nuclear reactor’s High Level Wastes off to France, later to return to planned Federal Nuclear waste Dump  Adnyamathanha Traditional Land  Association again confronts Resources Minister Matt Canavan on nuclear waste dumping.

Some more of the 108 Submissions now published on the Senate website.


Clean Energy Council and Smart Energy Council call for high emissions reduction targets, as Frydenberg promises no change to the party room’s energy policy. Global and Australian food companies failing to deal with climate, health issues.

Adani coal mining company to pay for Isaac council staff working on Carmichael coal mine activities   Greens MP refers Adani to Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC).    Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners: “We’re on the frontline defending our lands against Adani” -Activists take to the streets to Stop Adani .



June 1, 2018 Posted by | Christina reviews | Leave a comment

MNEMOSYNE GILES’ powerful submission exposes the deceit in the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility plan

MNEMOSYNE GILES (citizen of South Australia) to Senate Inquiry on Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (Submission 51)

 I submit that the process of selecting a site for a NRWMF has been fundamentally flawed by the fact that it has not been properly or publicly debated whether a NRWM F is an appropriate response to the problem of Australia,s radioactive waste. It is therefore premature to be selecting a site. The inappropriate campaigns of ANSTO and ARPANSA to find a site as soon as possible,(within one year it is suggested) , are part of the misguided nature of their task

 I therefore recommend that this Senate Inquiry lead on to a full independent Judicial inquiry into Australia,s radioactive nuclear waste and whether we should keep producing it. I recommend a moratorium on uranium mining should be held while a decision on what to do with the waste is made.

World wide there is no solution to the long lived ILW (Intermediate Level Waste), and this must be acknowledged and emphasised at all levels of discussion and public consultation. Instead of this the NRWMF site selection process has given the illusion that a National site would be a “safe”solution allowing the industry to continue.

  1. CORRUPTION The Act 2012 that allows nominated private land to become nuclear radioactive dump sites, allowing State prohibition laws to be over-ridden, needs to be examined in connection with the possible corrupt volunteering of land, ………. I recommend an independent inquiry into how and why the National Dump process was initiated,and what interests,(including defence,may have been involved).

 An inquiry should ask :why is nuclear radioactive waste at present not better secured at sites such as Woomera where it currently is held? :how”safe” is any storage of ILW? :would one National site be “safer” than more smaller sites,considering that a National site provides a more definite military target and involves the hazards of transport.

2) COLLUSION   It needs to be explained how it came to be that the two campaigns for an International dump in S.A. And a National dump were run in parallel during the year of the NFCRC (Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission).

 I submit that there was communication and co-operation between State and Federal Govts.or other bodies to keep the two separate. The effect of the concurrent campaigns was to confuse the public : if it was designed to confuse , it succeeded :after the S.A. “Citizen,sJury” rejection of the International dump, most South Australians believed the threat of a “Dump” for S.A. was over.

 Now many South , Australians believe that this proposed National dump must be quite different, a smaller proposal,necessary for low level medical waste only. I perceive because I have talked to hundreds of people, handing out information leaflets to passers by on the streets of Adelaide, over the last two years. I submit that the separating of the National and International dump proposals has been and is a deceitful strategy. Well known and influential Richard Yeeles submitted to the NFCRC that a National dump was a good strategy to lead eventually to an International dump. So this strategy is well known to government and industry leaders. But the distinct possibility of a National dump leading to an International dump is never admitted to the public, (especially not to people at Kimba or the Flinders Ranges). This is collusion at a high level to deceive the public. If it is the blind leading the blind it is not good enough when so much is at stake.


I also submit that the presentation of medical waste as the main purpose of a National dump is deceitful. Other submissions I am sure will give details of the small proportion of waste which is medical, and the fact that nuclear reactors are not necessary for producing isotopes for medical treatment Nuclear contamination has caused innumerable cancers and will continue to do so. People in contaminated districts can not forget this, but further away people wonder where their cancer comes from.

 4) CONFUSION OVER LEVELS OF WASTE In the early stages of the ARPANSA National dump campaign people were led to believe that it was for LLW only. Even politicians seemed to need to have it explained repeatedly that ILW was to be “co-located”.An inquiry should look at bringing Australian definitions of HLW and ILW into conformity with international definitions.


 Why is the definition of this only now being questioned? For an honest straight forward process it should have been defined at the outset. Leaving it vague has caused uncertainty, confusion, and ultimately angst and division in previously harmonious districts..Whoever decided that small remote townships should be targeted to become willing hosts for the most toxic waste ever produced, and to make a decision which would affect all of us and future generations for thousands of years? South Australian land and people have already suffered contempt and abuse from nuclear /military actions and we will not accept disenfranchisement now. Both State and Federal Govts. (lab and Lib), ape the Finnish with a mantra of “not imposing” on any unwilling community. But this is disingenuous. Finland is a nuclear nation reliant upon nuclear power, so a small local community can have some sense that it is acting in the public interest in hosting a dump. Most Australians do not want Australia to be further implicated in the nuclear fuel cycle:this is probably why we are not being asked about this dump, or given the relevant information. This is not democracy. Finland also has very different geology, with plenty of water and has an absolute veto on the transport of nuclear material across its borders (which we do not have).

This is not a local issue but a National and a State one.


Small communities are easier targets for bribery and this has been shameless, and benefit to the local community is the most often cited reason for local acceptance. Public money has also been used to fund paid staff to have a constant pro- dump presence in town,and a “local project office” in Kimba. This use of funds means that the pro-dump people in town are supported and can be seen as pillars of the community, positive in attitude, while those against lack funds and support except from volunteers. The current ICAN tour of remote nuclear sites and the target dump sites of Kimba and the Flinders Ranges , is in response to this isolation. ARPANSA has not and does not intend to appear in Adelaide to explain what they are presenting to Kimba and the Flinders communities. I recommend that they should complete an  inventory of what is intended before people can be expected to consider the proposal


This is the most serious defect of the ARPANSA campaign. Target communities of Kimba and the Flinders Ranges are being asked to make a decision on a project that is not described or defined. Attached is an appendix of questions asked of ARPANSA . After a year most of these questions are still not answered satisfactorily .They are basic questions about the waste and the need for an


All the local people who accept the dump proposal think that it is “safe”,although they do not know what it actually would or could be.(none of us do , it is an open ended process it seems). This is a result of ARPANSAs campaign to create a “perception “of “safety”, an example of which was their hosting of a French pro-nuclear delegation from the Aube. The mayor and others told locals at Kimba and the Flinders ranges how they felt comfortable living and producing near a nuclear waste store, and how tourists flocked to see it. No mention was made of France,s terrible problem with ist waste. When asked about the tritium that leaked(irreversibly) into the water system it was explained that this was only because the facility originally did not have a roof. So contamination and accidents belong to the past, and are not expected in the thousands of years of future storage.


“In its pursuit of a “willing community”within a year, ARPANSA is manufacturing consent in the same way as the S.A. NFCRC tried to do with its accompanying Road Show”, and the Citizens Jury. The techniques are quite usual nowdays but I submit they are inappropriate for major decision making. They include: -No genuine public meetings ie. No independent chair -Casual style consultation instead, with individuals usually addressed in ones or twos – -low attendance at ARPANSA consultations is normal, similar to roadshow”attendances -questions from the floor usually relegated to private discussion after the meeting.

In conclusion I submit that the site selection process shows pro-nuclear bias and avoids democratic scrutiny. Therefore an inquiry by the Senate into the process should not only condemn the process,but ask for a judicial inquiry into its inception and the basic assumptions it makes about Australia,s further nuclear involvement

. Mnemosyne Giles 2/4/2018


Further questions to ANSTO, ARPANSA & the DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, INNOVATION and SCIENCE (DIIS) from ENuFF (Everybody for a Nuclear Free Future SA) Continue reading

June 1, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Sydney’s Opal nuclear reactor’s High Level Wastes off to France, later to return to planned Federal Nuclear waste Dump

Guarded nuclear shipment to secretly depart Sydney   SBS News, 1 June 18 Any day now a decade’s worth of heavily guarded nuclear cargo will be secretly transported through Sydney’s streets and sent to France for reprocessing.  ….. Any day now a decade’s worth of spent nuclear fuel assemblies weighing 24 tonnes will be moved out of Sydney’s Lucas Heights facility in a highly sensitive transport mission months in the making.

The radioactive cargo is set to be shipped to La Hague, in France, but details about the port, routes and specific timing of the operation remain classified with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) only disclosing it will happen mid-year.

An ANSTO spokesman has assured the public of the operation’s safety, saying the radioactive materials will be enclosed in specially-designed transport casks reinforced with lead and made to withstand almost anything, including a jet fighter crash.

“There is no credible chance of any accident or incident that could result in the cask being compromised,” an ANSTO spokesman said.

It will be the 10th transport mission of spent nuclear fuel assemblies, with the last shipment sent to the United States in 2009.

The spent fuel has come from Australia’s multi-purpose OPAL reactor…..The reprocessing project will cost $45 million, including the contract with France, equipment, staff and other costs.

Once the uranium and plutonium are extracted, they will be recycled into overseas civil power and research programs, with the remaining materials vitrified into a safer form for waste storage and sent back to Australia…..

The spent fuel assemblies, which would have been considered high-level waste, become transformed into an intermediate level waste, Hef Griffiths, ANSTO’s Chief Nuclear Officer told AAP.

But the question of where it will be stored remains.

The waste from this year’s transport mission will be returned from France in many years’ time and sent to the yet-to-be-built National Radioactive Waste Management Facility where it will be kept in storage for several decades.

Eventually, the waste will need to be moved again to a permanent disposal facility.

June 1, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, safety | Leave a comment

USA’s secret nuclear transport trains in the past, and now secret trucks

Major challenges remain for nuclear transportation in America

Perhaps the most pressing issue is nuclear waste and in particular, excess plutonium, most of which remains at Amarillo’s Pantex plant and will need to be moved to secure disposal facilities in the years to come.

public fears endure about whether moving such materials can ever truly be “safe.”

The Secret ‘White Trains’ That Carried Nuclear Weapons Around the U.S. History, BRIANNA NOFIL  31 May 18  At first glance, the job posting looks like a standard help-wanted ad for a cross-country trucker. Up to three weeks a month on the road in an 18-wheel tractor-trailer, traveling through the contiguous 48 states. Risks include inclement weather, around-the-clock travel, and potentially adverse environmental conditions. But then the fine print: Candidates should have “experience in performing high-risk armed tactical security work…and maneuvering against a hostile adversary.”

June 1, 2018 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Climate change will impact more on some regions and peoples

Climate change won’t heat the planet equally, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Thomas Gaulkin, 1 June 18

“…..In places closer to the equator that usually see only slight variations in temperature, the consequences of global warming are likely to be far more extreme. The outsize vulnerability of the world’s poorest people to damaging effects of climate change like droughts and floods is well established. It’s harder for people to overcome disasters in regions without the resources and infrastructure that are plentiful in wealthier parts of the world.

Now, a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters adds insult to injury. By mapping economic and social development to  climate models’ “signal-to-noise ratio”—which compares normal local temperature fluctuation (noise) to overall increases to average local temperatures (signal)—the authors determined that the poorest populations on the planet will experience more perceptible climate change than the richest. In other words, in places with already fragile social and ecological systems, climate change won’t just be harder to deal with, it will actually be more noticeable, and worse.

Not to be outdone, climate researchers at Oxford University offered their own insults this week. Analyzing vehicle use in Scotland, they concluded that top-down efforts to transition society to electric vehicles and phase out vehicle emissions aren’t enough. Without radical changes to lifestyles and increased demand for less harmful transportation systems, the authors say, there’s no chance of hitting the targets set in the Paris climate agreement. …

June 1, 2018 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

June 1 Energy News



¶ “How Trump has weakened America diplomatically and economically” • On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump staged a Rose Garden event to announce his intent to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement. Looking back, it is clear that this heedless act was just  one of a set of actions that have broadly undermined US diplomacy. [CNN]

White House (Photo: Eric Cox, Wikimedia Commons)


¶ Austrian Federal Railways opened what may be the world’s first solar power plant designed specifically to power an electric railway system. A solar PV farm puts its electric output directly to the rail system, powering the trains on the Ostbahn. The pilot project is to test the feasibility of larger use of solar power in rail transportation. [CleanTechnica]

¶ The third longest railway system in the world could be on the verge of an energy storage…

View original post 771 more words

June 1, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The rapidly changing dynamics of Australia’s grid — RenewEconomy

South Australia becomes net electricity exporter for first time, 12 new wind and solar farms were added, the amount of large-scale solar tripled, and rooftop PV kept a lid on demand.

via The rapidly changing dynamics of Australia’s grid — RenewEconomy

June 1, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wind and solar slashing corporate energy costs by 40% — RenewEconomy

Company behind new “Renewable Energy Hub” says wind, solar clearly delivering electricity at 40% discount from the grid.

via Wind and solar slashing corporate energy costs by 40% — RenewEconomy

June 1, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Australian banks double down on global fossil fuel expansion — RenewEconomy

Just when you thought Australia’s banks had reached the nadir, new data shows ‘Big Four’ lending to fossil fuel projects spiked by 50% last year.

via Australian banks double down on global fossil fuel expansion — RenewEconomy

June 1, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Leanne Lienert not necessarily opposed to nuclear waste dump, but very critical of the process

There are far too many discrepancies in the information, consultation process and long term impacts to have such a facility based at Kimba (or Hawker). 

the consultation process has been an insult to the intelligence of rural people

Leanne Lienert Submission to Senate, re  National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in South Australia Submission  (Submission No. 50)   I wish to offer my thoughts to the process currently occurring within two regional areas of South Australia with an emphasis on the Kimba area. From the outset I wish to say that I am not opposed entirely to such a facility being built within South Australia – but I am extremely concerned about the process of consultation, the logisitics and location of such a site and the long term effects on vibrant farming/rural communities.

Financial Compensation  interestingly the offer of substantial money to individuals to offer up their land plus the supposed ongoing dollars is the driving force locally for the facility to be placed at Kimba. Kimba farming district, as all farms across the world, are being farmed by fewer people as technology and modern machinery changes farming practices. It also often means that individual farmers are buying up more and more land for their own needs as smaller farmers can’t compete. Interestingly those buying up land are also the ones now edging to gain financially from this current waste facility proposal. I read one article where a farmer who has offered his farm considers it will drought proof the Kimba District to have the $2 million dollars – This amount of money divided between those affected by a drought would be chicken feed where the costs each year to produce a crop is significant. This community is not poor – it is creative and community minded with little unemployment. Nowadays many young people gain a trade to supplement the farms where they live and work – and as happens across the world others gravitate to the cities

While this money is a huge enticement, logically, the big picture cost of transporting radioactive waste from all over Australia to a small rural community doesn’t seem to be discussed in the consultation! If this waste is as safe as promised why is there a need to move it such long distances when it could presumably be located closer to the source with smaller facilities within each state or shared states?

“Broad community support” –how has it played out currently and will continue into the future I spent my childhood up until early adult years in this vibrant rural community where community participation, comradery, innovation and support has always been paramount. I still have a brother and his family on the farm plus my mother. I specifically know people who have been affected on both sides by this whole process and it is beyond me with the ongoing extent of the consultation that this disconnection and destruction of the community fabric has not been the deciding factor in saying this location is inappropriate on so many levels – socially, emotionally and mentally. It is sad that locally and politically at a Federal level that the lure of money (greed) has risen to hold such a high position in exchange for a totally altered community ethos!

This process has divided the community to such an extent that (people I know well)

  • – sporting teams have been affected because people will not play with those of differing opinion.
  • –  people have moved out of Kimba because they no longer feel comfortable in long term friendship groups who are now split by differing opinions
  • – people do not patronise business who are known to have opposite views to each other e.g. supermarkets, coffee shop, cafe – a distrust of information given to support the facility
  • – queries that there is too much wider information that has not been disclosed or has been misleading e.g. the locations were deliberately local farm names or Hundred names to disguise it not being at Kimba – such as Pinkawillinie, enticements to visit Lucas Heights in an attempt to ‘prove’ and market how safe it is while choosing to locate it so far away in a rural community, and also emotionally tagging people who are against it insinuating that they will have xrays or nuclear medicine treatments and are therefore hypocrites to not support it.
  • – voting for the facility only included those in the Kimba District
  • – interestingly a farmer who borders a proposed property and who is opposed to the waste facility idea is in the next council area and he didn’t get a say – I consider this an injustice. Even to the extent that he was told that it wasn’t ‘adjacent’ because it was across the other side of a dirt road – I wonder if the same person on a city block would think this was fair if a facility was built on a vacant block over the road from them!!
  • – A person I know very well owns a sheep stud – he has chosen not to disclose his own opinion of the facility for a real fear that those with an opposite view will not by rams from his stud.
  • – The need to remain neutral has caused some tensions between a son and mother (who is opposed to the facility) for fear he will be linked publicly to her views and it will reflect on his business and therefore affect those who patronise him.
  • – The notion that many jobs will be created also doesn’t ring true
  • – with a world of fly-in, fly-out employment it doesn’t seem logical that many jobs would be permanently located at Kimba. – I have heard locals say it will attract tourists!!
  • – what would they see? How big will this facility actually be?
  • – What is the impact to transport this type of waste such long distances through populated areas all across Australia to some tiny area on Eyre Peninsular?
  • – again if it is so safe why haven’t areas much closer to the source of radioactive waste been considered? It doesn’t seem to make logical sense?

Broad Community Support 

  • – what does this mean? Initially it was promised that any opposition to such a facility would mean it wouldn’t go ahead. The goal posts changed dramatically in a short space of time so that a vote with a slim majority of 2-3% meant the second round of consultation went ahead and if this continues it’s possible that as few as 300 people will make the decision for all of South Australia to have such a facility here. Is it a fair process if there is not a majority of at least 70:30 to allow this facility to go ahead especially in a decision that has an ongoing impact for many generations to come in terms of governance, changing definitions of “medium’ levels of waste, possible mishaps etc. Community Benefits Program
  • – If community benefits programs were to eventuate I am wondering how this would happen constructively in a community divided by the process – will the damage created continue to foster antagonism in gaining support for initiatives?
  • – Who would manage the money within the community and how would allocation of funds be decided? Would it be at a local level or would it become a political football?
  • – How would such a small community have a voice in changing political processes into the future?
  • – Would ‘medium level’ waste alter as the years go on? How would this be guaranteed and trusted?

Eyre Peninsular and state wide considerations   

– The wider implications of a radioactive waste facility being located within a vibrant grain growing area and its impact on a clean and green agricultural area cannot be dismissed.

This issue is not just for this productive region but all of the Eyre Peninsular and South Australia as a whole therefore the consultation needs to be widened and include both the region and the state in any final considerations. – I feel that the whole economic impact area needs some dialogue and debate because once this process begins it cannot be reversed. – In a country where the greatest population and food growing areas are positioned relatively close to the coast it doesn’t seem logical to locate such a facility in an area known for its quality and quantity of agricultural produce – there is a massive land mass that could be utilised instead of impacting on a small vibrant farming district.

Other related matters

I wonder why (and would like to see the reasons ‘why not’) places such as Leigh Creek (already exposed areas that could be covered within the open cut mine areas to the degree needed), Roxby Downs (already radioactive, with large areas that could house such a facility with easy access via rail or road), Woomera (where the government already utilises vast areas of land and with ready access) or even the Defence Force land at El Alamein near Port Augusta (where the area extends all the way to Iron Knob) – because once again it is promoted as being extremely safe.

In conclusion, after following the progress of the consultation in the Kimba district over the last two years, I feel that there are far too many discrepancies in the information, consultation process and long term impacts to have such a facility based at Kimba (or Hawker).

I also feel that the consultation process has been an insult to the intelligence of rural people. That it was considered (especially in the earlier parts of the consultation), this was one small, insignificant community who could be bluffed/lured into such a facility with money and would really have no idea about radioactive waste and probably wouldn’t care!

If South Australia decides to take on the responsibility of a radioactive waste facility then I hope that this enquiry can honour the true spirit that makes a rural community flourish and not set up processes that will continue to drive wedges between its people in the name of money. Please find a place that does not interrupt genuine people who lives are entwined with the land – whether that be our Aboriginal people, farmers or country towns.

June 1, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

The nuclear industry – immense profits for some, – harm to many others

Left in the wake of this race to nuclear modernity are people harmed and exploited along the way..

Ironically, as nuclear weapon states pursue upgrades to their arsenal, they also insist that countries like North Korea and Iran abandon plans to develop nuclear weapons. The double-standard traps the world in a situation that increase tension and competition between nuclear haves and have-nots.

As world leaders continue to wield nuclear weapons as part of their geopolitical power plays, we should resist automatically accepting the trope that nuclear weapons are custodians of global security.

The Nuclear Industry’s Winners and Losers, The New Republic

As Donald Trump plays chicken with North Korea, it’s worth remembering that this is also a business. Some profit; others suffer. By LOVELY UMAYAM, May 31, 2018  “…. Today, nuclear weapons are having a renaissance, again confronting news consumers with their duality as harbingers of destruction and champions of national security. …….

June 1, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New research on further ways in which ionising radiation causes breast cancer

Ionizing radiation can cause cells to turn cancerous, Pakistan Observer Islamabad : It is well established that exposure to ionizing radiation can result in mutations or other genetic damage that cause cells to turn cancerous.

Now a new study led by researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) has revealed another way in which radiation can promote cancer development.

Working with cultures of human breast cells, the researchers discovered that radiation exposure can alter the environment surrounding the cells so that future cells are more likely to become cancerous.

“Our work shows that radiation can change the microenvironment of breast cells, and this in turn can allow the growth of abnormal cells with a long-lived phenotype that has a much greater potential to be cancerous,” says Paul Yaswen, a cell biologist and breast cancer research specialist with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division.

A cell’s phenotype is its full complement of observable physical or biochemical characteristics. Different cells can have phenotypes that look dramatically different or exhibit radically different behaviour even though their genetic makeup (genotype) is identical.

Signals from outside the cell can alter a cell’s phenotype by regulating (or de-regulating) the cell’s use of its genes. Studies have shown that if a cell develops a pre-cancerous phenotype, it can pass on these “epigenetic” changes to its daughters, just as it can pass on genetic mutations.

“Many in the cancer research community, especially radiobiologists, have been slow to acknowledge and incorporate in their work the idea that cells in human tissues are not independent entities, but are highly communicative with each other and with their microenvironment,” Yaswen says. “We provide new evidence that potential cancer agents and their effects must be evaluated at a systems level.”

Yaswen is the corresponding author of a paper describing this study that appears in the on-line journal Breast Cancer Research. Co-authoring the paper were Rituparna Mukhopadhyay, Sylvain Costes, Alexey Bazarov, William Hines and Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff.

“The work we did was performed with non-lethal but fairly substantial doses of radiation, unlike what a woman would be exposed to during a routine mammogram,” says Yaswen, who is also a member of the Bay Area Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Center. “However, the levels of radiation involved in other procedures, such as CT scans or radiotherapy, do start to approach the levels used in our experiments and could represent sources of concern.”……….

This study was jointly funded the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH, through the Bay Area Breast Cancer and the Environment Center, and by the NASA Specialized Center of Research.

June 1, 2018 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Japanese companies join in starting storage battery business in South Australia

TEPCO JV to enter Australia battery biz 30, 2018
 TOKYO (Jiji Press) — Jera Co., a joint venture between Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. and Chubu Electric Power Co., said Tuesday that it will enter storage battery business in Australia.

The thermal power and fuel company agreed to explore opportunities to deploy energy storage solutions in the Asia-Pacific region with Australian power company Lyon Group and Fluence Energy LLC, a U.S. storage battery maker partly held by German industrial giant Siemens AG.

Under their plan, the three companies will spend a total of ¥120 billion to build solar power plants equipped with lithium-ion batteries in three regions in Australia.

Their combined power generation capacities will reach some 550,000 kilowatts.

One of the power plants will be built in South Australia. It will have a 100,000-kilowatt battery system, one of the largest in the world.

The generated electricity will be sold locally. The companies aim to start running the power plants in 2019.

Jera expects to invest around ¥10 billion. The company hopes to learn know-how about the storage battery business, as the renewable energy market is forecast to expand.

June 1, 2018 Posted by | South Australia, storage | Leave a comment

Uranium company Cameco’s gloomy outlook

Motley Fool 28th May 2018 , It has been a tough few years for one-time high-flying uranium miner Cameco Corp.. Over the last five years, its value has plummeted by 38% after nuclear power fell into disfavour after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, which caused the price of uranium to collapse.

Since then, uranium has remained caught in a protracted slump, despite claims by industry insiders and analysts that it is poised to rebound because of a combination of growing demand and emerging supply constraints. Nonetheless, despite these claims, there has been no sign of a sustained rally, and an upturn in the fortunes of the radioactive metal may never occur.

This is because the outlook for uranium is not as bright as claimed, and there is every indication that nuclear power will remain in disfavour. That will continue to weight on Cameco’s market value.

June 1, 2018 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

South Australian Parliament Bill to protect whistleblowers

SA parliament to debate whistleblower laws

A law shielding South Australian journalists from liability for refusing to reveal their sources has passed state parliament’s lower house.

Laws to strengthen protection of whistleblowers have passed South Australia’s lower house of parliament.

The Liberal government on Wednesday passed legislation to shield journalists from criminal or civil liability if they do not disclose the identity of their sources when the information is in the public interest.

The proposed legislation would make the default rule that journalists cannot be compelled to answer a question or produce a document that may disclose the identity of an informant.

June 1, 2018 Posted by | civil liberties, South Australia | Leave a comment