Australian news, and some related international items

Australia 2019 – it’s time to Act on Climate Change, and for a Nuclear-Free Nation – theme for January 2019

It could be the weather – heat, bushfires, floods- or the degraded state of our one big river system – or the ever more obvious stupidity of our masters in Canberra –   but something has to wake up Australians to our climate peril.

Australia, with its relatively small population, is the “canary in the mine” for developed countries experiencing climate change. We need to:

(a) Show the world that we are part of the global co-operative effort to slow down climate change, and to adapt to its impacts. Australia must reverse its disgraceful history of subverting international action on climate change. Australia must help Pacific island nations to address sea level rise impacts, including accepting climate refugees.

(b)  Quit coal, push for energy conservation, re-afforestation, and renewable energy, with a properly developed grid, and promote electric vehicles.

As for the nuclear threat to Australia – it’s not on the public radar, thanks to the corporate-influenced media, as well as to the ignorance and subservience of Australia’s Liberal and Labor politicians. What needs to happen – an independent inquiry and plan for managing radioactive trash, the closing of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, (in conjunction with development of a cyclotron-based development of medical radioisotopes.) Expose and turf out those politicians who remain in the grip of the nuclear lobby – with their dream of $billions from turning Australia into the world’s nuclear garbage dump.

Labor has made a start, with its in-principle decision to join the U.N. Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty. Unfortunately, Australia is locked into the USA nuclear weapons system, with Pine Gap and other American military bases (targets) in this country.

The risk of nuclear war is now greater than ever, since World War 2. In international relations, Australia treads  a difficult path between its ties to both USA and China. Blind subservience to Donald Trump is a dangerous option.

However, the prospect of a Labor election victory quite soon means that Australia can now look forward to some intelligent and better-informed national leadership on both climate and nuclear matters.

And we have very dedicated organisations working on both of these issues. We need all Australians to join us in an allout effort for a clean energy Australia, helping the global effort to slow the pace of climate change, and intelligently addressing its effects.


January 10, 2019 Posted by | Christina themes | Leave a comment

ANSTO’s duplicity on what is or is not “High Level” nuclear waste

Paul Waldon  Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges SA, 9 Jan 19
The laws of physics dictates that Lucas Heights will remain a “high grade” nuclear waste dump up to ten years after the shutdown of their last reactor. So keep the waste there, Australia doesn’t need two high grade radioactive dump sites.

Anthony Clark Isn’t High Grade reclassified to Intermediate radiation, in order to calm the multitude?

Gary See Anthony Clark As far as I understand it, High Level material generated at Lucas Heights is simply called ‘spent fuel rods’ and not called waste at all as to avoid using the term ‘high level waste’.

After this stuff is sent overseas for ‘processing’ it returns as ‘waste’.

So either they have to be honest about high level waste being generated in Australia or accept that Australia is accepting waste that is generated overseas.

If it isn’t called waste when it leaves Australia and is called waste when it returns, it’s hard to argue that it isn’t ‘waste generated overseas’.

Jillian Marsh to lull the uneducated into thinking ‘its just hospital grade waste and quite harmless’ and to justify government endorsement of a plan to turn our country into the world’s dumping ground …. Happy New Year? i think not if that’s what the people of this nation are supporting. absolutely crazy

January 10, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, wastes | Leave a comment

Climate change denier Peta Credlin for Liberal preselection? That would finally blow up the Liberal Party!

Peta Credlin’s preselection could be the spark that blows up the Liberal party, Guardian, If, as Credlin says, “climate change remains Malcolm Turnbull’s kryptonite”, then her preselection could just be the Liberal party’s dynamite. The split already exists, but for now, it’s being held together with sticky tape and string. And Credlin’s preselection could well be the spark that lights the fuse, and blows the whole thing up.

The Liberal party is suffering an existential crisis. And no other issue defines this crisis like the looming threat to our safety and security caused by inaction on climate change. Credlin understands this and has used her position as a climate change-denying, hard-right mouthpiece of the Murdoch empire to advance her own political interests, and the interests of the coal industry.

She’s consistently claimed climate change is a political hoax, and used her position in the media to undermine a sitting prime ministerand any energy policy supported by the Coalition party room that does not involve more coal and the end of renewables.

She doesn’t represent real liberal views, and if she appeals to what’s left of the “base”, then many people who used to vote Liberal will keep moving for the exits.

Inspired by Donald Trump, Credlin has argued Australia should tear up the Paris agreement, tear up any sensible national energy guarantee. Credlin has demanded taxpayers’ money go to the Adani coalmine and be used to build new coal-fired power stations. It’s madness.

Australians don’t want this. We would prefer a Great Barrier Reef, renewable energy and a future we can survive and thrive in.

These views are so ignorant – their political manifestation through Tony Abbott, Craig Kelly and their ilk – that it presents a grave economic and security threat to Australia’s future. And it could be the final death knell to the Liberal party.

Credlin’s demonstrated lack of understanding of the serious climate emergency we face, or even the basic economics of power production costs are breathtaking. She promotes the view that climate change is some leftwing conspiracy and that the science is rubbish.

These views need to be called for what they are: dangerous.

In her media roles, Credlin has even attacked the scientific foundation for energy and climate policy. From the desk at Sky, she announced her displeasure that former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull asked chief scientist Alan Finkel for real consideration of the climate change transition and energy policy. Instead she demanded a manufactured report devoid of reality………

Australians know it’s getting hotter every summer and see the increases in extreme weather. Report after report, overflowing with scientific evidence, traditionally a solid foundation for investment and public policy making, has been abandoned by the federal Liberal party. We understand how this will threaten our families, economy and security, and we must act to provide people with a real liberal alternative.

Credlin, Abbott and the rest of the hard-right’s “commitment to coal” is entirely political. The calculation they’ve made is that their short-term political interests, and the interests of the coal industry, are more important than the future of our country, our people and holistically the environment we all share.

It is essential now that real liberals stand against this reckless game of Russian roulette the hard right are playing with our future. If not, they too will adorn the walls as climate change deniers, who, despite all the evidence, refused to act.

 Oliver Yates is a member of the Liberal party and former chief executive of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation

January 10, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

Book by former chairman of Nuclear Regulatory Commission opposes nuclear energy

How Dangerous is Nuclear Power and How Bad is It’s Regulation? (2019)

Former NRC chairman remains clearly opposed to nuclear energy, Las Vegas Sun, 9 Jan 19, “……… former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko is going on the offensive to explain why nuclear energy is nowhere near a perfect solution to the climate crisis.

In a new book, Jaczko reiterates his longstanding criticism of the nuclear industry and his opposition to development of traditional nuclear power plants, which he says are unsafe despite technological improvements designed to make them safer.

Exhibit No. 1 in Jaczko’s argument is the Fukushima disaster. …, he contends that the catastrophe at Fukushima wiped out environmental gains that Japan made by burning less fossil fuels

…….Meanwhile, he says, the cost of generating electricity through natural gas and renewables is lower in most parts of the country than nuclear generation

……“So to me, the idea that somehow we’re going to preserve these reactors and that’s a climate solution is just wrong,” he said.

Then, of course, there’s the issue with nuclear waste ………

Jaczko’s bottom-line assessment is that despite decades of development, nuclear energy remains too hazardous and costly to be a viable source of power.

“There’s going to be an accident,” he said. “The only question is when and where.”

It’s a compelling argument, and anyone who may be warming to nuclear energy in the fight to reverse climate change should examine it. The book, “

,” is available now at Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other outlets.

January 10, 2019 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Trump administration and Bill Gates hope to further Gates’ nuclear project, with taxpayer funding, and weaker safety regulation.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WANTS BILL GATES TO DITCH CHINA AND BUILD HIS NUCLEAR PROJECT IN THE US, Daily Caller, Jason Hopkins | Energy Investigator 01/08/2019 |  Members of the Trump administration are actively working to convince Bill Gates to relocate his now-scrapped nuclear reactor project in China over to the U.S.

“We hope we can work with them and bring them back,” said Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette in an exchange with reporters Monday. Brouillette revealed the Energy Department has held “several conversations” with Gates, adding that he was optimistic the U.S. government could streamline the permitting process and entice the billionaire to bring his project stateside…….

“Unfortunately, America is no longer the global leader on nuclear energy that it was 50 years ago. To regain this position, it will need to commit new funding, update regulations, and show investors that it’s serious,” Gates wrote in a year-end blog post, first revealing his botched nuclear plans. ……

In the waning days of December, Congress passed the The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act by wide margins in both chambers. The legislation aims to streamline the regulatory process for commercial nuclear plants, with an end game of making the development and commercialization of nuclear technology more affordable.

If signed by President Donald Trump, the bill could make nuclear projects, like the one Gates is spearheading, easier to accomplish.

January 10, 2019 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

State of Oregon opposes Federal plan to declassify some high level nuclear waste

Feds say some Hanford radioactive waste is not so dangerous. Oregon disagrees, Tri City Herald, BY ANNETTE CARY, JANUARY 07, 2019 RICHLAND, WA 

January 10, 2019 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Space Radiation is Risky Business for the Human Body

From Radiation to Isolation: 5 Big Risks for Mars Astronauts (Videos)

Even astronauts who live on the International Space Station, which sits inside Earth’s protective magnetic field, are exposed to 10 times the radiation they would if they were back on Earth, NASA officials said in a statement and series of videos from the agency’s Human Research Program.

Anyone who traveled through deep space would be at much greater risk from radiation exposure. Outside of Earth’s protective shield, radiation can increase cancer risk and damage a person’s central nervous system (which would cause altered cognitive function, reduced motor function and behavioral changes), NASA’s Human Research Program said. Other dangers of being exposed to such high radiation include nausea, vomiting, anorexia, fatigue, cataracts, cardiac disease and circulatory disease. …….

January 10, 2019 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Cancer risks of too much radiation-based medical imaging

Radiation in the ICU: How much is too much?   By Maureen McFadden | , Jan 07, 2019  

The use of radiation-based imaging has risen dramatically in the past decade, and medical radiation now accounts for a significant proportion of all radiation exposure in the U.S.

Critically ill patients are often subjected to many CT scans and X-rays, but who is keeping track of when enough is enough?

When he noticed one of his patients had undergone 100 X-rays, Cleveland Clinic Dr. Sudhir Krishnan was concerned.

“I said, surely, someone is keeping track of this, some regional, local, or national authority is keeping track on the amount of radiation exposure a patient typically gets,” he said. “And I realized that wasn’t the case. There’s nobody.”

There is a standard federal limit for radiation dosage, but a recent Cleveland Clinic study revealed something shocking.

“Some exceeded a number of more than 100 milisiverts within these six days,” Krishnan said. “By Federal Occupational Standards, that dose cannot be exceeded in five years, and we have that happening in six days.”

As patients move from different facilities, the information about the radiation they have received isn’t transferred, which could lead to bad results.

“Patients could develop a certain kind of cancer because they’ve been exposed to a certain amount of radiation,” Krishnan said.

X-rays, CT scans and fluoroscopic surgery are the most common sources of radiation. But Cleveland Clinic Dr. Charles Martin says something needs to change

“Improving communication amongst the multiple specialties to see if there’s one way to get many pieces of information from one study [is necessary],” Martin said.

Talk to your doctor about it and be sure to ask, as Krishnan suggests, “if there is no suitable alternative and is absolutely necessary, then one would have to weigh the benefits versus risk and proceed with what’s required.”

The Cleveland Clinic is working to develop a tool that tracks radiation doses and uses our electronic medical records as a home for all of this information.

REPORT #2597

BACKGROUND: Radiation may be defined as energy traveling through space. Non-ionizing radiation is essential to life, but excessive exposures will cause tissue damage. All forms of ionizing radiation have sufficient energy to ionize atoms that may destabilize molecules within cells and lead to tissue damage.
Radiation sources are found in a wide range of occupational settings. If radiation is not properly controlled it can be potentially hazardous to the health of workers. Non-ionizing radiation is described as a series of energy waves composed of oscillating electric and magnetic fields traveling at the speed of light. Non-ionizing radiation includes the spectrum of ultraviolet (UV), visible light, infrared (IR), microwave (MW), radio frequency (RF), and extremely low frequency (ELF). Lasers commonly operate in the UV, visible, and IR frequencies. Non-ionizing radiation is found in a wide range of occupational settings and can pose a considerable health risk to potentially exposed workers if not properly controlled. Ionizing radiation sources may be found in a wide range of occupational settings, including health care facilities, research institutions, nuclear reactors and their support facilities, nuclear weapon production facilities, and other various manufacturing settings, just to name a few. These radiation sources can pose a considerable health risk to affected workers if not properly controlled.
(Source: and and

January 10, 2019 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

January 9 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “Colorado Could Save $2.5 Billion by Rapidly Shutting Down Its Coal Power Plants” • According to PacifiCorp, which owns 22 coal plants in Colorado, its own analysis shows 13 of the 22 plants are currently losing money. Analysis commissioned by the Sierra Club showed that it would be cheaper to replace 20 of […]

via January 9 Energy News — geoharvey

January 10, 2019 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment