Australia and nuclear weapons – theme for August 2020
Sad to say, but Australia, or at least the Australian government, is something of an international pariah on the great issues of climate action, and nuclear disarmament.
In decades past, Australia took a leadership position on nuclear disarmament. Not any more.The rot really set in with the dismissal of Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister. That whole thing remains shrouded in secrecy, but Whitlam wanted Australia’s government to know what was going on at Pine Gap, and opposed having a USA secret spy and military operations base operating in Australia. I believe that it was Whitlam’s stand about Pine Gap that was the underlying reason for his dismissal.
After Whitlam, Australian governments kowtowed to USA, and continue to do so. As with climate action, the Australian government continues to sabotage international disarmament efforts. That’s why we have U.S. military bases as targets in this country, and some Liberal and National MPs itching to buy nuclear weapons from US.
On a positive note, however, Australians can be proud of the initiation of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, (ICAN) which was started by Australians, and won the Nobel Peace Prize. This led to the United Nations Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, voted in by 122 nations, now ratified by 40. It is an important start, removing any pretense that such weapons could be considered ethical. There are now 28 Australian councils that call for the federal government to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons..
for page Andrew Wilkie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRfhFITToa8
for International https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XzrxspyzXo
for international – very good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jveGno7ee9I
Nuclear power, far too slow to affect global heating – theme for July 20
In recent themes I wrote about nuclear power being in fact a big contributor to global warming, and about how climate change will in fact finish off the nuclear industry.
But – let’s pretend that nuclear reactors really could reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
TIME: To do that, 1500 one thousand megawatt-electric new reactors would be needed within a few years to displace a significant amount of carbon-emitting fossil generation. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology Study on “The Future of Nuclear Power” projected that a global growth scenario for as many as 1500 one thousand megawatt-electric new reactors would be needed to displace a significant amount of carbon-emitting fossil generation. Average 115 built per year would reduce our CO2 use by only 16%.
But the new flavour of the month is Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs), which generate from 50 to 200 megawatts. So the world would need, quickly, to have a significant reduction of carbon emissions, i.e at least 7500 largish SMRs – or 30,000 smaller ones., (and these SMRs are already shown to be more costly than large ones,)
Meanwhile – if the nuclear “climate cure” were to be pursued, the enormous costs and efforts involved would take away from the clean, fast, and ever cheaper solutions of energy efficiency and renewable energy
Letter to Australia’s Senators – alarm over proposed National Radioactive Waste Amendment Bill
Dear Senator
When the National Radioactive Waste Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 comes before the senate in August 2020, I/we would like you to consider the serious nature of the information in this letter and to reject this Bill.
The proposed dump on a farm (Napandee) near Kimba SA has been promoted as a permanent low level waste (LLW) dump to be managed for 300 years, necessitated by nuclear medicine. This lie by omission has been repeated ad nauseam by the National Radioactive Waste Management Taskforce; government agencies tasked with dealing with the waste, namely ANSTO and ARPANSA; government ministers (state and federal); the local Liberal MHR Rowan Ramsay and business associations. This rationale for the dump has been directed to two very small rural communities, while the remainder of the state and the nation have been ignored, in spite of the repeated message that this is an issue of national significance. (The Australian Radioactive Waste Management Framework 2018 states
that the general public should be actively engaged in implementing its aims for nuclear waste disposal.)
Following the debacle of the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission 2015-2016 (RC) initiated by your colleague, then, Premier Jay Weatherill, its recommendation to more fully explore the possibility of SA becoming a dump for international high level waste (HLW) was rejected
Until then, the current national dump proposal (running in parallel with the RC and supported by it) had been overshadowed by public outrage over the RC’s recommendation re international waste. Most South Australians had no idea that, once again, SA was being primed as a dumping ground for
the nation’s waste.
In 2000, the SA Olson Liberal government enacted the Radioactive Waste (Prohibition) Act; later strengthened by the Rann Labor government, it was amended during 2015 because the RC was not in compliance with the Act! Following the conclusion of the RC, the Act was fully reinstated.
n spite of this, both Labor and Liberal state politicians overwhelmingly have remained mute, lacking the courage to either openly support the national dump plans or to criticise them. Their silence, their unwillingness to defend and uphold the Act is a betrayal of the South Australian public.
In claiming majority support for its dump plans in the Kimba vote, the federal government ignores its failure to include the Barngarla traditional owners, and the bitterly divided community which remains.
The federal government’s PR exercise has failed to satisfactorily explain the sources or composition of the waste planned for Napandee; for example the majority of the waste (by quantity) is currently stored at Woomera, much of it waiting for categorisation and repackaging, as the drums containing
it are in poor condition. This material is legacy waste; the result of research conducted during the Cold War, when Australia worked in close collaboration with UK’s nuclear weapons programme.
Currently there exists no facility at Woomera for repackaging this waste.
While endeavouring to maintain the justification for the national dump i.e. LLW waste necessitated by nuclear medicine, the planned temporary, above ground storage of reprocessed spent fuel and other sources of high level waste have been largely ignored. By labelling these wastes as intermediate level (ILW) the federal government has sought to downgrade the level of concern. IAEA advice for the final disposal of radioactive waste does not differentiate between ILW and HLW; so let us call reprocessed spent fuel for what it is – HLW.
One of the greatest concerns about the dump is the removal of HLW from temporary storage at Woomera, and in the case of reprocessed spent fuel or other high level isotopes, from temporary storage at Lucas Heights to another temporary storage site at Napandee, with NO plans for permanent disposal. Surely, this is not international best practice!
The packaging drums (TN81) for reprocessed spent fuel returning from France and the UK have an anticipated life of 40 years. Given that there are no long-term plans for this waste and that it is envisaged that management of its temporary storage could be for 100 years, it is, therefore, highly
probable that repackaging would be required. There are, however, no plans for providing repackaging facilities at Napandee.
Due to Australia’s relatively small quantities of HLW, the IAEA notes the difficulty we would face in developing a permanent, deep geological repository for its disposal. Given the lack of any long-term plan for this waste; the inability of any other country to permanently dispose of its intractable wastes; and the enthusiasm that still persists in some quarters for hosting an international waste dump, (including amongst the SA government’s top advisers) the IAEA’s comments should ring alarm
bells.
The nation’s HLW becoming stranded indefinitely at the Napandee site, where it could also become a stepping stone to an international waste dump, is not only a nightmarish scenario; it is a realistic possibility.
The federal government’s plans are deeply disturbing. The public has been kept in the dark, or entirely misled. I/We, therefore, request you consider this letter when voting on the forthcoming Bill.
Hope for a nuclear weapons free world
Hope for a nuclear weapons free world https://www.echo.net.au/2020/07/hope-for-a-nuclear-weapons-free-world/#comment-3006538 Mick & Deborah Stacey, Ballina
The 16 July, 75 years ago, was the date of the first atomic weapons test code named ‘Trinity’, at Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA, (part of the Manhattan Project). This led to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the 6 and 9 August, and over 2000 additional tests worldwide, exposing people and nature to deadly toxic radioactive particles.
Today, there are over 13,890 nuclear weapons worldwide, all far more powerful than the ones used on Japan.
But there is hope, thanks to an Australian initiated campaign ICANW (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), we now have 40 countries, Botswana being the latest, that have ratified the treaty in the United Nations, with 10 more required to make nuclear weapons, illegal under International Law.
Thanks to the dedicated people who work tirelessly to make this happen. We can help by making a donation at ICANW, and encouraging your council to sign up to the ICAN Cities Appeal. There are now 28 Australian councils signed up, Adelaide being the latest.
So if local Councils could take some time out from being developers, just like Ballina Council they could add their support.
There is no future in a world, held to ransom by these horrendous weapons of mass destruction.
People should be appalled by the governments’ announcement to spend $270 billion on so called defence. Love is the answer.
The climate emergency after the pandemic — John Quiggin
In an excess of zeal, I’m planning an Australia-specific book (working title, Australia after the Apocalypse: rebuilding a livable future) which will deal with the social, cultural and economic implications of the bushfire and pandemic catastrophes. This will complement The Economic Consequences of the Pandemic which will be global in its scope, but more narrow…
The climate emergency after the pandemic — John Quiggin
Coronavirus is a big threat: global heating is bigger
 Climate change is the greatest threat, The Canberra Times, 18 Jul 20While the world was preoccupied  with an ever increasing number of coronavirus cases this week, a hugely significant scientific report was allowed to pass under-reported and unremarked.
This was the study of the 2020 Siberian heatwave by World Weather Attribution, a group of scientists who have been monitoring extreme weather events for years. The heatwave had contributed to raising the world’s average temperature to the second highest on record for the period from January to May this year. WWA said Siberia had experienced “unusually high temperatures”, including a record-breaking 38 degrees celsius in the town of Verkhoyansk on June 20, causing wide-scale impacts including “wildfires, loss of permafrost, and invasion of pests”. The Russian government was forced to declare a state of emergency in response to these disasters. It is believed that at least 56 Megatons of carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere in June alone. There has also been an explosion in the population of Siberian silk moths with massive swarms causing further damage to forests, making them even more prone to fire.
While all of this, and reports food supplies are being affected with fish swimming deeper in search of cooler water, is alarming, the real cause for concern is the finding the prolonged heatwave had been made “600 times more likely as a result of human-induced climate change”………. while it is a given that the climate deniers will dismiss the report as “bunkum” and “fake news”, those who actually know what they are talking about have no such doubts. Michael Wehner, a senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory – who was not involved in the study – said the methodology was “state of the art” and that the findings were, if anything, “conservative”. If, as many believe, temperatures in Arctic and Antarctic regions are “canaries in the coal mine”, this latest report is a warning that should not be ignored. Given it comes on top of linkages between Australia’s spring and summer bushfires and man-made global heating, it is yet another argument for this country to do much more to reduce to carbon dioxide emissions as a matter of urgency. And let’s not forget, if 2019 was anything to go by, our next bushfire season is just around the corner. While the federal government has done a commendable job in seeking the best possible expert advice on the coronavirus and then following it, it has yet to do the same with climate and energy policy. That has to change. Coronavirus is a crisis, climate change is an existential threat. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6838483/climate-change-is-the-existential-crisis/?cs=14245 |
|
Doubts on the independence of the reiew of Australia’s national environmental laws
Frustration grows over delayed release of review into Australia’s environmental laws
‘Questions naturally arise’ about review’s independence, environmental group says, Guardian, Lisa Cox 17 Jul 20, Environment groups are increasingly anxious and frustrated as they wait for the release of an interim report from a review of Australia’s national environmental laws.
The review’s chair, the former competition watchdog head Graeme Samuel, handed his report to the environment minister, Sussan Ley, almost three weeks ago.
It had been due for release shortly after that but the government pushed back its publication, which is now expected sometime next week.
“When the review was announced, Minister Ley was very clear that this was meant to be an independent report. But when the report is delayed by government, questions naturally arise about how independent that process is,” said Suzanne Milthorpe, the national environmental law campaign manager at the Wilderness Society.
“If they are serious about this, they should release it so that all Australians can see and engage with the findings of this report.”
The review of Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is a once-in-a-decade statutory requirement. It has the potential to shape policy for the next 10 years in an area that is highly politicised.
The interim report and its recommendations will inform the next period of public consultation before Samuel delivers a final report in October.
In submissions to the review, environmental and industry groups have put forward proposals that involve the development of national environmental standards.
They agree Australia’s environment is in decline, but they hold different views on what a set of national standards might look like.
Industry continues to advocate for reductions in environmental regulation, while conservationists have called for stronger protection and an independent national environmental authority.
Just this week, Australia’s oil and gas lobby, APPEA, called for regulatory reform, and in particular the cutting of so-called environmental “green tape”, to support economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. …..
James Trezise of the Australian Conservation Foundation said a recent national audit office report that examined the assessment and approval of projects under the act had identified serious failures in governance.
That included findings that the government had been ineffective in managing risks to the environment and had failed to ensure developers were meeting the environmental conditions of their project approvals.
Trezise said reforms were needed to ensure Australia’s laws were better focused on delivering outcomes for the environment and that one way of achieving that was “through setting clear national standards” for environmental protection…….
James Trezise of the Australian Conservation Foundation said a recent national audit office report that examined the assessment and approval of projects under the act had identified serious failures in governance.
That included findings that the government had been ineffective in managing risks to the environment and had failed to ensure developers were meeting the environmental conditions of their project approvals.
Trezise said reforms were needed to ensure Australia’s laws were better focused on delivering outcomes for the environment and that one way of achieving that was “through setting clear national standards” for environmental protection……… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/17/frustration-grows-over-delayed-release-of-review-into-australias-environmental-laws
Australia wants to build a huge concrete runway in Antarctica. Here’s why that’s a bad idea
July 17, 2020 Shaun Brooks, University Associate, University of Tasmania, Julia JabourAdjunct Senior Lecturer, University of Tasmania A ustralia wants to build a 2.7-kilometre concrete runway in Antarctica, the world’s biggest natural reserve. The plan, if approved, would have the largest footprint of any project in the continent’s history………
Australia: an environmental leader?
Australia has traditionally been considered an environmental leader in Antarctica. For example, in 1989 under the Hawke government, it urged the world to abandon a mining convention in favour of a new deal to ban mining on the continent.
Australia’s 20 Year Action Plan promotes “leadership in environmental stewardship in Antarctica”, pledging to “minimise the environmental impact of Australia’s activities”.
But the aerodrome proposal appears at odds with that goal. It would cover 2.2 square kilometres, increasing the total “disturbance footprint” of all nations on the continent by 40%. It would also mean Australia has the biggest footprint of any nation, overtaking the United States.
Within this footprint, environmental effects will also be intense. Construction will require more than three million cubic metres of earthworks – levelling 60 vertical metres of hills and valleys along the length of the runway. This will inevitably cause dust emissions – on the windiest continent on Earth – and the effect of this on plants and animals in Antarctica is poorly understood.
Wilson’s storm petrels that nest at the site will be displaced. Native lichens, fungi and algae will be destroyed, and irreparable damage is expected at adjacent lakes.
Weddell seals breed within 500 metres of the proposed runway site. Federal environment officials recognise the dust from construction and subsequent noise from low flying aircraft have the potential to disturb these breeding colonies.
The proposed area is also important breeding habitat for Adélie penguins. Eight breeding sites in the region are listed as “important bird areas”. Federal environment officials state the penguins are likely to be impacted by human disturbance, dust, and noise from construction of the runway, with particular concern for oil spills and aircraft operations.
The summer population at Davis Station will need to almost double from 120 to 250 during construction. This will require new, permanent infrastructure and increase the station’s fuel and water consumption, and sewage discharged into the environment……... https://theconversation.com/australia-wants-to-build-a-huge-concrete-runway-in-antarctica-heres-why-thats-a-bad-idea-139596
Testing of nuclear weapons has been a disaster for America
|
It’s Been 75 Years, and America Still Won’t Admit a Nuclear Disaster. Remember when we blew radioactive ash over New Mexico? Now the Trump administration is talking about testing bombs again. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/opinion/75-anniversary-trinity-nuclear-testing.html, By Joshua Wheeler, Mr. Wheeler is the author of “Acid West.”
July 15, 2020 When America detonated the world’s first atomic bomb at 0529 hours on July 16, 1945, it was an attack on American soil.
The blast melted the sand of southern New Mexico and infused it with the bomb’s plutonium core — 80 percent of which failed to fission — scattering radioactive material across the desert. The first atomic bomb was both a feat of engineering and, by today’s standards, a crude dirty bomb. After riding the fireball over seven miles into the sky, as much as 230 tons of radioactive sand mixed with ash and caught the breeze of a cool summer morning. It floated 15 miles northwest to the Gallegos Ranch, where it fell and bleached the cattle. The dirty ash floated 20 miles northeast to the M.C. Ratliff Ranch, where that family would spend days cleaning it off their roof, off their crops and out of their water cistern. Thirty-five miles southeast at the Herreras’ home in Tularosa, the radioactive soot stained the white linens drying on the clotheslines.
The fallout from that detonation — code-named Trinity — floated over a thousand square miles and exposed thousands of families to radiation levels that “approached 10,000 times what is currently allowed,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In the hours after the explosion, 185 Army personnel chased the fallout to monitor its extent. They chased it so far that their communications radios stopped working. Some who were stationed a few miles north of Trinity looked anxiously at their whirring Geiger counters and decided to bury their now-irradiated breakfast steaks.
Those soldiers had been given respirators, but at least one forgot his and was forced to take the officially sanctioned precaution of breathing through a slice of bread. Others were sent out with Filter Queens, a popular vacuum cleaner, in a futile attempt to suck up the fallout as though it was nothing more than household dust.
In short, the Army was woefully unprepared and even willfully negligent about the fallout of its first atomic bomb. It warned no residents. It ordered no evacuations. It maintained that the area around Trinity was absolutely safe, even when it knew it was not. So Americans went on living in the fallout, working in the fallout, eating from the dirty American soil.
Downwind of the blast, the local infant mortality rate, after declining in previous years, spiked. It increased by as much as 52 percent in 1945, with the highest increase occurring in August through October, the months immediately after Trinity. Recent research suggests that when America detonated the world’s first atomic bomb, its first victims were American babies.
Though there is no conclusive data about the rise in cancer rates after Trinity — largely because of a lack of government funding for such studies — stories collected by the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium reveal generations ravaged by nearly every imaginable cancer.
An Army doctor later wrote about Trinity: “A few people were probably overexposed, but they couldn’t prove it and we couldn’t prove it. So we just assumed we got away with it.” It has been 75 years and the American government still refuses to admit that the detonation of the “gadget,” as the Trinity bomb was called, was a nuclear disaster. Continue reading
|
1.This month
International Uranium Film Festival Berlin 2022 Friday, October 7th 2022 – Zeiss Large Planetarium
8.30 p.m TOTEM & ORE
Australia, 2019, Director & Producer: John Mandelberg, Executive Producer: Bozic Wongar,Actress and speaker: Ursula Yovich, documentary, with German subtitles, 97 min.
German premiereThe film begins in 1945 with the atomic annihilation of Hiroshima and ends with the Fukushima meltdown in 2011. It examines the aftermath of atomic bombs, nuclear weapons tests and the Fukushima reactor accident. Radioactive fallout from the British nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia not only contaminated large parts of the Australian outback. Radioactive rain also reached cities like Adelaide. Above all, however, the Aborigines have suffered from this to this day.
“Totem & Ore” tells the historical tragedies and fears from the point of view of witnesses of the atomic bombing and atomic bomb tests. Indigenous people, activists, filmmakers, artists, actors, writers, composers, doctors and professors all have their say. Ursula Yovich, a Native American actress, appeals: “There must be no more place in the world for nuclear weapons!”
Totem & Ore received a special recognition from the 2022 International Uranium Film Festival
National anti-AUKUS Coalition website
https://antiaukuscoalition.org/ National day of action planned for September 16
FIFTY SHADES OF TRUTH – the Grayzone
Max Blumenthal & Aaron Mate slam corporate media disinfo at Collision Toronto
Antinuclear 