Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Legal aspects of KIMBA  COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO National Radioactive Waste Management Facility

KIMBA  COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO National Radioactive Waste Management Facility

The decision by the High Court in the New Acland Coal case (1) was delivered only on Wednesday of last week but it is already creating a stir

In applying the rationale of that case to the Kimba situation the very marked difference is that its community members opposing the nuclear waste facility which is apparently made up of several groups including the Barngarla people suffered a much greater disadvantage than the objectors in the New Acland case as there was a real and actual bias at Kimba and not just an apprehension of bias 

This view has been expressed by several lawyers including retired judges to whom I spoke and it should be a very strong and decisive outcome which will mean that the government’s proposals for Kimba will be totally aborted

The other aspect of any litigation as to the Kimba situation is that all the information given by the government will now become subject to detailed scrutiny which will show up the the disingenuous statements by Pitt and the public servants involved including ANSTO and even ARPANSA

The same will apply to all the documents including internal minutes and notes which were either not previously disclosed or else highly redacted as they will have to be produced fully without the availability of any claim of privilege

I imagine that besides Pitt and Canavan being personally embarrassed it will make the government look silly and sneaky in its actions

I understand that the Kimba opponents are already considering an initial application to the Court to have their own impartial scrutiny and assessment of the government’s proposals to be paid for by the government

No wonder that lawyers are already queuing up to take this case on for the objectors as it should be an easy one with prolonged notoriety and no doubt with ultimately substantial costs against the government

Eat your heart out Erin Brockovich!

(1). Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v. New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors

High Court Case No. B34/2020      Judgment:   3 February 2021

February 9, 2021 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

No nukes in Asia…or anywhere — Beyond Nuclear International

The petition was initiated by24 countries (255 organizations) including 

【Australia】Friends of the Earth Australia、Marrickville Peace Group、People for Nuclear Disarmament、Port Adelaide/Semaphore Amnesty International Australia Action Group、Remembering and Healing、Sydney Peace & Justice Coalition、Uranium Free NSW

Sign petition to demand all governments abandon nuclear power

No nukes in Asia…or anywhere — Beyond Nuclear International

Groups call for a nuclear power ban and no radioactive water dump at Fukushima

By No Nukes Asia Forum Japan • Citizens’Nuclear Information Center • Friends of the Earth Japan

On the 10th Anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, groups in Japan have initiated an international signature campaign against the discharge of contaminated water and calling for the discontinuation of nuclear power plants now! Please join this campaign by signing the petition.

The Japanese government is planning to release Fukushima’s radioactive contaminated water into the ocean. Japanese citizens, from Fukushima Prefecture and beyond, are strongly opposed to this plan. 

The Fukushima Prefecture Fishermen’s Association, with the backing of the Fishermen’s Association from all over Japan, have submitted an opinion of opposition to the government. The Fukushima Prefecture Agricultural Cooperatives and Forestry Associations along with 43 local governments in Fukushima Prefecture also participated in this campaign, and 450,000 citizens from across Japan have signed a petition against the government plan. 


The threat of the release of contaminated water has triggered much concern and opposition among citizenry overseas as well, including those from neighboring countries. 

Contaminated water from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant has already exceeded 1.24 million tons. We are deeply concerned about the adverse effects the water will have on the human body by way of consuming fish and shellfish, which are staples in the region’s diet. 

We demand the Japanese government keep the contaminated water stored in the tanks until the water’s levels of radioactivity are significantly reduced. The government could also adopt mortar-induced radioactive waste solidification technology. 

Meanwhile, in neighboring South Korea, the government has advocated for denuclearization with its energy plan on paper but has not ceased to build new nuclear power plants (NPPs). Serious safety breaches have been reported repeatedly, including (but not limited to) the recent tritium leak at Wolsong NPP in Gyeongju and the disclosure of an air gap in the containment building at Yeonggwang Hanbit NPP. 

In Taiwan, the government is ostensibly advancing forward to become the first nuclear-free country in Asia under the slogan of “Zero nuclear power generation in 2025.” However, the Taiwanese government plans to hold a referendum on resuming the construction of the 4th NPP in August 2021. 

The construction of NPPs continues in Turkey and India while other countries, including the Philippines, seek new opportunities to build NPPs. 

Debates over safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste that will affect future generations for hundreds of thousands of years continue in Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Australia.

Ten years have passed since the Fukushima nuclear disaster yet attempts to maintain nuclear power linger on in Asia and other regions of the world. However, at a time the world is turning to renewable energy, we are becoming increasingly aware the time of nuclear power has expired. 

We demand that:

·The Japanese government stop its plan to discharge Fukushima NPP’s contaminated water into the ocean;

·The Korean government disclose information on the actual state of radioactive leakage at Wolseong NPP;

·All governments abandon plans to build new NPPs and instead focus on expanding renewable energy;

·All governments discontinue the operation of hazardous NPPs and drop plans to extend their life spans; and 

·Stop building nuclear waste facilities without explicit consent of residents. 

The petition was initiated by24 countries (255 organizations)…………..https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/02/08/no-nukes-in-asia/

February 9, 2021 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

America’s new $100Billion missiles are intended both for attack, and as a target.

Housed in permanent silos spread across America’s high plains, they are intended to draw fire to the region in the event of a nuclear war, forcing Russia to use up a lot of atomic ammunition on a sparsely populated area.

how little some nuclear weapons programs have to do with national defense.!

Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?,  https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/why-is-america-getting-a-new-100-billion-nuclear-weapon/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter022021&utm_content=NuclearRisk_NewWeapon_02082021  By Elisabeth Eaves, February 8, 2021     merica is building a new weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear missile the length of a bowling lane. It will be able to travel some 6,000 miles, carrying a warhead more than 20 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It will be able to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single shot.

The US Air Force plans to order more than 600 of them.

On September 8, the Air Force gave the defense company Northrop Grumman an initial contract of $13.3 billion to begin engineering and manufacturing the missile, but that will be just a fraction of the total bill. Based on a Pentagon report cited by the Arms Control Association Association and Bloomberg News, the government will spend roughly $100 billion to build the weapon, which will be ready to use around 2029.

To put that price tag in perspective, $100 billion could pay 1.24 million elementary school teacher salaries for a year, provide 2.84 million four-year university scholarships, or cover 3.3 million hospital stays for covid-19 patients. It’s enough to build a massive mechanical wall to protect New York City from sea level rise. It’s enough to get to MarsContinue reading

February 9, 2021 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

The real value of the nuclear ban treaty 

The real value of the nuclear ban treaty https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/the-real-value-of-the-nuclear-ban-treaty/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter02082021&utm_content=NuclearRisk_ValueTPNW_02042021

By Carl RobichaudKarim Kamel | February 4, 2021

Last month, 75 years after nuclear weapons were first used, a treaty came into force that bans them. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), also known as the ban treaty, is the culmination of a decade of work by civil society leaders and diplomats who, frustrated by stagnation in traditional venues, focused the lens of international humanitarian law on nuclear weapons. This approach, dismissed at first, resonated with many states that understood nuclear weapons to be inherently indiscriminatory and inhumane.

The new treaty outlaws the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, prohibits their development and possession, bans their transfer or receipt, and prohibits stationing, deploying, or assisting with nuclear arms.

But does any of this matter? The treaty lacks verification and enforcement mechanisms. No state with nuclear weapons will join anytime soon. The nine nuclear-armed states and their allies boycotted the negotiations and pressured other states to abandon the treaty. Each has nuclear modernization programs that will stretch for decades.

Skeptics of the treaty claim it is worse than irrelevant; it will accentuate tensions, undermine collective action on urgent proliferation challenges, diminish alliance cohesion or strategic stability, and potentially establish an alternative to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). We should not, they argue, take any steps that might undermine this bedrock agreement that for 50 years has helped limit the spread of nuclear arms.

These objections are overstated. Collective action against proliferation has been, and will remain, a challenge with or without the ban treaty. Moreover, the treaty was carefully drafted not to conflict with existing nonproliferation obligations, including the NPT.  

These objections are overstated. Collective action against proliferation has been, and will remain, a challenge with or without the ban treaty. Moreover, the treaty was carefully drafted not to conflict with existing nonproliferation obligations, including the NPT.

But the broader point holds: The treaty does little to reduce short-term nuclear risks. That is not its point. What the treaty does is establish, in clear and certain terms, that nuclear weapons are unacceptable. Over 122 countries supported the adoption of the treaty, 51 states have ratified it, and these numbers will continue to grow. Even within states that oppose the treaty, many citizens agree with its premise. Various polls suggest more than half of Americans believe the United States should work to eliminate all nuclear weapons, and support for this view is even higher in Japan and among NATO countries. In the words of former US Defense Secretary William Perry, the ban treaty “rightly establishes abolition as the standard that all nations should be actively working to achieve, rather than an indeterminate future goal.”

The status quo, with its 16,000 nuclear weapons, is far from stable. Everyone alive today lives in the shadow of a potential nuclear war. Climate modeling suggests that even a limited nuclear war, such as one between India and Pakistan, could result in a billion deaths as the ash from burning cities “could blot out the sun, starving much of the human race.”

The treaty represents a refusal to live forever under this nuclear shadow. It reflects a belief that the status quo represents a grave inequity, in which nuclear costs are imposed upon all, while the benefits of nuclear arms accrue to the few states privileged to possess them. In a world of inequities, this is especially pernicious because it is hidden from view. In its preamble, the ban treaty calls out the disproportionate effects on marginalized communities, including indigenous peoples, societies harmed by testing, and women.

At least from a humanitarian point of view, the question has been settled: Nuclear weapons are unacceptable. That alone will not make them disappear. But, in the meantime, the ban treaty need not distract from bilateral arms-control and threat-reduction efforts. The recent agreement to extend New START should be commended, and we must establish new mechanisms to build confidence and reduce tensions. The existence of a treaty banning nuclear weapons does not contradict these efforts; on the contrary, it should help build support for more sensible nuclear postures and for prohibitions on nuclear explosive testing and the production of weapons-usable materials.

The nuclear age is in its eighth decade, a mere dot on the timeline of human history. In this brief span there have been dozens of known close calls and near misses. So long as these weapons exist, ready to use at a moment’s notice, we court disaster. The nuclear powers find themselves, as Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis, in a tightening knot. Untying this knot will require a multi-generation project that brings together verification science with extraordinary foresight, diplomatic skill, and political leadership. But first it requires a change in our collective beliefs about nuclear weapons. This is the contribution of the ban treaty, and it should not be underestimated.

February 9, 2021 Posted by | General News | Leave a comment

Covid caused a coal-killing carbon crunch, and it could be permanent — RenewEconomy

A new report shows that COVID19 kicked coal in the gut. What will it take to truly bring it down? The post Covid caused a coal-killing carbon crunch, and it could be permanent appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Covid caused a coal-killing carbon crunch, and it could be permanent — RenewEconomy

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Angus Taylor’s own projections confirmed EVs were the best choice two months ago — RenewEconomy

It isn’t easy to make a strategy look bad. We’re discovering just how far Australia’s government had to go to do just that. The post Angus Taylor’s own projections confirmed EVs were the best choice two months ago appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Angus Taylor’s own projections confirmed EVs were the best choice two months ago — RenewEconomy

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Angus Taylor’s electric vehicle emissions claims “fundamentally flawed,” says expert — RenewEconomy

Transport expert says the emissions calculations used by Angus Taylor to justify his “do nothing” EV strategy are “fundamentally wrong.” The post Angus Taylor’s electric vehicle emissions claims “fundamentally flawed,” says expert appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Angus Taylor’s electric vehicle emissions claims “fundamentally flawed,” says expert — RenewEconomy

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Victorian Liberal-Nationals oppose controversial gas import terminal — RenewEconomy

Plans to construct a gas import terminal in Victoria met an unexpected opponent, with the state Liberal National party announcing they oppose the project. The post Victorian Liberal-Nationals oppose controversial gas import terminal appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Victorian Liberal-Nationals oppose controversial gas import terminal — RenewEconomy

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

China offers a great electric transport example to Australia — RenewEconomy

While the Morrison government buries its head in the sand, Shenzen shows the strong public commitment required to transition to electric transport fleets. The post China offers a great electric transport example to Australia appeared first on RenewEconomy.

China offers a great electric transport example to Australia — RenewEconomy

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New joint venture to develop hydrogen port on Victorian south coast — RenewEconomy

A new joint venture plans to develop a hydrogen terminal in southern Victoria, but will it use renewables? The post New joint venture to develop hydrogen port on Victorian south coast appeared first on RenewEconomy.

New joint venture to develop hydrogen port on Victorian south coast — RenewEconomy

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

February 8 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “Extreme Weather Driven By Climate Change, Conflict, And The Covid-19 Pandemic Are Driving Worsening Hunger. What Can Change That?” • Our climate is so closely connected to our food systems that even if fossil fuels were eliminated today, emissions from farming mean temperatures would likely still rise by at least 1.5°C. [Thomson Reuters […]

February 8 Energy News — geoharvey

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment