Need to reveal full details of nomination forms for Kimba and Wallerberdina nuclear waste dump plans
Full copies of the nomination forms by the respective owners of the site at Wallerberdina and the five or six sites at Kimba should be publicly known
They should be full and true photocopies without redactions as apparently the original forms have handwriting on them which could be extremely embarrassing to the government and the responsible ministers Canavan and Pitt
All of these nominations were under machinery provisions of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 but the form of the nomination and administrative requirements are contained in the Radioactive Waste Management Nominations of Land: Guidelines November 2016 issued by the then Department of Industry Innovation and Science
Previous requests for the nominations were met with the standard response that they could not be disclosed as they contained personal and private information of the respective parties nominating their land but instructions note 8 in the nomination form prescribed by the Guidelines specifically states that the Nominator confirms that it consents to the public disclosure of the nomination ……
In addition the Guidelines contain quite detailed provisions regarding disclosures and privacy including the operation of the freedom of information regime . The nominations requested will also be of significance in any judicial review or similar proceedings .
‘A new chapter’: NT town to be returned to traditional owners today
‘A new chapter’: NT town to be returned to traditional owners today
The NT town of Jabiru will today be handed over from uranium miners to indigenous traditional land owners in a milestone move that will end one of Australia’s longest running native title wrangles…… NT New s -subscribers only
Nuclear power is in the front line of climate change – and NOT in a good way
In the last year, climate models have run hot. As knowledge of enhanced climate sensitivity and polar ice melt-rate evolves, it has become clear that sea-level rise is significantly faster than previously thought, resulting in more frequent and destructive storm, storm surge, severe precipitation, and flooding.
With rare extreme events today becoming the norm in the future, existing risk mitigation measures become increasingly obsolete. The corollary to this analysis is that present and planned UK coastal nuclear installations will be at significant risk.
In other words, nuclear’s lower-carbon electricity USP sits in the context of the much larger picture – that UK coastal nuclear will be one of the first, and most significant, casualties to ramping climate impact. Put simply, UK nuclear is quite literally on the front-line of climate change – and not in a good way.
Nuclear Consultation Group 24th June 2021
NASA wants to increase allowable radiation exposure for astronauts – women affected most.
“As missions go deeper into space, we need to communicate why astronauts are being asked to take on that risk and offer explicit ethical justifications. This report offers a framework for accomplishing that,”
Report backs NASA proposal to change astronaut radiation exposure limits, Space News, by Jeff Foust — June 25, 2021 WASHINGTON — A National Academies committee has endorsed a NASA proposal to change the radiation exposure limits the agency sets for its astronauts but cautioned that the revised limit is still insufficient for human Mars missions.
The June 24 report by a committee established by the National Academies and sponsored by NASA backs the agency’s proposal to set a single lifetime radiation exposure limit for astronauts, rather than different limits based on age and gender.
Currently, lifetime exposure limits range from 180 millisieverts for a 30-year-old woman to 700 millisieverts for a 60-year-old man. Those limits are based on models intended to set a limit of no more than a 3% risk of radiation exposure-induced death (REID) at the 95% confidence level.
NASA proposed changing that to a limit of about 600 millisieverts, regardless of age or gender. That limit is based on the mean 3% risk of REID for a 35-year-old woman, the most conservative case but measured to a different standard than the earlier calculation.
The change, the committee noted, will allow more opportunities for female astronauts given the higher radiation limits. “Taken together, the proposed standard creates equality of opportunity for spaceflight with the trade-offs of somewhat higher allowable exposure to radiation for a subset of astronauts (primarily women) and limiting exposures below otherwise acceptable doses for others (primarily older men),” the committee’s report stated………
While the revised levels will increase flight opportunities for many NASA astronauts, the levels are still more conservative than many other space agencies. Roscosmos, the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency all set lifetime exposure limits of 1,000 millisieverts for their astronauts and cosmonauts, without any age or gender differences. The Japanese space agency JAXA does have age and gender differences, varying between 500 and 1,000 millisieverts.
Even those higher levels fall short of projected radiation exposures for round-trip Mars missions, which the report noted would exceed 1,000 millisieverts. Any astronauts who fly on a Mars mission would need a waiver to NASA’s radiation exposure limits, which raises ethical questions. “NASA should develop a protocol for waiver of the proposed space radiation standard that is judicious, transparent, and informed by ethics,” the committee recommended.
“As missions go deeper into space, we need to communicate why astronauts are being asked to take on that risk and offer explicit ethical justifications. This report offers a framework for accomplishing that,” said Julian Preston of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, vice-chair of the committee, in a statement.https://spacenews.com/report-backs-nasa-proposal-to-change-astronaut-radiation-exposure-limits/
New Zealand Greens want to stop New Zealand’s participation inthe militarisation of space.
Green MP Teanau Tuiono wants to stop Rocket Lab launching weapons into space on behalf of foreign powersNews Hub, 21/06/2021, Zane Small Green MP Teanau Tuiono wants to change the law to stop Rocket Lab from launching weapons into space on behalf of foreign powers.Tuiono, the Green Party’s security and intelligence spokesperson, announced his Member’s Bill – legislation proposed by MPs who are not ministers – at a protest outside Rocket Lab’s Auckland headquarters on Monday.
His proposed law change would amend the Outer Space and High Altitude Activities Act and prohibit the launching of military hardware into space from New Zealand. The Bill will only go before Parliament if it’s pulled from the ballot box.
“This change would ensure that Aotearoa New Zealand’s space industry and its facilities could never be used by military actors to launch weaponry, establishing in legislation an enduring commitment to peaceful conduct in outer space,” says Tuiono.
“The Government has a responsibility to make sure technologies sent into orbit from New Zealand soil do not assist other countries’ armies to wage war.”
Rocket Lab, a United States-owned but New Zealand-based space company estimated to be worth more than US$1.2 billion, has become a leader in a new market of small rocket services provided by private companies.
It launches satellites into space for the United States military and private companies from Māhia Peninsula, located between Napier and Gisborne.
Some of the launches, such as one dubbed Gunsmoke-J in March this year on behalf of the US Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command, have raised questions about New Zealand’s role in assisting with foreign warfare.
The Gunsmoke-J mission was designed to improve US missile targeting capabilities during combat, which activists from Auckland Peace Action say makes us complicit in US military practices, thereby making New Zealand a military target.
“The US military satellites launched by Rocket Lab can control activity such as communications with troops, surveillance and reconnaissance, intercepting information or spying, and targeting weapons, like drones, bombs, and also nuclear weapons,” says Auckland Peace Action spokesperson Eliana Darroch.
“If we send these satellites into space with US military capacities, we are complicit in the drone and precision bombings and other acts of warfare which the United States does.”
She says with New Zealand being a proud Nuclear Free country, and being instrumental in the 2017 international treaty banning nuclear weapons, launching satellites capable of controlling nuclear weapons is unacceptable.
“The New Zealand Government must immediately suspend Rocket Lab’s launches until a public review of the Outer Space and High Altitude Activities Act has taken place.”
It is due for review this year.
“It is hypocritical for the New Zealand Government to want peace, yet allow Rocket Lab’s military payload launches to continue,” says Darroch.
“Rocket Lab, with its connections to the Pentagon through its board and investors including a CIA venture capital firm, and Lockheed Martin, is a private company defining New Zealand’s foreign relations.
“Rocket Lab is creating links between New Zealand and the US military that the public have not consented to. That is undemocratic and dangerous.
Tuiono says the Greens are also conscious of the impact successive rocket launches have on the whenua and moana of Māhia.
“When we visited Māhia the whānau told us about the absence of local birds and kaimoana and we continue to support the call from whānau for independent cultural and environmental impact assessments.”……………….. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/06/green-mp-teanau-tuiono-wants-to-stop-rocket-lab-launching-weapons-into-space-on-behalf-of-foreign-powers.html
Japan’s murky management of Fukushima nuclear wastewater
Japan’s murky management of Fukushima nuclear wastewater https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/06/25/japans-murky-management-of-fukushima-nuclear-wastewater/25 June 2021
Author: Cheol Hee Park, SNU
On 13 April 2021, the Japanese government announced plans to dispose of the wastewater stored at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean over a period of 30 years.
The plant has about 1000 wastewater tanks that can hold up to 1.37 million tons of contaminated water. Currently, 1.25 million tons are being stored, which accounts for about 90 per cent of the total storage capacity. The tanks are expected to fill up by the autumn of 2022, which prompted the Japanese government to adopt the least expensive option — disposing the wastewater into the sea, starting from 2023.
The United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remain sympathetic to the Japanese decision, saying that it meets the international standard. On the other hand, China and South Korea have voiced concerns about the decision. They are distrustful of and dissatisfied with the sudden decision made by the Japanese government. The difference is starkly highlighted in how the wastewater is being referred to by different countries. Japan and the United States call it ‘treated water’ while China and South Korea define it as ‘contaminated water’.
The Japanese government explained that it will fully treat and dilute the wastewater until the contamination level is reduced to at least one-hundredth of its original concentration. Officials say that tritium will be reduced to one-fortieth of the Japanese government’s normal standard. Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso even claimed that the treated water will be drinkable.
he Japanese government also made it clear that before the accident in 2011 the Fukushima nuclear plant disposed of 2.2 trillion becquerels of tritium into the sea each year, which caused no problems. They added that because tritium is a weak radioactive isotope, most of the material will exit the human body, meaning its negative impact will be small.
Despite the Japanese government’s efforts to convince people outside of the country, the most vocal opposition has come from within Japan. The Japan Fishermen’s Association argued that they will not accept the Japanese government’s decision. They explain that the decision went against the government’s promise in 2015 that the release would not happen without their consent. Fishermen from Fukushima and Ibaraki are particularly sensitive about the potential consumer backlash over the radioactive wastewater release, which will directly impact their livelihoods. About 70 per cent of fishermen oppose the government’s decision. It remains unclear whether the Japanese government will be able to persuade them.
Concerns from neighbouring countries are another hurdle to overcome. There is little sign that the Japanese government fully consulted adjacent countries before it announced the decision. Because of the lack of prior consultation and reliable notice, the Japanese government’s decision should be regarded as a unilateral move. South Korea and China should not approach this issue to drag down Japan’s efforts to resolve the problem. At the same time, it is Japan’s responsibility to be attentive to neighbouring countries’ legitimate concerns.
Securing transparency in the process of implementing the plan is another challenge. Despite the Japanese government’s explanation, it remains uncertain whether various nuclides other than tritium can be reliably removed using the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). Passing on the correct and reliable information to concerned parties in and outside the country is necessary. Japan should incorporate third-party specialists to provide objective and reliable information about the process.
Finally, verifying the safety of the water with international standards would give comfort to and garner trust from concerned parties, including Japanese fishermen. The IAEA could mobilise experts or build a verification team on behalf of Japan and its neighbouring countries so that all concerned regional countries can be persuaded about the safety of the water.
The Japanese government should better fulfil its responsibilities, justify the necessity of its decision, remain transparent about its implementation of the plan and be resilient in verifying the safety of the water it disposes of.
Cheol Hee Park is Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies and Director of the Institute of International Affairs, Seoul National University.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 