Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

For Australia to meet emissions reduction targets, we don’t need nuclear energy

Pearls and Irritations, By Brendan Mackey and David LindenmayerSep 9, 2024

The Federal Opposition’s energy policy includes the construction of nuclear power plants. Peter Dutton says that we need them because Australia’s emissions reduction target of 43% on 2005 levels by 2030 is unachievable. Is this true? We argue that it is not – and especially if the Australian Government works with state and territory governments to stop native forest logging and land clearing.

Ending land clearing and halting logging of native forests would achieve a reduction of between 14.5 million and 37.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year. This is greater than the annual reduction of 14.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent needed to meet Australia’s 2030 target. A major reduction in emissions from logging and clearing forests would be sit admirably along Australia’s efforts to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy – which is now 40% of the electricity market (up from 15% a decade ago).

This is an entirely feasible proposition, as ending native forest logging will serve to further stimulate investment in the plantation sector – where there are the most jobs and the best profits in the forest industry. Indeed, 90% of all sawn timber in Australia (to make roof trusses, floorboards and furniture) already comes from plantations. Native forest logging generates predominantly woodchips, paper pulp and packaging (and not high-quality timber products). Plantations employ, on average, three times more people per ha of trees than do native forests. In addition, the capital investment needed for one full-time equivalent position in a native forest logging operation is almost 10 times that needed for a full-time equivalent in a plantation…………………………………………………………….. more https://johnmenadue.com/for-australia-to-meet-emissions-reduction-targets-we-dont-need-nuclear-energy/

September 9, 2024 Posted by | energy | Leave a comment

Basing US Nuclear Subs at Stirling on Garden Island makes Western Australia a nuclear target, while risking “catastrophic conditions” in a N-Sub reactor accident.

Briefer by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner, 07 Sept 2024

What price should West Australian’s pay for AUKUS ? see “AUKUS: The worst defence and
foreign policy decision our country has made” by ex-FA Minister Gareth Evans (17 August 2024):

“… the price now being demanded by the US for giving us access to its nuclear
propulsion technology is, it is now becoming ever more clear, extraordinarily high.

Not only the now open-ended expansion of Tindal as a US B52 base; not only the
conversion of Stirling into a major base for a US Indian Ocean fleet, making Perth
now join Pine Gap and the North West Cape – and increasingly likely, Tindal – as a
nuclear target …”

No Emergency capability exists to respond to a nuclear weapons strike on Stirling off Freo

Nor can Federal and WA Labor claim to have a ‘social license’ for a US N-Sub Base at Stirling
while failing to inform affected community of the nuclear Health & Safety risks they could face.

Community has a basic ‘Right to Know’, a right to full disclosure of nuclear risks in advance of
decisions. A Labor Bill to declare Stirling a “Designated Nuclear Zone” is before Parliament
after a Senate Report. Now 3 yrs into AUKUS, it is long past time for Labor to inform community.

Federal & WA Labor Ministers Joint Ministerial Statement on Nuclear Reactors on Agricultural
Land (18 July 2024) have tackled Dutton over his crazy nuclear ‘power’ reactors at Muja, citing
accident impacts out to 80 km, but Labor fails to be transparent on nuclear risks they impose.

Federal and WA Labor have failed to make public required Health Impact Studies and
Nuclear Accident Scenario Modelling for US N-Sub visits and for a N-Sub Base at Stirling.

The WA State Hazard Plan “HAZMAT Annex A Radiation Escape from a Nuclear Powered
Warship” (update 20 Nov 2023) provides only scant over-view information to the public.

Federal Emergency provisions apply in event of a US N-Sub reactor accident at Stirling. The
federal civilian nuclear safety regulator ARPANSA sets out required Health Impact Studies,
Emergency response measures and Zones that are to be put in place (see “Guide for Radiation
Protection in Emergency Exposure Situations, Part 1 & 2, 2019).

A Defence Operations Manual “OPSMAN 1” (update 2023) is supposed to ‘operationalise’ the
Emergency measures for US N-Sub nuclear reactor accidents in Australian Ports and waters.

An “Urgent Protective Action Zone” of up to 2.8 km radius around the site of a US N-Sub
accident requires an Evacuation Plan for workers and affected residents. An “Extended
Planning Distance”, where “the surrounding population may be subject to hazards”, is set at
‘several kms’ around an accident site. This can extend to 5 km in UK N-Sub Emergency Zones.

ARPANSA and Defence also require studies of a local population out to 15 km from a US NSub mooring – as you can’t tell how far a radioactive pollution plume will spread by wind…

Children are at untenable Health risk in a nuclear strike OR in a US N-Sub reactor accident:

In a military nuclear reactor accident at Stirling the ARPANSA Guide Part 2 (p.18-19 & Table 3.1)
‘authorises’ ionising radiation health exposures to affected civilian workers AND to residents
and their children at a high dose of up to 50 mSv (milli-Sievert). Firty times more than Health
Authorities recommended maximum allowed dose of 1 mSv per year for members of the public.

Exposed residents and especially children need to be able to take stable iodine tablets ASAP to
try to reduce the radiological health risk of contracting thyroid cancer. Evacuees could have to
undergo ‘decontamination’ and need medical treatment, care which may have to be ongoing.

.
The Impact of Nuclear Weapons on Children (ICAN Report, August 2024) “shows in compelling
and often gut-wrenching detail, it is children who would suffer the most in the event of a nuclear
attack against a city today”. The Report is a dire warning that urgent action is needed to rid the
world of nuclear weapons. Australia must Sign & Ratify the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.

WA Emergency workers could face “catastrophic conditions” at a N-Sub reactor accident:

In event of a severe US N-Sub reactor accident at Stirling the ARPANSA “Guide for Radiation
Protection in Emergency Exposure Situations (The Guide Part 2, p.18-19 & Table 3.1) authorises
“actions to prevent the development of catastrophic conditions” by designated WA workers.

‘Category 1 Emergency workers’ could “receive a dose of up to 500 mSv”, a dangerously high
ionising radiation dose exposure that is up to 500 times the public’s max allowed annual dose:
“Emergency workers may include workers employed by an operating organisation, as
well as personnel of response organisations, such as police officers, firefighters,
medical personnel, and drivers and crews of vehicles used for evacuation. …

  • Category 1: Emergency workers undertaking mitigatory actions and urgent protective
    actions on-site,     including lifesaving actions, actions to prevent serious injury, actions
    to prevent the development of catastrophic conditions that could significantly affect
    people and the environment, and actions to prevent severe tissue reactions. … They
    may also receive a dose of up to 500 mSv for life saving actions, to prevent the
    development of catastrophic conditions and to prevent severe tissue reactions.”

The ARPANSA Guide Part 1 (Annex A, p.64 Table A.1, 2019) states in stark terms that Emergency
workers can be called upon to ‘volunteer’ for actions “to prevent the development of
catastrophic conditions” in event of a severe US N-Sub nuclear reactor accident:

“… under circumstances in which the expected benefits to others clearly outweigh
the emergency worker’s own health risks”.

As evidence of the extent of nuclear risks to the health of Emergency workers, the ARPANSA
Guide Part 1 (Annex A, p.63) requires female workers to be excluded from these roles:

“…female workers who might be pregnant need to be excluded from taking actions
that might result in an equivalent dose exceeding 50 mSv”

Note: the ‘safety’ of N-Subs in UK Ports has been found seriously wanting, see a Report (2009)
by Large and Associates Consulting Engineers on UK off-site Emergency Planning Measures.

September 9, 2024 Posted by | safety, Western Australia | Leave a comment

White House pushes for AUKUS to move to ‘pillar two’ weapons focus

SMH, By Peter Hartcher, September 9, 2024

The US is pushing for the AUKUS partnership to launch some world-leading new military technology projects before Joe Biden’s presidency ends, amid signs of growing impatience with the initiative.

The US National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, revealed in an interview at the White House that he wanted to see “two or three signature projects launched and under way by the time the administration finishes” on January 20.

While he expressed satisfaction with progress on so-called pillar one of AUKUS, the submarine program, his timeline for pillar two’s cutting-edge tech scheme puts new pressure on the three countries’ military and scientific agencies to deliver in the next five months.

It is three years ago this month that the leaders of the US, UK and Australia announced the joint technology initiative. In the meantime, China has extended its advantage in critical technologies, according to a report last week by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

A former senior official in the Trump administration expressed frustration: “On the science and technology side, I think there are problems because we’re not moving fast enough,” said Nadia Schadlow, Deputy National Security Adviser to the former president.

“If AUKUS doesn’t perform, if it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do and what we said it would do, we almost might be better off without it because if we can’t fulfil our objectives, we almost look weaker.”

Pillar two of AUKUS was assigned eight priority research fields: advanced cyber, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, undersea capabilities, hypersonics, electronic warfare, innovation, and information sharing……………………

officials said privately that there were problems of co-ordination, that each of the country’s systems was different and moved at different speeds………………………….  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/white-house-pushes-for-aukus-to-move-to-pillar-two-weapons-focus-20240908-p5k8s5.html

September 9, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment