Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

1.This month

For international nuclear news go to   https://nuclear-news.net/

FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia  Read the published submissions on the Parliamentary website.  Read the SUMMARIES of submissions here.

 

After Fukushima, Don’t Believe the Spin on Thorium Being a Greener Nuclear Option

 

Don’t believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option http://tinyurl.com/zk8jt3a Ecologist: thorium is merely a way of deflecting attention and criticism from the dangers of the uranium fuel cycle and excusing the pumping of more money into the industry. It produces less radioactive waste and more power but it remains unproven on a commercial scale. ‘Even if thorium technology does progress to the point where it might be commercially viable, it will face the same problems as conventional nuclear: it is not renewable or sustainable and cannot effectively connect to smart grids. The technology is not tried and tested, and none of the main players is interested. Thorium reactors are no more than a distraction.
                            *********************************
Plasma Physicist Dr. Makhijani Explains Thorium & Fukushima with Helen Caldicott https://youtu.be/ygZFdTNbvMw Interview from June 2012: Dr. Arjun Makhijani “plasma physicist” http://tinyurl.com/htjl8jq Join Helen Caldicott discussing the challenges of proposed thorium reactors and why solar power saves more money than nuclear while saving lives. http://tinyurl.com/gvtc2f2
                      *****************************
http://ieer.org/ Institute for Environment & Environmental Research
                     ***************************
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy http://tinyurl.com/jpsuufo
                            **************************
To listen to Dr. Caldicott’s earlier interviews with Dr. Makhijani, click HERE Best of 2008/2009: Dr. Arjun Makhijani on a clean-energy future without nuclear power, oil or coal http://tinyurl.com/z6b48l7
                            *****************************
HERE: Dr. Arjun Makhijani on the stunning potential for solar, wind and other green energy to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power right now http://tinyurl.com/j9s93mh
                            ***************************
and HERE. Why nuclear power is not the solution to global warming, and how renewables can power everythinghttp://tinyurl.com/hg72gf2
                            *************************
Did you know every thorium reactor would require a reprocessing center? Also #Thorium Reactor would be enriching bomb grade material and present a bigger proliferation problem. Also problems getting heat sink from the intense heat that is generated and you have to worry about capturing all the deadly isotopes that are created. Have not worked out the kinks of sodium circuit boards frying.
                            **********************
Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.’
******************************
All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters’.
******************************
Tickell says thorium reactors would not reduce the volume of waste from uranium reactors. ‘It will create a whole new volume of radioactive waste from previously radio-inert thorium, on top of the waste from uranium reactors. Looked at in these terms, it’s a way of multiplying the volume of radioactive waste humanity can create several times over.’
******************************
Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – ‘so these are really U-233 reactors,’ says Karamoskos.
******************************
This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium’s superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste. http://tinyurl.com/zk8jt3a
******************************
Check out Helen Caldicott Playlist http://tinyurl.com/hgbxqv6 is an Australian physician, author, and anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations dedicated to opposing the use of nuclear power, depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, war, and…
******************************
For the latest Follow Strontium Milks ☠ https://www.youtube.com/user/Fukushim… MsMilkytheclown1 ☠ https://www.youtube.com/user/MsMilkyt… MsMilkytheclown News shortly after Fukushima https://www.youtube.com/user/MsMilkyt…

 

EVENT

20 September  GLOBAL #CLIMATE STRIKE

PETITION 

Free Julian Assange, before it’s too late. Sign to STOP the USA Extradition

 

Advertisements

9 Comments »

  1. Imagine a planet where our families were very moderate in size – we wouldn’t be using as much energy in total and could leave some energy for the next generation.

    Comment by L Hunter | September 28, 2009 | Reply

  2. Thank you, L. Hunter.
    I totally agree with you – the goal would be moderation in human numbers, as well as moderation in the way we live, and consume the Earth’s resources.
    I read recently of someone’s suggestion that “the best tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the condom”

    Comment by Christina MacPherson | September 29, 2009 | Reply

  3. I’d have to admit that my views have been influenced by the information put out by the ‘independent’ radio and television broadcasters and by the institutes you have mentioned.
    I feel that I have made a conscious effort to become better educated on the issue of nuclear power but if our public broadcasters and institutes are not providing unbiased information on the issue then where else do I go?
    I personally think the case for nuclear power is strong but I am now wary that I may not have been presented with all the relevant information.

    Comment by MattSmith | January 20, 2010 | Reply

    • Australia’s public broadcasters are not doing such a bad job, by world standards. Of course they find trivia, sensationalism, and overly sentimental topics are more popular than serious matters. And of course, they find it easier to just use the media releases that pour out from industry and government.

      Still, one can find very fair and informative stuff in Australia’s mainstream media – (eg. The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, Courier Mail), just that it’s likely to be on about page 7 of the newspaper, or on TV or radio at an unfriendly time (e.g ABC’s Lateline). Also, journalists aren’t always resourced (or inclined) to spend time at the “coal-face” or rather, the “uranium-face” – some topics just not covered.

      All coupled with Australians, (including journalists’) extraordinary reverence for the opinions of “hard” scientists, (nuclear physicists, like Ziggy Switkowski,) compared to their scepticism about “soft” scientists, ( ecologists, environmental scientists like Mark Diesendorf, or Prof Ian Lowe)

      Comment by Christina MacPherson | January 21, 2010 | Reply

  4. A message we get from the media is that Nuclear power is the only way to provide full-scale baseload power.

    Rarely do Nuclear power proponents mention REDUCING or ELIMINATING the gargantuan full-scale waste of power.

    Examples:

    millions of burning electric lights on bright sunny days, eccentric eclectic electric doors opening for any people/objects passing by and often not coming in, almost countless numbers of devices chewing up electricity in standby power-buy mode, dinosaur toasters and dinosaur ovens run on days that a solar oven could do the job, shop “background” subliminal propaganda programming music and video feeds, hair dryers when extreme water wasteful cotton for towels is unused or discarded in frantic frenzy, “boom box” speaker earthshakers human-attempted earthquakers, electric air conditioning to cool those already overflowing with excessive cold-weather-survival calories, grid iron heaters instead of exercise + no-restrictive-nicotine + no-depressive-alcohol + comfortable clothes in winter.

    The True Cost on my electric bill at home is ONE KILOWATT $0.25 per day, but outside of home, and due to waste society, is probably an order of magnitude (10 times) greater at a minimum.

    “WASTE NOT WANT NOT”

    “To Waste is a Crime.”

    Comment by NoNukes Australia | March 3, 2010 | Reply

  5. I have a query regarding using some material on your website, and getting permission from you to do so. Could you please contact me by email, and I will send you the details?

    Comment by Debbie Gallagher | July 23, 2012 | Reply

  6. Scientists must dump toxic nuclear waste in their own backyard FIRST for many, many centuries to PROVE that it is safe, before pedalling their evil lies and deceit onto human beings, who have a heart and a soul and are of sound mind !
    Why don’t the world’s scientists buy an island or landsite somewhere in the world and use it as a toxic nuclear waste dumping ground as they are clearly so obsessed with nuclear power ? Most of them are multimillionaires after the nuclear deals they have made, some even with our enemies and also all of the evil lies they have preached to human beings. Perhaps the countries that create nuclear waste, could also contribute to the cost of this toxic nuclear waste dump island or landsite. I propose that humanity demands that all the world’s nuclear scientists go an live on such an island together with the world’s toxic nuclear waste as an EXPERIMENT before spreading their EVIL ERRORS and LIES and DECEIT onto human beings. We need to DEMAND PROOF !

    Comment by Esther | February 21, 2016 | Reply

    • What a joy to find such clear thnkniig. Thanks for posting!

      Comment by Regina | January 10, 2018 | Reply


Leave a Reply to L Hunter Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: