Media falsely blames Russia, as Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) target Donbass towns with illegal “butterfly” cluster mines.
Protest rally against Kiev’s cluster mines, Donetsk August 2022
Undermining Ukraine. April 16, 2023, By Dimaq https://1489.is/undermining-ukraine/
the BBC's James Waterhouse reports from Balakliya: "It’s hard to describe this as anything other than.. random. This is a patch of land, in the middle of Balakliya, it’s not a place - unlike other areas - that was once contested, where there was heavy fighting." "- but what these minesweepers are looking for, are so-called Butterfly mines. They’re banned by international law, they don’t look much, but the damage they can cause, is severe. They’re scattered from a flying rocket. They’re illegal because of the indiscriminate way they kill and injure civilians. In the area around Izyum, Russia and Ukraine have both been accused of using Butterfly mines; the latter denies it." To my knowledge, no Western media has ever reported on the AFU's shelling of Donetsk and Gorlovka and other towns under Russia's control, with Butterfly cluster mines. If there were any such reports, the question of who fired the rockets would have been fogged, such as by saying that "both sides possess these anti-personnel mines". Attempts to enlighten media or government ministers on the existence and use of these nasty and insidious little devices, such as I recorded here last July - have fallen on deaf ears. This is despite the fact that their use is now forbidden under all circumstances, and Ukraine is the only country that still has stocks of the Soviet-era weapon, following the destruction of the last of those remaining in Belarus several years ago. It is also despite the proven fact that the AFU has been using the cluster munitions, and using them against purely civilian targets with no possible military objective. (as noted by James Waterhouse above, unwittingly accusing the AFU of this war crime) Against this background, it is astonishing that the BBC should now act as a vehicle for Kiev's criminal actions by spreading a misleading story about de-mining operations in Izyum. The story, broadcast on the 6 O'Clock BBC news on April 11th, was also presented more or less word for word in an illustrated article, which I copy below [on original] . I also copy the video, which demonstrates the depth of deceit in the whole report - the deceit being that Russia never used Lepestok Petal mines near Izyum or anywhere else in Ukraine, and the BBC and Human Rights Watch know this perfectly well. What we see here is actually Ukrainian army sappers searching out the petal mines that they themselves fired at Izyum while it was under Russian "occupation", in the same way that they fired them into other areas of Lugansk and Donetsk further East at around the same time. Russian sappers have spent thousands of hours de-mining around Donetsk, finding and destroying the thousands of "little rippers" before they blow the legs off more innocent civilians. This is quite unlike most de-mining operations, where forces taking control of new territory must remove all the mines left by their opponents as barriers to slow enemy progress. The use of Lepestok cluster munitions by the AFU has more in common with Israel's use of cluster bombs in Southern Lebanon at the end of the 2006 war - an act of pure vindictive vandalism given the ceasefire agreement had already been made. Before presenting the BBC's article and video about this incredible exercise, where Ukrainian soldiers are doing the job that they should be performing as part of a punishment for the crime they committed six months earlier, it is important to add some more context to the situation. At the time the AFU made a move in the North East, Russian forces were pre-occupied with protecting the Zaporyzhe Nuclear power plant from Ukrainian incursions and shelling, as well as trying to prevent the forced evacuation of Kherson. With reported help from MI6 and other NATO special forces, Ukraine launched a surprise offensive towards Lugansk oblast, forcing a strategic retreat by Russia from Izyum. Many of the locals accompanied them, to avoid retribution and torture as "Russian collaborators" from the invading Nationalist army. As soon as the town was "liberated" by Kiev, work began to frame Russia for supposed war crimes, including a grotesque exhumation of hundreds of bodies from a wood near the town. Those buried were mostly civilians killed by either side when Russian forces took over the town, as well as those killed by Ukrainian shelling since. While they may have lacked coffins, all the graves were identified, at least by a number, with the inventory of burials available at the local mortuary. In some cases where local people had fled East or North to Russia, they had no say in the exhumation and examination of their dead relatives. Human Rights Watch and other International bodies were closely involved in this fraud, and the claims that Russia was responsible for burying soldiers in "mass graves" in Izyum rapidly assumed a prominent status in Western media, aided by a visit from Mr Zelensky. Fittingly, as indicated in this photo [0n original], one of his guards wore a Totenkopf skull symbol on his backpack. Below [on original] is James Waterhouse’s article, with this leading illustration, and quote falsely attributing the mines to Russia. The Russian army may have laid some mines on roads West of Izyum, but scattering APM clusters would have served no purpose whatsoever. If Russia subsequently manages to retake this territory, they will surely thank the AFU for removing their butterfly mines. The AFU in its turn may think better of showering territory it intends to capture with its “little rippers”.
Nuclear waste abandonment risks the dangers of amnesia
Broad-stroke reassurances from supporters of a proposed deep geological repository for Canada’s nuclear waste have failed to allay important environmental and security concerns.
The Hill Times, BY ERIKA SIMPSON | April 13, 2023
A plan to store Canada’s nuclear waste deep underground in northern Ontario raises serious safety concerns for current and future generations.
In light of this, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)—which is responsible for developing and implementing the plan—should reconsider other options, such as a rolling stewardship model, which actively plans for retrieval and periodic repackaging of nuclear waste.
From April 4-5, the South Bruce Nuclear Exploration Forum considered the NWMO plan to store all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste in one deep geological repository (DGR). An earlier plan had proposed burying intermediate- and low-level nuclear waste in limestone caverns constructed under the Bruce reactor, but was met with a “no” vote from members of the Saugeen-Ojibway Nation. That led to Bruce Power withdrawing its own proposal in June 2020.
The current proposal for a $23-billion DGR project at Teeswater, Ont., may be constructed 50 km away from the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, the world’s largest operating nuclear site that supplies 30 per cent of Ontario’s power. Whether the proposal goes ahead in partnership with a willing host community will be decided by the Governor in Council. Once one of the two remaining possible host communities—either Teeswater or Ignace, Ont.—is selected, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada will continue to lead decades-long consultation processes…………………………..
the broad-stroke reassurances of the DGR proponents have failed to allay concerns.
There are questions about how 700 engineers and construction workers could possibly be housed. I have written about SNC-Lavalin—an engineering company that was prosecuted internationally for corruption—yet remains the leading contractor and possible steward of Canada’s nuclear wastes. Heavily subsidized by Canadian tax dollars, the company is driven by the quest for money, not the quest for nuclear security. Although no questions were publicly asked about SNC-Lavalin, a project officer from the Wastes and Decommissioning Division at CNSC explained each engineering and closure stage could be halted, if deemed necessary.
There are also questions about impacts on future generations. Would the underground nuclear waste containers be monitored, in perpetuity, and what might be safety concerns about situating any such site in the Great Lakes’ water basin, the world’s largest body of fresh water and the drinking water for up to 40 million people? The hydrogeologists and geologists were confident that the DGR concept—possibly the first or fourth underground nuclear waste site in the world—would not be beyond Canada’s engineering and scientific capabilities.
I asked DGR proponents about four U.S. Senators who asked President Joe Biden to raise the issue with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last month. I was told this would be a local decision—made by area residents in next year’s referendum—combined somehow with a municipal town council majority decision, and a possible veto by First Nations—and therefore the United States would have nothing to do with it, even though Canada’s federal cabinet would have the final say.
I asked Tiina Jalonen, the senior vice president of development at Posiva Oy about Finland’s proposed used-fuel disposal facility and her government’s plans for “signage.” It could be important to warn our great-great-great-grandchildren to refrain from curiously digging out whatever leaks into rock formations below.
What about the legacy of strikes on nuclear sites, like the Russian assault on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, that has made evident that nuclear power plants and waste disposal sites could become targets in conflict zones? Nobody publicly asked about terrorist threats, and whether the site could become hostage to nefarious bargaining.
What else might go wrong? I asked two fire chiefs, but they had not heard about the fire at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico that shut down the site in 2014 due to a major radiation release that contaminated workers at the surface. I asked a geologist about Germany’s Asse Salt Mine that still leaks water into radioactive containers.
Perhaps continual monitoring and the ‘rolling stewardship’ concept—that actively plans for retrieval and periodic repackaging—would be most effective, because wholesale abandonment could lead to amnesia.
Erika Simpson is an associate professor of international politics at Western University, the author of Nuclear Waste Burial in Canada? The Political Controversy over the Proposal to Construct a Deep Geologic Repository and Nuclear waste: Solution or problem? and the president of the Canadian Peace Research Association.
https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2023/04/13/nuclear-waste-abandonment-risks-the-dangers-of-amnesia/384800/
Local Indigenous peoples protest possible licence renewal for world’s largest uranium mine
In June, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will hold hearings about renewing the licence for Cameco’s McArthur River uranium mine, located in the Athabasca basin in Saskatchewan’s rugged far north.
Davis Legree, Apr 13, 2023 https://www.ipolitics.ca/news/local-indigenous-peoples-protest-possible-licence-renewal-for-worlds-largest-uranium-mine
The operator of the world’s largest uranium mine is seeking a new 20-year licence from Canada’s nuclear regulator but some Indigenous peoples in northern Saskatchewan are calling for the application to be rejected or scaled back, citing health concerns.
“The Athabasca River basin is under siege,” said Candyce Paul, outreach coordinator for the advocacy group Committee for Future Generations. “The people here have had enough of this industrial colonialism that is going on.”
In June, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will hold hearings about renewing the licence for Cameco’s McArthur River uranium mine, located in the Athabasca basin in Saskatchewan’s rugged far north.
Paul, a member of English River First Nation, on whose territory several of Cameco’s mining sites are located, said her community is frustrated by the company’s lack of transparency, as well as human health concerns associated with uranium mining.
“Quite frankly, some of the community members are getting really fed up with the footprint this industry is having on the land and there’s been actual talk of blocking the main road from the mine,” said Paul.
Uranium, which ranges in use from atomic weapons to powering nuclear reactors, was initially discovered in the Athabasca Basin in the late 1960s. According to Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, the volume and grade of the deposits found in northern Saskatchewan have led those in the industry to dub the area “the Saudi Arabia of uranium.”
“Canada has the richest uranium mines in the world around the Athabasca Basin,” said Edwards, who explained uranium ‘richness’ refers to the grade and what percentage of uranium there is in a ton of ore.
According to Edwards, uranium in the Athabasca Basin is considerably richer than uranium deposits found elsewhere in Canada, which makes it more lucrative. However, Edwards continued, mining rich uranium deposits can be problematic for the health of local communities.
“When you mine uranium, since it’s radioactive, there’s a chain of progeny, which are radioactive by-products of uranium,” explained Edwards. “These include radium, radon gas, certain isotopes of thorium, and polonium – all highly toxic materials.”
Edwards said that around 85 per cent of the radioactivity in mined uranium ore is left behind in “voluminous sand, like tailings from a mill,” adding that Canada has around “220 million tonnes of this stuff.”
These radioactive and toxic tailings areas should be of concern to communities in the Athabasca Basin, said Edwards, because richer uranium ore means the radioactivity is more concentrated in the waste.
Paul believes her community has been adversely affected from living in close proximity to large-scale uranium mining activities. She cited issues regarding increased cancer rates among English River members, which she said “could be related to radiation exposure.”
Paul said her community has contacted Health Canada, Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Health, and several epidemiologists about conducting health studies in the area, only to be told that their population is too small to justify an assessment.
That being said, Cameco’s licence renewal application to the CNSC referenced a federally funded human health risk evaluation that was conducted in the English River First Nation in 2017.
Regardless, Paul said she would intervene in the upcoming licence renewal hearings, which are scheduled to be held June 7-8 in Saskatoon. Initially, Cameco had requested an indefinite licence term for McArthur River and several other sites, but, following Indigenous consultation activities, the company has since walked back their application to 20 years.
When asked if local Indigenous communities were satisfied with a 20-year term, Cameco spokesperson Veronica Baker said in an email that the application for an indefinite licence was abandoned because “communities expressed uncertainty with what an indefinite licence term means and how it fits within existing regulatory and engagement frameworks.” However, she did not clarify whether these communities approved of the 20-year application.
According to Paul, the CNSC would set a dangerous precedent by granting Cameco a 20-year licence.
“Twenty years is too long,” she told iPolitics. “It would be nice to see the CNSC reject a 20-year licence and go for something for reasonable, like five or ten years, although even ten is too much.”
Neither Paul nor Edwards has much confidence that the CNSC will reject Cameco’s 20-year application.
“From our perspective, it will look like a rubber stamp,” said Paul.
According to Edwards, the current iteration of the CNSC, which has only existed since 2000, has “never refused to grant a licence to any major nuclear facility in their entire existence.”
“The public has very little opportunity to question the practices going on,” he continued. “There’s a widespread feeling in the NGO community that we have a captured regulator in the CNSC, which reports to the natural resources minister, who is also responsible for promoting uranium mining and exports.”
A review of Lobby Canada’s registry reveals Cameco officials met in recent months with Rumina Velshi, the CNSC’s president and CEO, and Ramzi Jammal, the regulator’s executive vice-president. However, both Cameco and the CNSC denied that the upcoming licence renewal hearing was discussed.
Edward said Cameco’s initial attempt at securing an indefinite licence term is indicative of an industry trend that is seeing longer licensing periods being granted and, as a result, less public oversight, and [fewer opportunities] for accountability.
“Unfortunately, that’s the direction they’re moving in,” he said.
According to CNSC spokesperson Renée Ramsey, individuals and organizations who want to intervene in the hearing have until April 24 to submit their requests, at which point the submissions from intervenors will be made publicly available. Ramsey also said the CNSC panel that will be leading the upcoming hearing has yet to be appointed.
April 16 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Ignoring Science, Environmental Protection And International Law – G7 Endorses Japan’s Fukushima Water Discharge Plans” • The G7 nations chose politics over science and the protection of the marine environment with a decision to support the Japanese government’s plans to discharge Fukushima radioactive waste water into the Pacific Ocean. [Greenpeace] Fukushima water tanks […]
April 16 Energy News — geoharvey
Western Australian company to build low-level radioactive waste facility – Kimba dump a decade away – now irrelevant?
GREEN LIGHT FOR FIRST NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE
Tellus, March 16, 2023
Australia’s first purpose-built low-level radioactive waste facility has been granted final approval in Western Australia ……
The Australian has confirmed that the WA government has granted a final approval licence to Australian firm Tellus Holdings to store low-level radioactive waste at a repository in Sandy Ridge, 240km northwest of Kalgoorlie, which could take hundreds of thousands of tonnes of stored waste from around the country.
………….The Sandy Ridge repository will be the country’s first commercial facility to be licensed in Australia to take low-level radiological waste and store it in a stable geological repository, and is one of only a handful of its types in the world.
It is also licensed to take low level radioactive waste from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney, as well as from defence facilities.
The commonwealth’s own proposed radioactive waste facility, Kimba in South Australia, is estimated to be at least a decade away from being constructed.
The licence approval, following agreement with traditional owners, will see it remediate contaminated oil and gas infrastructure, end-of-life mines and also deal with Australia’s massive stockpile of low-level radioactive waste from nuclear medicine, including diagnostic, treatment, research and other industries.
The near-surface geological repository will also be licensed to take low-level radioactive waste generated in the processing of critical minerals, which is estimated to eventually generate millions of tonnes of waste every year, as well as radioactive waste from the dismantling of offshore oil and gas rigs, which is estimated to cost more than $40bn.
The site is located in one of the most geologically stable zones in the world with the company claiming it was one of the “safest places” in Australia to store hazardous and low-level radioactive waste.
It is not licensed to take the high-level nuclear waste that would be produced by the need to one day dispose of nuclear reactors from submarines. However, the company said it could contribute its geological expertise and knowledge as the commonwealth begins a search for a geologically safe location for this purpose.
According to the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency, the country’s stockpile of radioactive waste is spread across more than 100 locations around Australia, including science facilities, universities and hospital basements – and is increasing.
Tellus chief executive Nate Smith told The Australian the site would provide a critical link in developing Australia’s first multibillion-dollar hazardous waste industry………………..
Sandy Ridge was granted approval in 2021 to take class V hazardous waste.
However, the McGowan government only granted final approval in January this year for the facility to take low-level radioactive waste as well, following a review by WA’s Radiological Council which advises the minister for health. – https://tellusholdings.com/green-light-for-first-nuclear-waste-storage/?fbclid=IwAR3P1lFgTT4rlThFKGWfB9yd-U8bFu6wrsrRTkBUNk4E7oNfzVW9J3p33Iw
The Australian
By Simon Benson
16 March 2023
Rex Patrick on AUKUS submarines: “an astonishingly bad deal”
by Rex Patrick | Apr 14, 2023 https://michaelwest.com.au/rue-britannia-britannia-and-rue-aukus-subs/
The Defence Department has outdone itself with the AUKUS submarine project. In Paul Keating’s words, “it’s the worst deal in all history”. That’s not just because of the staggering $386 billion price tag, but because of the form the program is to take. Former submariner Rex Patrick looks at the most astonishingly irrational part of the announcement.
Our senior Defence bureaucrats, both uniformed and civilian, have a remarkable but unexplainable knack when it comes to acquiring new equipment. When simplicity confronts them, they always find some way to make it complex. In the face of something manageable, they’ll always find a way to make it unmanageable. SNAFU is the order of the day.
But, for Defence, it’s all OK – the admirals, air marshals, generals and top level public servants are immune from the consequences of failed procurement – no matter how big the disaster. No-one’s ever been fired from Defence for stuffing up an equipment purchase; after all, the wasted money is not theirs, it’s mine and yours.
Looking at the AUKUS plan, which some are now labelling USUKA [pronounced “you sucker”] after Paul Keating called it “the worst deal in all history,” Australia will initially acquire three second-hand but proven and highly capable Virginia Class submarines, but then jump off that safe pathway to a high-risk program involving a country that has a track record of being late, and over budget, on its past and current submarine programs.
It’s just reckless.
Virginia submarines, what we could do
The Virginia Class nuclear attack submarine is sea proven but also an evolving design. It’s even fitted with the combat system and weapons that we already have on our Collins Class submarines, or will acquire.
AUKUS is a bad deal. It comes at eye-watering cost, has huge opportunity costs and effectively puts all our Defence eggs in one basket.
It’s not going to deliver a capability within an even remotely sensible time frame either to help deter, let alone fight in, the very conflict Defence purports we need it for.
But if I put that aside and just went along with the whole thing, I’d advise that we could, and should, buy three US built Virginia Class submarines and then build our own, effectively providing the third Virginia shipyard (there are two shipyards in the US, both struggling with capacity).
That’s of benefit to us, and to the US, who would enjoy a surge build capability through us.”
But instead, we will pay to increase US industrial capability and then turn to the British.
Not a shadow of its old self
“Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves. Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.” It’s a song derived from a 1730s poem.
But like the billowing gowns and petticoats that were worn over dome-shaped panniers by women of the 1730s, “Rule Britannia” is no longer in fashion.
The Royal Navy is not even a shadow of its old self. The French Navy and Spanish Armada outnumber Royal Navy frigates and destroyers 32 to 18. Admiral Horatio Nelson would be turning in his grave.
And to make matters worse, the “great” left “Great Britain” soon after Brexit.
(Not so) Astute submarines
Back to the topic at hand, Britain’s recent submarine projects have been project management cluster fiascos.
The Royal Navy’s current Astute class nuclear-powered attack submarine program was approved by the British Government in 1997. Three boats were to be built for £2.6 billion, with the first boat to be in service in 2005. The first boat went in the water five years late, in 2010, and the first three boats blew out in cost by £1.9 billion. And by the way, the UK contracted the US submarine company, General Dynamics Electric Boat, to help them sort out some ‘issues’ within the Astute project in 2004.
Starting with approval for a fourth boat in 2007, the program has grown to seven boats all up. The last four “Batch II” boats were supposed to cost £5.7B but are now expected to total £6.7 billion. The latest boat, HMS Anson, was delivered 25 months late.
Dreadnought submarines
The parallel Dreadnought nuclear ballistic missile submarine is on track. On track to be late and over budget.
The Ministry of Defence established its Future Submarine Integrated Project Team in October 2007. The initial approval of the program was in May 2011, with an estimated cost for four submarines of between £11 and £14 billion. The first submarine was intended to be in service in 2028.
The most recent cost estimate for the four ballistic missile platforms is £31 billion. Bizarrely, as the program has advanced, less seems to be known about the in-service date. No-one is saying when the first boat will arrive, other than “some time in the 2030s.”
Refits and retirements
The first of the Royal Navy’s current nuclear ballistic missile submarines, HMS Vanguard, has just come out of refit. The refit was programmed for three years and was to cost around £200 million. It took seven long years and around £500 million. Nearly one quarter of Vanguard’s service life will have been spent in dock undergoing repairs and maintenance.
Earlier this year, a public scandal erupted when it was revealed that the lead contractor had concealed broken bolts in the submarine’s reactor compartment.
In terms of programmatic failure, even more disturbing is the state of dismantling retired Royal Navy nuclear submarines.
The first ever British nuclear-powered submarine, HMS Dreadnought, entered service 60 years ago and served for 17 years. For the last 43 years, it’s been sitting alongside a wharf in the UK. It’s not been dismantled. But neither have any of the other 21 retired Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines.
It’s a national disgrace. The National Audit Office examined the issue in 2019 and estimated that the cost of maintaining these retired submarines alongside various docks had exceeded £500 million, and the total cost of dismantling the retired and in-service submarines would likely exceed £7.5 billion. Perhaps this will be covered by the AUKUS overheads.
Nuclear disaster
The state of Britain’s submarine enterprise is nothing short of a disaster. And yet the Australian Department of Defence thinks that for the next fifty years, maybe longer, we should hitch ourselves to the clapped out wagon that is Britain’s submarine construction industrial base.
Paul Keating had it right about the AUKUS strategic architecture. Instead of moving forward with focus on a relevant local team like the QUAD (Australian, India, Japan and the United States), we’re committing to a subordinate role with our US ally and an Anglosphere arrangement that’s a hangover from the former, now almost forgotten, British empire.
Yet it’s all “keep calm and carry on” in the Australian Department of Defence. They have no need to worry because all the bigwigs will have retired and moved onto highly paid consultancies and ‘think tanks’ before the proverbial hits the fan.
Pretty much the same goes for the few, timid, politicians who’ve signed off on all this, a gargantuan splurge of taxpayers’ dollars, because they’re all fearful they might be accused of being “weak on defence” if they don’t swallow the Department’s nuclear Kool Aid.
I guess I’ll just keep going to bed each night worrying about the Defence of Australia. Not about some country invading us, but by how much of my money, and your money, the Department’s going to waste tomorrow, next week, next year and for decades to come.
Weapons-makers set to gain more influence in defence operations
Global weapons companies could be more deeply integrated into Australian military operations after legislative reforms. This comes on top of public unease about Australia’s independence under AUKUS.
MICHELLE FAHY, APR 14, 2023 https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/weapons-makers-set-to-gain-more-influence?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=114686170&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Activity in the defence domain has reached peak overload. On top of AUKUS and the submarines, the high-level nuclear waste dump, the Defence Strategic Review, and a slew of multi-billion-dollar arms procurements, the Defence Department is also undertaking consequential reform of the Defence Act 1903 and related legislation. In March, Defence published a consultation paper on the reforms calling for public feedback. The deadline for submissions is Friday 21 April.
Among other things, the reform initiatives foreshadow a more deeply integrated involvement by the globally dominant US arms industry in Australia’s defence and national security establishment, including military operations, especially in the modern ‘warfighting’ domains of cyber and space. This is a profoundly consequential proposition that demands careful consideration.
Notice of the intended reforms was quietly released by the defence portfolio’s junior minister, Matt Thistlethwaite, just days before the Albanese-Biden-Sunak AUKUS extravaganza in San Diego. Saturation media coverage and ongoing analysis of that event has kept the intended reform of Australia’s defence legislation out of the spotlight. This confluence in timing was likely intentional. As a result, much of the limited time granted to the public to consider and prepare submissions has already elapsed.
The public needs to pay attention now because the bipartisan-lockstep nature of defence ‘debate’ in Australia makes it probable that once the legislative amendments hit parliament they will zip through both houses into legislative reality with far less scrutiny than they demand.
The government says legislative reform is necessary to ‘better position the Australian Defence Force (ADF) as an agile, integrated, warfighting enterprise’. The reforms are also intended to create a ‘technology-neutral’ legislative framework.
The consultation paper outlines three key initiatives:
- support the full range of military activities and capabilities required to defend Australia and its national interests
- design the law for seamless interoperability with international allies and partners
- improve the security of Australia’s military capabilities, tangible and intangible.
The terms ‘integrated’, ‘seamless interoperability’, and ‘interchangeability’ appear throughout. The word ‘partner’ is used frequently and is undefined. It is often unclear to which type of entity it refers: foreign governments, foreign militaries, foreign intelligence services, or local or foreign arms industry entities. These distinctions are important, especially in a public consultation document, and the fact that they often aren’t clear creates considerable ambiguity.
Defence poses ten consultation questions for consideration. An important one is hinted at and needs to be made plain: What does the public think about the deeper integration of profit-making multinational weapons companies into Australian military operations across the breadth of operational domains, including cyber and space?
The AUKUS agreement is causing significant public unease about Australia’s ability to act independently of our major allies, and the loss of sovereignty this entails. Two former prime ministers have also expressed publicly their concerns about this. The shape of the proposed legislative reforms, the ambiguities in the consultation paper, and the muted manner of the document’s release add further cause for concern.
Worth adding in this futuristic context is the rapid development and significant funding of lethal autonomous weapons, occurring largely out of public view. (For the uninitiated, lethal autonomous weapons, known colloquially as ‘killer robots’, require no meaningful human involvement in the ‘kill chain’.) As yet, there is no international legal framework regulating their development or use. Such is the future we face.
If the above is not warning enough, we need only reflect on the US government’s outsourcing to defence contractors (and here) of parts of its morally bankrupt drone assassination program which has killed large numbers of civilians, including children, and instilled an abiding fear of clear skies in the populations of multiple countries. Pine Gap, part of the United States’ global surveillance network, has played a facilitative role in these killings.
This surely provides all the evidence we need that more time – and a vastly more transparent and genuine process of engagement – is needed from Defence for the public to consider and respond to its proposed initiatives for reform.
Download Defence’s consultation paper. Lodge your submission by 21 April.
This piece first appeared at John Menadue’s Pearl & Irritations on 14.4.23.
Monica Leggett, in a powerful Submission, calls on all Australian MPs to reject nuclear power
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 134
My first employment, after completing my PhD in surface physics from Southampton
University, was to work as a research officer at Berkeley Nuclear Research Laboratories.
These were located adjacent to the Berkeley Nuclear Power Station. This gave me a lifelong interest in the industry and the controversies associated with it.
I find it hard to believe that the issue of Nuclear Power in Australia has come back to the
Senate. From an energy point of view it is unbelievable that a country with such
abundant sources of renewable energy should even contemplate using nuclear energy.
Nuclear power is the most expensive, inflexible, complex and socially problematic source
of energy. All that massive infrastructure with its associated safety and security
measures built just to boil water.
Re-engineering a nuclear bomb to generate heat in a controlled and safe manner may
have been an extraordinary feat of engineering and optimism in the 1950s, but technology
has moved on. Nuclear Power is an inappropriate, unnecessary and potentially
dangerous choice for Australia for the reasons outlined below.
1 Too slow and too expensive
Nuclear power has never been cheap despite the initial vision of nuclear energy as “too
cheap to meter”. It has very large upfront costs, is plagued by delays and cost over-runs.
While the costs of renewables are decreasing, the cost of nuclear is increasing.
The high profile and controversial nature of nuclear power would divert attention, funds
and focus from renewables to nuclear. The world cannot afford any more delays in
reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
2 Lessons from recent world-wide extreme weather events
The impacts of global warming can no longer be dismissed as a future problem. Records
are now being broken on a regular basis. The last two years have been particularly brutal
with extreme temperatures, intense wild fires, droughts and floods across the world.
Using only historic data to predict future weather is no longer sufficient. This would have
a very major impact on site selection, the safe operation and emergency planning for any
nuclear power plant.
3 Unacknowledged social impacts
The presence of a nuclear power station in an area would alter the risk profile of the area
for those in the vicinity and pose an additional psychological stress on residents. In
addition to bush fire and flood preparedness plans, residents would need to have nuclear
accident preparedness plans. These are not necessarily compatible. Local authorities
would need response plans for minor and major nuclear accidents.
If the power plant site is in a country area, which is likely, then there is an additional
problem. Country areas, in WA for example, rely on a large volunteer component in fire
and ambulance services. Will volunteers wish to serve in an area which includes a
Nuclear Power Station? How will they be protected? How will they be trained?
4a Adverse environmental impacts – normal operation
The environmental case for nuclear power appears to be based on its low carbon dioxide
emissions while operating without incident, compared to the carbon dioxide emissions
from a fossil fuel plant. This is correct but incomplete. It compares one yet-to-be-built
working nuclear power plant with an operating fossil fuel power plant. But their life cycles
are very different. The public relations material ignores some or all of the emissions from
the following:
- Site preparation
- Construction
- Water supply
- Storage of spent fuel rods
- Decommissioning including the treatment of the highly radioactive pressure vessel
and shielding (while the reactor is operating, the fuel vessel and shielding are
constantly under neutron bombardment from the core, hence becoming highly
radioactive). - Long term storage and monitoring of radioactive waste.
4b Adverse environmental impacts – accidents
In the case of a major nuclear accidents (e.g. Chernobyl and Fukushima) all energy
benefits while operating became insignificant compared to the energy used to deal with
the aftermath of the accident. These include the energy costs of making the reactor safe
and monitoring it for an innumerable years, site and area rehabilitation, relocating
residents and broader health costs.
The probability of a weather related nuclear accident has been made greater by the
changes in climate with extreme weather events more likely.
Accidents release radioactive isotopes into the environment. These can expose plants
and animals to external radiation. If ingested, then they can be absorbed into body tissue
and irradiate the body from inside.
Our environment is under enormous threat from human impact and climate change. It
does not need another threat.
5 Security issues
The war in Ukraine has brought into sharp focus, the reality of having a nuclear power
station in a country when under attack . It is not an asset that adds to a country’s
security, so why would we choose to have nuclear power stations that we do not need?
In addition, the presence of enriched uranium in the country broadens the range of
possible terrorism threats. Extra security then becomes an added expense for the
taxpayer.
6 Ethical issues – intergenerational equity and resource sharing
Should a nuclear power station be built and assuming the station is accident free, then
the current population would get the advantage of the power generated. Future
generations would be bequeathed the costs. They would inherit responsibility for decommissioning (if not already done) looking after the waste, maintaining its security
from terrorists and monitoring containment, all the while living with the impacts of climate
change. This lacks intergenerational equity and is not acceptable.
Uranium is a finite resource. As world citizens with an abundant supply of renewables,
we should not be using Uranium for our power. Uranium should be reserved for countries
that have few or no alternatives.
If we with our enormous renewable resources choose to use nuclear, what message
about renewables are we sending to our Pacific neighbours? What message does it send
about our concern for their wellbeing if they could be down-wind from a possible nuclear
accident?
7 Conclusion
Nuclear Power is an inappropriate and unnecessary choice for Australia. It fails on
economic, social, and environmental grounds and is ethically indefensible. I call upon all
politicians to reject nuclear power https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissio
Professor George W Burns Submission to Senate – Keep the Nuclear Prohibitions, in the immediate and long-term interests of all Australians… and of the planet
Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 Submission 127
I am deeply concerned about the proposed Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions Bill
Australia needs effective climate action but nuclear power would slow the transition to a low-carbon
economy. It would increase electricity costs and unnecessarily introduce the challenges and risks
associated with high-level nuclear waste management and the potential for catastrophic accidents,
with profound intergenerational implications for Australians.
My concerns as an Australian citizen are that:
Nuclear is the most expensive energy option.
Nuclear is slow. It can take decades to build and would require a decade or more to develop the
legislative framework.
Nuclear is dangerous. Either through human error, disaster, or as a military target the catastrophic
consequences of a nuclear disaster would permanently pollute.
Nuclear is unwanted. There is long standing popular opposition to nuclear power in Australia
because of the issues above as well as the unsolved problem of nuclear waste and the link to nuclear
weapons
Alternatives like renewables, storage and energy efficiency are faster, cheaper, more deployable and
enjoy much more public support
I trust the Inquiry will act in the immediate and long-term interests of all Australians…and of the
planet. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissio
UN’s nuclear chief warns ‘we are living on borrowed time’ after two landmine explosions near Europe’s largest atomic power station in Ukraine
- UN has often expressed fears over the safety of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia plant
- Two landmine explosions took place outside plant’s perimeter this month
- Russian forces took control of the six-reactor plant in Ukraine in March last year
Daily Mail, By ARTHUR PARASHAR, 14 April 2023
A UN nuclear chief has warned ‘we are living on borrowed time’ after two landmine explosions near Europe’s largest atomic power station in Ukraine.
Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has repeatedly expressed fears over the safety of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia plant.
……….. We are living on borrowed time when it comes to nuclear safety and security at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant,’ Mr Grossi said yesterday.
‘Unless we take action to protect the plant, our luck will sooner or later run out, with potentially severe consequences for human health and the environment,’ he added.
Two landmines exploded outside the plant’s perimeter fence – the first on April 8, and another four days later on Wednesday, according to the statement.
It was not immediately clear what caused the blasts, it said.
Grossi met senior Russian officials in Kaliningrad last week and prior to this with Zelensky in Zaporizhzhia to discuss a safety plan.
He also warned yesterday that the plant continued to depend on a single still-functioning power line, posing ‘a major risk to nuclear safety and security’.
A back-up power line damaged on March 1 has still not been repaired, the IAEA said.
It added that the staffing situation at the plant remained ‘complex and challenging’, in part because of staff shortages.
Last month, Grossi warned that a nuclear disaster was very possible due to the ‘perilous’ situation at the plant.
‘The plant’s lack of access to the grid and necessary repair work on its last emergency power line could cause a complete loss of power, making it reliant on diesel generators for the seventh time since Russia captured it,’ Grossi said at the time.
I once again call for a commitment from all sides to secure nuclear safety and security protection at the plant,’ he added.
Emergency diesel generators had been activated to power the plant’s safety systems, according to Ukrainian nuclear energy agency Energoatom, which has warned of the risk of an accident.
Without the electricity produced by these generators, the overheating of the reactor fuel could cause a nuclear accident, as in Japan’s Fukushima in 2011……………………………………..more https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11972139/UNs-nuclear-chief-warns-living-borrowed-time-two-explosions-near-Zaporizhzhia.html
Friends of the Earth comments accuse the Australian Government Industry Department of blatant racism in its Kimba nuclear waste dump plan.
Comments on: Guidelines for the content of a Draft EIS National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, SA EPBC 2021/9128 April 2023
RIGHTS OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS
Recommendation #1: The Guidelines must require the proponent (the Australian Government Department of Industry, Science and Resources) to explain how the nuclear dump/store proposal complies with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in particular Article 29.2:
“States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”
Of course it is common knowledge that the proposal is a gross violation of Article 29.2 and that the nuclear dump/store is unanimously opposed by Barngarla Traditional Owners. Nevertheless, the proponent must be asked to explain its position and its crude racism.
Recommendation #2: The list of documents in section 3.5.1 of the Guidelines should also include the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Recommendation #3: The Guidelines mention a “process for ongoing consultation with FirstNations people”. The proponent should be required to declare whether or not it reservesthe right to ignore the rights, interests and recommendations of the Barngarla Traditional Owners in future just as it has ignored and overridden unanimous Barngarla opposition to the nuclear dump/store proposal.
Recommendation #4: The proponent should be required to discuss the adequacy of the
National Radioactive Waste Management Act (NRWMA) and in particular to provide
justifications for each of the following provisions of the Act:
- The nomination of a site for a radioactive waste facility is valid even if Aboriginal
Traditional Owners were not consulted and did not give consent. The NRWMA states that
consultation should be conducted with Traditional Owners and consent should be secured ‒
but that the nomination of a site for a radioactive waste facility is valid even in the absence
of consultation or consent. - The NRWMA has sections which nullify State or Territory laws that protect the
archaeological or heritage values of land or objects, including those which relate to
Indigenous traditions. - The Act curtails the application of Commonwealth laws including the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Native Title Act 1993 in the important
site-selection stage. The Native Title Act 1993 is expressly overridden in relation to land
acquisition for a radioactive waste facility.
Recommendation #5. The proponent should be required to explain why it rejects the SA
Government’s policy that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto of nuclear waste
sites. SA Labor’s Deputy Leader (and now Deputy Premier) Susan Close noted in September
2020 that: “South Australian Labor is calling on the Federal Government to halt its plans to
dump nuclear waste at Kimba. … SA Labor has consistently expressed its concerns about the
site selection process and the lack of consultation with native title holders. … This was a
dreadful process from start to finish, resulting in fractures within the local community over
the dump. The SA ALP has committed to traditional owners having a right of veto over any
nuclear waste sites, yet the federal government has shown no respect to the local
Aboriginal people.”
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
Recommendation #6. The Guidelines should require discussion on the ‘feasible alternative’
of targeting states/territories which do not have legislation prohibiting a nuclear
dump/store such as the one proposed. The current proposal requires the Commonwealth to
override the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.
Recommendation #7. The Guidelines state that the no-action alternative should be
discussed “if relevant”. The term “if relevant” should be removed and the proponent should
be required to discuss the no-action alternative since it is in fact a viable alternative.
Recommendation #8. The Guidelines should explicitly require the proponent to consider the
option of abandoning the plan to store intermediate-level waste (ILW) and Kimba since an
overwhelming majority of ILW is currently store at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site with no
practical or legal obstacles to ongoing storage. The plan to move ILW to Kimba is absurd: it necessarily entails double-handling; and it entails moving waste from a site with strong
security and an abundance of nuclear experts to a site with weaker security and a dearth of
nuclear experts … for no reason whatsoever let alone a good, compelling reason.
It should be noted here that ARPANSA plans separate assessments of the proponent’s plans
for disposal of lower-level wastes and storage of ILW. Further, in its March 2022 Regulatory
Assessment Report approving ANSTO’s new ILW Storage Facility at Lucas Heights to 2037,
the ARPANSA CEO states that a “clear net benefit must be provided by the licence applicant
to support a licence application”. It is implausible that the proposal to move ILW from Lucas
Heights to Kimba would meet this net-benefit criterion. Thus DCCEEW must be alert to the
misinformation and obfuscation that the proponent may present to justify ILW storage at
Kimba instead of Lucas Heights, and DCCEEW must ensure a full evaluation of alternatives to
ILW storage at Kimba.
Recommendation #9. Further to the above recommendation, the proponent should be
required to consider the option of abandoning plans for ILW storage at ANSTO and instead
working on a consolidated plan for deep underground disposal (or deep borehole disposal)
of both ILW as well as high-level nuclear waste from nuclear submarines.
TRANSPORT OF SPENT FUEL REPROCESSING WASTES
Recommendation #10. The proponent should be required to thoroughly consider
transportation of waste products arising from reprocessing of spent research reactor fuel.
There is no logical reason or justification for this omission
‘No Business In The Public Domain’: National Security Council spokesman Kirby Warns Journalists Not To Report On Leaked Pentagon Documents
Biden administration and National Security Council spokesman John Kirby addressed the media on Monday, asking in so many words that pretty please would journalists not report on the trove of highly classified documents which were leaked online.
“This is information that has no business in the public domain… It has no business… on the front pages of newspapers or on television.” But Kirby is a bit late, given already days ago major outlets from the NY Times to Washington Post to foreign outlets like The Guardian and RT have widely reported on them. They classified reports have circulated widely on English-language and foreign social media as well.
Independent media outlets have also widely shared images of the documents, which Pentagon officials claim could have been altered by the Kremlin to make the US look bad……….
Some observers have speculated that given the high number of documents marked SECRET/NOFORN, which literally means Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals (and thus it can’t be shared with even close allied services of the US), this points to the leak originating within the US chain of command. Others have said the leak may have come from the Ukrainians, given the high numbers of Ukraine-related battlefield assessments that were part of the trove that appeared online.
The Pentagon and DOJ meanwhile says they are still “working around the clock” to assess the source and scale of the massive breach of highly classified data. New bombshell documents have continued to trickle out in media stories into Monday and Tuesday, likely with more revelations to come throughout the week.
FT and others have called the breach the “most significant since Edward Snowden released a trove of classified documents about US intelligence activities a decade ago — included apparently highly classified documents.” Officials have also noted they “appear mostly authentic”.
“These photos appear to show documents similar in format to those used to provide daily updates to our senior leaders on Ukraine and Russia-related operations as well as other intelligence updates,” Meagher explained, though agreeing with other officials that some of them appear doctored. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/kirby-asks-journalists-pretty-please-dont-report-leaked-pentagon-documents
Two American brigades close to the Ukrainian border, but no plan, no leadership towards ending the war!
“The problem is Biden and his principal lieutenants—Blinken and Sullivan and their court of worshippers—who see those who criticize Zelensky as being pro-Putin.
the juniors are running the show here,” the official added. “There’s no NSC coordination and the US army is getting ready to go to war. There’s no idea whether the White House knows what’s going on.
| If worse comes to worst for the undermanned and outgunned Ukraine army in the next few months, will the two American brigades join forces with NATO troops and face off with the Russian army inside Ukraine? Is this the plan, or hope, of the American president? TRADING WITH THE ENEMY Amid rampant corruption in Kiev and as US troops gather at the Ukrainian border, does the Biden administration have an endgame to the conflict? Seymour Hersh, Substack, Apr 12 ∙ |
“CIA Director William Burns is not the problem,” the official said. “The problem is Biden and his principal lieutenants—Blinken and Sullivan and their court of worshippers—who see those who criticize Zelensky as being pro-Putin. ‘We are against evil. Ukraine will fight ’til the last military shell is gone, and still fight.’ And here’s Biden who is telling America that we’re going to fight as long as it takes.”
The official cited the little-known and rarely discussed deployment, authorized by Biden, of two brigades with thousands of America’s best army combat units to the region. A brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division has been intensively training and exercising from its base inside Poland within a few miles of the Ukrainian border. It was reinforced late last year by a brigade from the 101st Airborne Division that was deployed in Romania. The actual manpower of the two brigades, when administrative and support units—with the trucks and drivers who haul the constant stream of arms and military equipment flowing by sea to keep the units combat ready—could total more than 20,000.
The intelligence officials told me that “there is no evidence that any senior official in the White House really knows what’s going on in the 82nd and 101st. Are they there as part of a NATO exercise or to serve with NATO combat units if the West decides to engage Russians units inside Ukraine? Are they there to train or to be a trigger? The rules of engagement say they can’t attack Russians unless our boys are getting attacked.”
But the juniors are running the show here,” the official added. “There’s no NSC coordination and the US army is getting ready to go to war. There’s no idea whether the White House knows what’s going on. Has the president gone to the American people with an informative broadcast about what is going on? The only briefings the press and the public get today are from White House spokespeople.
“This is not just bad leadership. There is none. Zero.” The official added that a team of Ukrainian combat pilots are now getting trained here in America to fly US-built F-16 fighter jets, with the goal, if needed, of flying in combat against Russian troops and other targets inside Ukraine.” No decision about such deployment has been made.
The clearest statements of American policy have come not from the White House, but from the Pentagon. Army General Mark A. Milley, who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said of the war last March 15: “Russia remains isolated. Their military stocks are rapidly depleting. Their soldiers are demoralized, untrained, unmotivated conscripts and convicts, and their leadership is failing them. Having already failed in their strategic objectives, Russia is increasingly relying on other countries, such as Iran and North Korea. . . . This relationship is built on the cruel bonds of repressing freedom, subverting liberty and maintaining their tyranny. . . . Ukraine remains strong. They are capable and trained. Ukrainian soldiers are . . . strong in their combat units. Their tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored vehicles are only going to bolster the front line..”
There is evidence that Milley is as optimistic as he sounds. I was told that two months ago the Joint Chiefs had ordered members of the staff—the military phrase is “tasked”—to draft an end-of-war treaty to present to the Russians after their defeat on the Ukraine battlefield.
If worse comes to worst for the undermanned and outgunned Ukraine army in the next few months, will the two American brigades join forces with NATO troops and face off with the Russian army inside Ukraine? Is this the plan, or hope, of the American president? Is this the fireside chat he wants to give? If Biden decides to share his thoughts with the American people, he might want to explain what two army brigades, fully staffed and supplied, are doing so close to the war zone.
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 