Kimba agricultural group supports nuclear waste stored at Lucas Heights, rejects dump on farming land.
Waste war over Kimba https://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/7469993/waste-war-over-kimba/?fbclid=IwAR0kw1aDb_t9KiGaLWcEdC7UgEqGYVPGtSUYu6quCNKxi5hDXEGWH2r88KE
An anti-nuclear group are holding onto hope that the federal government will reconsider storing intermediate level waste (ILW) in Kimba, after attending a meeting in the rural town on Thursday.
The No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA are seeking answers as to why the government are planning to store ILW at Kimba as opposed to Lucas Heights.
It comes following a recent Parlimentary hearing where the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANTSO) revealed it had the capacity to store ILW at Lucas Heights for “decades to come”.
President Peter Woolford said the group put this to the combined Kimba Consultative Committee (KCC) and Kimba Economic Working Group (KEWG) when they met in Kimba.
They also questioned if the recent nuclear-powered submarines deal made by the federal government would see submarine waste stored at Kimba, and if it was a gateway to a domestic nuclear industry.
“They indicated that no high-level waste would come to Kimba,” he said.
“When you look at what’s going on with ANTSO and the money being spent there for extended storage of intermediate level waste it makes sense to keep the waste there until a permanent dispoal site is found.”
Mr Woolford said storage of nuclear waste from decommissioned submarines would have been an essential part of the federal government’s plans.
“Obviously people are concerned about that because it is an issue…there has to be a waste pathway for all that waste and there isn’t one at the moment,” he said.
With Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt intending to declare Kimba as the site for the Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF), Mr Woolford believes there’s still time to prevent storage of ILW on agricultural land.
“The reality is the Minister has to declare the site, which could be this week, once they do that the Commonwealth can acquire the land,” he said.
The facility is coming here it’s just the matter of what’s stored in it … I can’t speak for everybody but at the present time it makes perfect sense that ILW stays in ANTSO.”
Minister Pitt has been contacted for comment.
UK High Court Should Deny Extradition Because CIA Planned to Assassinate Assange
UK High Court Should Deny Extradition Because CIA Planned to Assassinate Assange, BYMarjorie Cohn, Truthout October 24, 2021
Why is Joe Biden’s Department of Justice continuing Donald Trump’s persecution of WikiLeaks founder, publisher and journalist Julian Assange?
Barack Obama, concerned about threats to the First Amendment freedom of the press, decided against indicting Assange for exposing U.S. war crimes. Trump did indict Assange, under Espionage Act charges that could garner him 175 years in prison. A district judge denied Trump’s request for Assange’s extradition from the U.K. to the United States because of the extremely high likelihood that it would lead Assange to commit suicide. Trump appealed the denial of extradition.
Instead of dropping Trump’s extradition request, Biden is vigorously pursuing his predecessor’s appeal against Assange, which the U.K. High Court will hear on October 27 and 28. At that hearing, the High Court should determine what effect the CIA’s recently revealed plan to kidnap and assassinate Assange will have on his fragile mental state in the event he is extradited to the United States.
Judge Baraitser’s Denial of Extradition
On January 6, U.K. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser issued a 132-page decision denying extradition. “Faced with conditions of near total isolation and without the protective factors which moderate his risk at HMP Belmarsh [where Assange is currently imprisoned],” she wrote, “I am satisfied that the procedures described by Dr. [Leukefeld] will not prevent Mr. Assange from finding a way to commit suicide.”…………………………..
The United States will be allowed to present “assurances” that if Assange is extradited, tried, convicted and imprisoned, he will not be subject to special administrative measures (SAMs) — onerous conditions that would keep him in virtual isolation — or be held at the ADX maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado. The U.S. intends to provide an additional assurance that it would not object to
Assange serving any custodial sentence he may receive in Australia. These so-called assurances, however, are conditional. The U.S. reserves the right to impose SAMs or hold Assange at ADX if his future behavior warrants it. Moreover, the U.S. cannot guarantee that Australia would consent to hosting Assange’s incarceration.
The High Court should give considerable weight to the way in which explosive new revelations of the Trump administration’s plot to kidnap and assassinate Assange will affect his mental health if he is extradited.
High Court Should Consider U.S. Plans to Kidnap and Assassinate Assange
The indictment against Assange stems from WikiLeaks’ 2010-2011 revelations of U.S. war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo. They included 400,000 field reports about the Iraq War, 15,000 unreported deaths of Iraqi civilians, and evidence of systematic torture, rape and murder after U.S. forces “handed over detainees to a notorious Iraqi torture squad,” the documents reveal. They included the Afghan War Logs, 90,000 reports revealing more civilian casualties by coalition forces than the U.S. military had reported. And the Guantánamo Files contained 779 secret reports revealing that 150 innocent people had been imprisoned there for years and documenting the torture and abuse of 800 men and boys, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Perhaps the most notable release by WikiLeaks was the 2007 “Collateral Murder” video, in which a U.S. Army Apache helicopter gunship in Baghdad targets and fires on unarmed civilians. At least 18 civilians were killed, including two Reuters journalists and a man trying to rescue the wounded. Two children were injured. A U.S. Army tank then drives over one of the bodies, cutting it in half. The video depicts three separate war crimes prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Army Field Manual.
It was WikiLeaks’ publication of CIA hacking tools known as “Vault 7,” which the agency called “the largest data loss in CIA history,” that incurred the wrath of Trump’s CIA Director Mike Pompeo. Vault 7 materials revealed electronic surveillance and cyber-warfare by the CIA.
In 2017, Pompeo called WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” and CIA and government officials hatched “secret war plans” to abduct and kill Assange, according to a stunning Yahoo! News report. Some senior CIA and Trump administration officials requested “sketches” or “options” for ways to assassinate Assange. Trump “asked whether the CIA could assassinate Assange and provide him ‘options’ for how to do so,” according to the report.
Pompeo advocated “extraordinary rendition,” which the CIA used in the “war on terror” to illegally seize suspects and send them to its “black sites” where they were tortured. The scenario was that the CIA would break into the Ecuadorian Embassy in which Assange was staying under a grant of asylum and clandestinely fly him to the United States to stand trial. Others in the agency wanted to assassinate Assange outright by poisoning or shooting him to avoid the hassle of kidnapping him.
The CIA spied on WikiLeaks, and it aimed to sow discord among the group’s members and steal their electronic devices, according to the Yahoo! News report. The CIA also conducted illegal surveillance inside the Ecuadorian Embassy and spied on privileged attorney-client communications between Assange and his lawyers.
Concerned that the CIA might kidnap or kill Assange, which could jeopardize a potential criminal prosecution, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a secret indictment against him in 2018. To bolster the DOJ’s case for extradition, the FBI collaborated with informant Siggi Thordarson to paint Assange as a hacker instead of a journalist. Thordarson later admitted to the Icelandic newspaper Stundin that he lied about Assange being a hacker in return for immunity from prosecution by the FBI.
In 2019, after a new pro-U.S. president came to power in Ecuador, in order to facilitate the U.S.’s attempted extradition, London police dragged Assange from the embassy and arrested him for violating bail conditions. Assange remains in custody in London’s maximum security Belmarsh Prison pending Biden’s appeal of the extradition denial.
The High Court should give great weight to the U.S. plans to kidnap and assassinate Assange. The knowledge of those revelations will put even more mental stress on Assange, whom former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer described as having suffered “prolonged exposure to psychological torture” during his confinement. The High Court should affirm the district court’s denial of extradition.
A Window Into U.S. War Crimes and Threats to Investigative Journalism
“When Assange published hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the public was given an unprecedented window into the lack of justification and the futility of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Assange Defense co-chairs Daniel Ellsberg, Alice Walker and Noam Chomsky wrote at Newsweek. “The truth was hidden by a generation of governmental lies. Assange’s efforts helped show the American public what their government was doing in their name.”
Recent revelations of Pompeo’s threats against Assange that appeared in Yahoo! News have shed light on the dangers the national security state poses to investigative journalism and the public’s right to know. In light of these new disclosures, a coalition of 25 press freedom, civil liberties and international human rights organizations have intensified their call for dismissal of the DOJ’s charges against Assange.
Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said his committee has asked the CIA for information about plans to kidnap or assassinate Assange.
The High Court will decide whether to affirm or overturn district judge Baraitser’s decision denying extradition. If they affirm Baraitser’s ruling, the Biden administration could ask the U.K. Supreme Court to review the case. If the High Court overturns Baraitser’s decision, Assange could appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court and then to the European Court of Human Rights if the Supreme Court ruling goes against him.
Biden’s appeal of the denial of extradition should be dismissed. Julian Assange should be released and celebrated for his courage. https://truthout.org/articles/uk-high-court-should-deny-extradition-because-cia-planned-to-assassinate-assange/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d08c3b6b-b92d-4b47-92cb-3c964bf0bab4
Cop26: ‘World conflict and chaos’ could be the result of a summit failure
 | |||
Cop26: ‘World conflict and chaos’ could be the result of a summit failure
Top climate official issues strong warning on effect of unchecked greenhouse gases ahead of summit
European states disagree on nuclear power – Eastern states pro nuclear, Western against it, (except for France)
THE EAST/WEST DIVIDE ON NUCLEAR ENERGY IN EUROPE, Fair Planet,
The ongoing global energy crisis that has inspired spikes in gas and electricity prices worldwide has revived a number of conversations in the European Union about how to best achieve its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. Among them, the issue of nuclear power is perhaps the most divisive, splitting the EU’s 27 member states along fierce geopolitical lines.
On 11 October, ten EU member states led by France expressed their joint support for including nuclear power in the EU’s “taxonomy on sustainable financing,” which would essentially allow the EU to support nuclear projects under its green financing initiative……..
The issue of nuclear power pits two of the EU’s largest political and economic players against one another: France has long pursued a robust energy policy firmly in support of nuclear power, while Germany has cemented for itself a firmly anti-nuclear stance. Earlier this month, President Emmanuel Macron doubled down on France’s nuclear strategy, announcing a new €1 billion investment in new-generation nuclear reactors. On the other hand, 2022 will witness the shutdown of the last of Germany’s nuclear reactors, completing Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 2011 plan to phase out the country’s 17 nuclear power plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.
As these two European powerhouses move in distinctly different directions, the rest of the EU is compelled to take sides – notably, member states’ positions seem to be largely split along West/East lines.
With the exception of France, the vast majority of countries in support of including nuclear energy in the EU’s green taxonomy are former communist nations that still find themselves partly in Russia’s sphere of influence: Czech Republic, Finland, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Slovenia. Compared to the richer Western European countries that have largely eschewed nuclear power, these member states are desperate for a transitional source to accelerate their move away from coal and towards a greener future. . These countries’ desire for greater energy independence is also understandable, especially as Russia consolidates its provision of natural gas to the EU via the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Germany, Denmark, Austria, Luxembourg and Spain constitute the bloc’s most vehement opposition and insist that nuclear power cannot be a viable path towards a sustainable future given the extensive and messy issues relating to the disposal of radioactive waste, as well as the dangerous, costly and slow process of constructing nuclear power plants. …..
On 21 October, a majority of the 27 EU member states voted in favour of including natural gas and nuclear energy in the EU’s environmental taxonomy. The EU’s Financial Services Commission, however, has punted the issue further down the line, declaring that a decision will be made as to whether nuclear energy would be eligible for green financing towards the end of 2021……
Significantly, France will take over as president of the Council of the European Union, which could likely tip the regulatory balance in a pro-nuclear direction. https://www.fairplanet.org/editors-pick/the-east-west-divide-on-nuclear-energy-in-europe/
Coalition avoids meltdown over emissions target – but at what price?
Coalition avoids meltdown over emissions target – but at what price?
Katharine Murphy
Scott Morrison will be relieved the Nationals have limped across the line on net zero by 2050, but the detail of what was negotiated with Barnaby Joyce is yet to be seen
ICLEI launches its 100% Renewables Cities and Regions Energy Compact
On 24 September 2021, ICLEI’s 100% Renewables Cities and Regions Energy Compact was officially launched at the United Nations High-Level Dialogue on Energy, which calls for local governments to make ambitious voluntary
commitments to catapult themselves towards 100% renewable energy usage at the latest by 2050.
ICLEI’s Energy Compact complements its existing work in the renewable energy space, including the 100% Renewables Cities and Regions Roadmap project, and the 100% Renewables Cities and Regions Network.
On their way to 100% renewable status, cities and regions that join ICLEI’s Energy Compact are encouraged to achieve several milestone targets by 2030 at the latest, such as achieving 100% renewable energy use
in local government operations, and achieving SDG7, among others.
ICLEI 5th Oct 2021
https://iclei.org/en/media/iclei-launches-its-100-renewables-cities-and-regions-energy-compact
Taylor refuses Senate order to release net zero modelling, says not in public interest — RenewEconomy
Taylor to reject Senate order to release the government’s modelling of a zero net emissions target for 2050, claiming ‘public interest immunity’. The post Taylor refuses Senate order to release net zero modelling, says not in public interest appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Taylor refuses Senate order to release net zero modelling, says not in public interest — RenewEconomy
Whole towns to be taken off the grid and powered by stand-alone renewables — RenewEconomy
Network to pilot “disconnected microgrids” – comprising mostly renewables – that will cut links to main grid and deliver, cheaper, cleaner and more reliable power. The post Whole towns to be taken off the grid and powered by stand-alone renewables appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Whole towns to be taken off the grid and powered by stand-alone renewables — RenewEconomy
October 24 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “The Bar For Climate Ambition Must Be Set By Science, Not Congressional Politics” • Precisely because the present emissions gap is so great, we cannot solely lean on the incredible progress enabled by leading states, localities, businesses, and individuals. To truly bend the curve, we need federal action – action, not spun words […]
October 24 Energy News — geoharvey
Countering the nuclear lobby’s deceptive spin about ionising radiation
The video below is several years old. Children in Ukraine and Belarus are still suffering with cancers and other serious health effects of the nuclear disaster. The ABC ‘s ”Foreign Correspondent” recently covered their plight, which is still terrible, but the video of that seems to be unavailable.
Extract from The nuclear industry’s updated songsheet remains outdated, Pearls and Irritations, By Mark Diesendorf, 22 Oct 21
”…………. Another misleading pro-nuclear statement revived following the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011 is that no excess cancer incidence has been observed around Fukushima, implying that no cancers will be induced. The logical error is to assume that the absence of evidence implies no impact.
For a start, it is still too early for most types of cancer, which have latent periods of 20–60 years, to appear around Fukushima. The only cancers likely to appear within a decade after exposure are thyroid cancer and leukemia. A large increase in thyroid cancers has been observed in the region, but their cause is debated by some on the grounds that the increase could be the result of better screening. Leukemia is an uncommon disease and so even a large percentage increase would be impossible to verify statistically with high confidence. (See UNSCEAR 2020b)
Fortunately for the citizens of Tokyo, the wind was mostly blowing offshore during the meltdowns of three Fukushima reactors, sending about 80 per cent of the emitted radioactive material out over the Pacific. Soon after the disaster an exclusion zone was established around the power station and more than 100,000 people evacuated. For these reasons, Fukushima tells us very little about radiation-induced cancers.
Most of the evidence that low-level radiation is carcinogenic comes from detailed studies of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, medical professionals who worked with radiation, uranium miners, children living near nuclear power stations, and children who were exposed in utero in the bad old days when pregnant women were routinely x-rayed. This is the basis of the linear-no-threshold model, the scientific understanding that the number of cancers induced by ionising radiation is proportional to the dose received and that there’s no threshold. Therefore, even natural background radiation, to which we are all exposed, and medical x-rays contribute very small fractions of cancer prevalence…………https://johnmenadue.com/the-nuclear-industrys-updated-songsheet-remains-outdated/
National Party may demand that nuclear power be part of Scott Morrison’s ”net zero by 2050” aim.
Nationals may put nuclear energy on the agenda as the party negotiates Scott Morrison’s net zero proposal, The Nationals could put nuclear power on the agenda as part of Scott Morrison’s proposed net zero by 2050 target, the chair of the Environment and Energy Committee said. Sky News Tyrone Clarke, Digital Reporter, October 21, 2021 – Liberal MP Ted O’Brien has flagged the possibility of the Nationals pushing nuclear energy on the agenda as the Coalition debates Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s net zero proposal.
The Nationals party room met again on Thursday afternoon to finalise a set of climate demands to be presented to Mr Morrison as the Prime Minister hopes to take a net zero target to the upcoming COP26 summit in Glasgow.
Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has remained tight-lipped about his party’s preferences towards the policy, but has categorically ruled out committing to a more aggressive 2030 emissions reduction target.
But Mr O’Brien said nuclear power had the backing of many Nationals members and could be on a list of demands set to head to the Prime Minister’s desk…………………. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/nationals-may-put-nuclear-energy-on-the-agenda-as-the-party-negotiates-scott-morrisons-net-zero-proposal/news-story/0d476f4bbec9af57ecfb6eab864b8930
Those non existent ”small nuclear reactors” are a dangerous fantasy
Extract from The nuclear industry’s updated songsheet remains outdated, Pearls and Irritations, By Mark Diesendorf, 22 Oct 21,
” ……………….Misleading new nuclear songs
Many people understand that existing nuclear reactors are dangerous, very expensive, produce dangerous wastes that must be managed for thousands of years, and can assist governments to develop nuclear weapons. To deflect attention, the nuclear industry is nowadays creating the false impression that new reactors exist that could solve these major problems while contributing to climate mitigation. These hypotheticals are the so-called “small modular reactors” (SMRs), small enough to be distributed around a country and modular in the sense that they could be mass-produced by the thousand in factories and erected rapidly.
However, the actual situation is that SMRs don’t exist — they are paper reactors fuelled on ink and hot air. They could not be installed in Australia for at least 15 years, if ever. By that time, given the political will, we could have an electricity system that’s entirely powered by renewable energy, mainly solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind, supplemented by hydro.
The reason why past and current generations of commercial nuclear power reactors are very big is to obtain economies of scale. Even so, nuclear electricity costs three to five times that of large-scale wind and solar PV (see Lazard and CSIRO). After adding storage to smooth the variability of wind and solar, renewables are still cheaper than nuclear. Nuclear costs have been increasing while wind and especially solar costs continue to fall. SMRs would have to be mass-produced in hundreds, possibly thousands, to overcome the loss of economy of scale and, even then, their electricity would still cost much the same as from existing big nuclear power stations.
Fortunately, there are no orders for multiple SMRs, because the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons would be greatly increased by distributing SMRs around the countryside. Reducing proliferation risk or increasing safety or improving waste management would all increase cost. SMRs that simultaneously solve proliferation, safety and waste management, while reducing costs, are a dangerous fantasy…………….. https://johnmenadue.com/the-nuclear-industrys-updated-songsheet-remains-outdated/
ARPANSA admits that no safety assessment exists, for nuclear submarines in Adelaide
Following a search from ARPANSA’s senior scientist, the agency determined that such a planning or safety document “does not exist”.
No safety assessment for nuclear subs in Adelaide https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/10/22/no-safety-assessment-for-nuclear-subs-in-adelaide/
The federal government has not undertaken a safety assessment or planning study for the prospect of docking nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide, according to documents obtained by independent senator Rex Patrick. Thomas Kelsall@Thomas_Kelsall
The Port Adelaide and Outer Harbour docks are set to be the building spot for at least eight nuclear-powered submarines under the terms of the new “AUKUS” trilateral security pact, announced by Prime Minister Scott Morrison in September.
But the controversial deal, which saw Australia scrap its $90 billion contract with France to build 12 diesel-powered boats, drew criticism from anti-nuclear activists and local residents concerned about the prospect of nuclear reactors in their suburbs.
No nuclear-powered warship has ever visited Port Adelaide or Outer Harbour.
Patrick, a former submariner and critic of the new subs deal, on September 21 filed a Freedom of Information request to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) for “any documents that go to the planning or prospects of a nuclear vessel visiting Port Adelaide or Outer Harbour”.
ARPANSA is responsible for providing safety assessment to the Visiting Ships Panel (Nuclear) – an interdepartmental committee overseeing arrangements for visiting nuclear ships and associated safety requirement.
Following a search from ARPANSA’s senior scientist, the agency determined that such a planning or safety document “does not exist”.
“The ARPANSA Senior Scientist, who holds the responsibility for searching ARPANSA records of documents that go to the planning or prospects of a nuclear vessel, … has instructed me that ARPANSA, at this point in time, does not have a document specifically relating to the terms of your request,” ARPANSA FOI Officer John Templeton wrote to Patrick on Thursday.
A spokesperson for the agency confirmed to InDaily it has not been asked by the Defence Department to undertake a safety assessment or planning study of the site.
Patrick said the revelation shows that the Morrison’s Government’s nuclear submarines program is “a huge exercise in filling in the blanks”.
“One might have thought that some work would have been undertaken to consider Adelaide’s suitability for at least nuclear powered warship visits before the Prime Minister’s big announcement last month,” Patrick said.
“That is a task that ARPANSA undertakes on a regular basis in relation to other locations including HMAS Stirling, Fremantle, Darwin and Brisbane.
“While the safety assessments required for nuclear submarine construction and long-term berthing facilities would be a very complex undertaking, a port visit safety assessment of Port Adelaide and Outer Harbour would have been minimum due diligence before the Prime Minister promised his nuclear subs would be built in Adelaide.”
Patrick said the lack of safety assessment means Adelaide’s docks “could not currently host even a single-day visit by any nuclear powered submarine”.
“As is so often the case, Scott Morrison’s Government hasn’t done the basic preliminaries. It’s big on announcements, but fails conspicuously on due diligence and competent project management,” he said.
ARPANSA CEO Carl-Magnus Larsson told a parliamentary last week that the agency was briefed on the plan to shift from diesel to nuclear submarines around the beginning of July.
A spokesperson for ARPANSA said the agency “has not been asked to undertake a safety assessment and/or planning study on docking nuclear submarines in Port Adelaide or Outer Harbour”.
“ARPANSA will only undertake a radiological port assessment if Defence (Navy) determines that a nuclear-powered vessel can visit a specified port,” the spokesperson said.
“Neither Adelaide nor Outer Harbor have been subject to a visit of a nuclear-powered vessel.”
InDaily contacted the Department of Defence for comment.
Greenland soon to reinstate its ban on uranium mining
Within weeks, Greenland’s parliament, the Inatsisartut, is expected to
pass a bill reinstating a ban on uranium mining that was lifted in 2013
following pressure from mining companies. “The Greenlandic minister with
responsibility for minerals has publicly stated that a ban on uranium
mining will put an end to all future uranium mining, full stop,” Mariane
Paviasen, a Greenland MP and leading activist in the anti-uranium mining
movement, Urani? Naamik (Uranium? No), told Green Left.
Green Left 20th Oct 2021
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenland-set-restore-uranium-mining-ban
There are no real climate leaders yet – who will step up at Cop26? – Greta Thunberg
Greta Thunberg Like other rich nations, the UK is more talk than action on the climate crisis. Something needs to change in Glasgow.
The UN secretary general, António Guterres, called the recent IPCC report on the climate crisis a “code red” for humanity.
“We are at the verge of the abyss,” he said. You might think those words would sound some kind of alarm in our society. But, like so many times before, this didn’t happen. The denial of the climate and ecological crisis runs so deep that hardly anyone takes real notice any more.
Since no one treats the crisis like a crisis, the existential warnings keep on drowning in a steady tide of greenwash and everyday media news flow. And yet there is still hope, but hope all starts with honesty. Because science doesn’t lie. The facts are crystal clear, but we just refuse to accept them. We refuse to acknowledge that we now have to choose between saving the living planet or saving our unsustainable way of life. Because we want both. We demand both.
Guardian 21st Oct 2021
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 