Learning about ionising radiation – this film helps
Invisible Fallout https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2020/06/21/invisible-fallout/,June 21, 2020
There are many ways to teach people about radiation. But if you want to make that lesson accessible, compelling and even moving, then this film is the way to do it.
Let’s go on a journey. A journey to learn about radiation exposure from fallout after a nuclear power plant accident. We have the perfect guide. It is the independent French radiation research laboratory known as CRIIRAD, and its director, Dr. Bruno Chareyron.
The organization’s full name in French is Commission de Recherche et d’Information Indépendantes sur la RADioactivité, hence the acronym. In English it is translated as Commission for Independent Research and Information about RADiation.
For those not familiar with CRIIRAD, our journey begins with a little history, and so does CRIIRAD’s brilliant new 45-minute film — Invisible Fallout (Invisibles retombées is the French title), which can be viewed in its entirety on YouTube and above. The film, written and produced by CRIIRAD staff and directed by Cris Ubermann, is in French and Japanese with English subtitles.
When the Chernobyl nuclear disaster hit in April 1986, the French government engaged in a notorious cover-up, claiming that France “has totally escaped any radioactive fallout.” The whole thing was a lie. Five days before the government denial, Chernobyl’s radioactive cloud had covered all of France.
As Invisible Fallout recounts, after Chernobyl, it took 15 years until the French government published fallout maps of France. But the CRIIRAD laboratory, formed right after Chernobyl precisely to establish that France’s immunity was a myth, had already done the work that debunked the official line that the disaster was just a Soviet problem. French citizens not only got dosed by Chernobyl fallout, but would live in perpetual danger of a similar catastrophe at home, with a country almost 80% reliant on nuclear-generated electricity from its 58 reactors.
But Invisible Fallout does not linger long in the past. It segues quickly to the next nuclear catastrophe — the 2011 Fukushima-Daiichi meltdowns in Japan — and it is there that the CRIIRAD team, led by Chareyron, take us to learn about the effects of radiation exposure from nuclear power plants.
Just sixteen days after the Fukushima disaster, Japanese citizens began to detect fallout. They desperately needed to do independent monitoring but found it hard to get their hands on Geiger counters. The downplays and cover-ups by Japanese authorities, attempting to minimize the dangers and avoid mass evacuations, meant official figures could not be trusted.
An unlikely leader stepped forward in the person of composer and artist, Wataru Iwata, who, one month after the disaster, asked CRIIRAD for Geiger counters. They sent them, along with email tutorials on radioactivity, its health risks and how to protect against them. The laboratory also prepared a series of simple, clear, instructional “emergency” videos in English, designed for non-specialists, which they put online for everyone to access. This included an instructional segment on how to use a Scintillometer, one of the dozen devices CRIIRAD had sent to the Japanese activists.
We then get a short instructional video of our own on exactly how the Scintillometer is able to rapidly detect Gamma radiation in counts per second, and what those measurements mean. It glides into clarity for us, abetted by the smooth tones of the film’s excellent French narrator, Nicolas Planchais. We forget completely we are in class. Everything is, indeed, illuminated.
And we see Iwata taking his device into Fukushima Prefecture where he helps others measure the radiation levels. At a restaurant 55km away from the destroyed reactors, where people were going about their daily lives, he is shocked to record radiation levels that are 50 times higher than normal. In other areas, levels are 1,000 times higher.
Two months after the accident, CRIIRAD decided to show up in person, and Japan’s Citizens Radioactivity Monitoring Stations (CRMS), were born. CRIIRAD set up nine CRMS in Fukushima Prefecture and one in Tokyo.
Quickly realizing that ingestion of radioactively contaminated foodstuffs was as much of a threat as external exposure, Iwata asked for ways to measure radiation in food. This would help the people who had stayed — or who had been forced to remain — in contaminated areas to make informed choices about the food they consumed. CRIIRAD brought over a device sensitive enough to detect radiation in food, then conducted a seminar for residents of Fukushima City on on how to use it. We too, as viewers, get the tutorial.
Indeed, all of these lessons in science are subtly woven into the film, but cleverly attached to the lived experiences of real people in Japan, making it relevant and relatable.
And then, as we learn how to measure radiation levels and what they mean, we start to meet the people to whom it matters the most. We encounter a farmer who abided by the rules not to sell contaminated crops but whose family ate the food themselves so it would not go to waste. And we watch his palpable emotion as he recounts his attachment to the land and the known risks he and his family took.
CRIIRAD and its Japanese partners begin to find radioactive particles everywhere— on rooftops, in soil and vegetation, at the foot of trees, in the cracks of tarmac, even inside greenhouses.
At a school which, in denial, refused to have radiation measurements taken, Iwata is shown taking readings in the school grounds. They start at 6,000 to 7,000 counts per second, but rise to 27,000 counts per second at ground level.
The CRIIRAD team encounter what they describe as their most difficult moment when an elderly peasant farmer asks them to conduct measurements on her land just 30km away from the nuclear site. She herself was forced to evacuate, but her farm was not in the zone designated for permanent evacuation. So she came back with CRIIRAD to assess the situation.
We watch them take measurements, then gently show the results to her. She begins to sob. Then she tells them, “Thank you for coming all this way. I was in darkness and you have brought me light.” But, she knows she must now abandon the farm forever.
After an interlude for another lesson, this time on gamma rays, we are back to some chilling truths about their effects. In Fukushima City, we learn that at an elementary school there, children are asked to frequently change places in class so that the same children are not always sitting by the window where the radiation levels are higher.
This prompts CRIIRAD to remind us that, “when it comes to radiation protection, there is no threshold below which it is harmless.” And they point out that the Japanese decision to raise the annual allowable radiation dose from 1mSv to 20mSv, “means accepting a risk of cancer 20 times higher, and this applies equally to children and pregnant women” for whom such doses present a far higher risk.
CRIIRAD warns that people living in the contaminated region will be exposed for decades and across vast areas. They will be exposed to external radiation from powerful gamma rays emitted by the soil and contaminated surfaces. They will be exposed through inhalation of radioactive dust suspended every time the wind blows, and by activities such as sowing crops, ploughing and construction work. And they will be exposed through eating foodstuffs cultivated on contaminated land in contaminated soil.
But thanks to CRIIRAD, many of them will now know how to measure these levels, what they mean and how to protect themselves. It’s a lesson that’s well worth learning for all of us.
For more information, please see the CRIIRAD website, in its original French, and in English.
Anti-nuclear resistance in Russia: problems protests, reprisals
Standing up to Rosatom
Anti-nuclear resistance in Russia: problems protests, reprisals
The following is a report from the Russian Social Ecological Union (RSEU)/ Friends of the Earth Russia, slightly edited for length. You can read the report in full here. It is a vitally important document exposing the discrimination and fear tactics used against anti-nuclear organizers in Russia and details their courageous acts of defiance in order to bring the truth of Russia’s nuclear sector to light.
Rosatom is a Russian state-owned corporation which builds and operates nuclear power plants in Russia and globally. The state-run nuclear industry in Russia has a long history of nuclear crises, including the Kyshtym disaster in 1957 and Chernobyl in 1986. Yet Rosatom plans to build dozens of nuclear reactors in Russia, to export its deadly nuclear technologies to other countries, and then to import their hazardous nuclear waste.
This report is a collection of events and details about the resistance to Russian state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, and other activities that have led to the pollution of the environment and violation of human rights. Social and environmental conflicts created by Rosatom have been left unresolved for years, while at the same time, environmental defenders who have raised these issues, have consistently experienced reprisals.
Nuclear energy: failures and Lies
For a safe world climate, we need to transform the economy, not grow it
“So, we have to get away from our obsession with economic growth – we really need to start managing our economies in a way that protects our climate and natural resources, even if this means less, no or even negative growth.
“In Australia, this discussion isn’t happening at all – economic growth is the one and only mantra preached by both main political parties. It’s very different in New Zealand – their Wellbeing Budget 2019 is one example of how government investment can be directed in a more sustainable direction, by transforming the economy rather than growing it.”
Overconsumption and growth economy key drivers of environmental crises https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-06/uons-oag061820.php
21 June, 20, ,
Scientists’ warning on affluence, UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES, A group of researchers, led by a UNSW sustainability scientist, have reviewed existing academic discussions on the link between wealth, economy and associated impacts, reaching a clear conclusion: technology will only get us so far when working towards sustainability – we need far-reaching lifestyle changes and different economic paradigms.
In their review, published today in Nature Communications and entitled Scientists’ Warning on Affluence, the researchers have summarised the available evidence, identifying possible solution approaches.
“Recent scientists’ warnings have done a great job at describing the many perils our natural world is facing through crises in climate, biodiversity and food systems, to name but a few,” says lead author Professor Tommy Wiedmann from UNSW Engineering.
“However, none of these warnings has explicitly considered the role of growth-oriented economies and the pursuit of affluence. In our scientists’ warning, we identify the underlying forces of overconsumption and spell out the measures that are needed to tackle the overwhelming ‘power’ of consumption and the economic growth paradigm – that’s the gap we fill.
“The key conclusion from our review is that we cannot rely on technology alone to solve existential environmental problems – like climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution – but that we also have to change our affluent lifestyles and reduce overconsumption, in combination with structural change.”
During the past 40 years, worldwide wealth growth has continuously outpaced any efficiency gains.
“Technology can help us to consume more efficiently, i.e. to save energy and resources, but these technological improvements cannot keep pace with our ever-increasing levels of consumption,” Prof Wiedmann says. Continue reading
Exposing the false claims about China and coronavirus
Debunking Trump and Corporate Media’s WHO/China Coverup Conspiracy Theories FAIR
The Trump administration suspended funding to WHO in April—the UN’s primary infectious disease–fighting body—accusing it of “severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus,” and of taking China’s allegedly deceptive claims about its handling of Covid-19 at “face value.” But corporate media had already been boosting these same talking points.
The Wall Street Journal’s “The World Health Organization Draws Flak for Coronavirus Response” (2/12/20) effectively accused WHO of being “too deferential to China in its handling of the new virus,” and criticized WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus for “bending to Beijing” after lauding China’s unquestionably effective swift quarantine of 60 million people, and for declaring that “China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response” and identifying the virus in “record time.” The Journal further expounded the conspiracy theory of a seemingly omnipotent China having WHO under its thumb:
Over its decades of battling epidemics, the WHO has rarely had to deal with an entity as politically and economically powerful as China today. It can’t afford to alienate the country’s leadership, whose clout and financial largess it aims to attract to global health causes. It needs Beijing’s cooperation in preventing a full-blown pandemic—and this may not be the last time. China is the source of many emerging pathogens, which jump from animals to humans in its teeming live markets and can cause deadly epidemics.
According to the Journal’s logic, when WHO praises China for an effective response containing Covid-19 and giving the rest of the world ample time to take health precautions, it is “compromising its own epidemic response standards, eroding its global authority, and sending the wrong message to other countries that might face future epidemics.” When Dr. Bruce Aylward—a Canadian medical expert with 30 years of experience combating polio, Ebola and other global health emergencies—concluded that he “didn’t see anything that suggested manipulation of numbers,” after leading a team of experts visiting China for WHO, that can’t be an accurate observation. For corporate journalists, it can only be because he was duped by the devious Chinese government “underreporting both total cases and deaths it’s suffered from the disease” (Bloomberg, 4/1/20).
The Journal flimsily explained that China wields such formidable control over the WHO because China is a “future source of funds and a partner with which to tackle the biggest global health problems,” and not as a “current donor.” That would be because a cursory examination of WHO’s funding would reveal that the US donated more than 10 times more money to WHO ($893 million) than China ($86 million), despite the US having almost $200 million in arrears before suspending payments (Axios, 4/15/20).
Neither does the Journal explain how or why WHO could possibly withhold information from Western nations even if it wanted to, when its leadership is stacked with Americans and Europeans, and 15 US officials were embedded with the WHO in Geneva, given that the US is the most “politically and economically powerful” nation on Earth. This makes the Trump administration’s declaration of the US terminating its membership in WHO after threats to permanently cut funding especially egregious.
Nor can the Journal explain the source of China’s fearsome influence over independent and prestigious medical journals like Nature (5/4/20), Science (3/28/20) and the Lancet (3/7/20), which also credited the effectiveness and transparency of China’s response for saving thousands of lives (CGTN, 5/1/20, 5/10/20). Does China’s mysterious and awe-inspiring influence extend over Western medical journals as well?
When Foreign Policy (5/12/20) reported on the exclusive scoop of a leaked dataset of coronavirus cases and deaths from the Chinese military’s National University of Defense Technology, it confirmed that the leaked information “matches” the publicly available numbers the Chinese government posts online—which poses an inconvenience to those spouting conspiracy theories of a Chinese government coverup. Corporate media accounts of Chinese deception and fake statistics also fail to explain how the Chinese government possesses the fantastical ability to deceive governments and independent medical experts around the world, even if it wanted to. As FAIR’s Jim Naureckas (4/2/20) pointed out earlier:
The reality is that it’s very hard to hide an epidemic. Stopping a virus requires identifying and isolating cases of infection, and if you pretend to have done so when you really haven’t, the uncaught cases will grow exponentially. Maintaining a hidden set of real statistics and another set for show would require the secret collusion of China’s 2 million doctors and 3 million nurses—the kind of improbable cooperation that gives conspiracy theories a bad name…. If China is merely pretending to have the coronavirus under control, the pathogen will rapidly surge as people resume interacting with their communities. Once international travel is restored, it will be quite obvious which countries do and don’t have effective management of Covid-19.
Countries revising their figures upon receiving new information is to be expected, and is not necessarily evidence of deceit, as plenty of nations besides China revise their data upwards. Yet only China is singled out as being exceptionally deceptive. For example, in the same week New York revised its death toll upwards by nearly 3,800, China’s adding almost 1,300 dead to its Wuhan data was presented as a possible coverup (Politico, 4/14/20; Guardian, 4/17/20). The Moon of Alabama blog (4/1/20) explained some of the complexities in reporting numbers during a pandemic in real-time:
Does one include co-morbids or not in the count? What about casualties of a car accident that also test positive for Covid-19 when they die? What about those who died with Covid-19 symptoms but could not be tested for lack of test kits? Are the tests really working reliably?… What about asymptomatic cases that test positive. Are these false positives, or do these people really have the virus? One can only know that by testing them a month later for antibodies………
this manipulation of public opinion by the US government and corporate media appears to be working. According to a recent Ipsos survey, more than 30% of Americans have witnessed someone blaming Asian people for the coronavirus pandemic (even though new research indicates that travel from New York City was the primary source of the US outbreak, with New York’s outbreak originating in Europe). Pew Research (4/21/20) found that around two-thirds of Americans have an unfavorable view of China, which is the most negative rating for the country since Pew began asking the question in 2005. This suggests that public opinion has been turned against China, despite it being the first to detect the virus, alert the world and provide a model for containing it.https://fair.org/home/debunking-trump-and-corporate-medias-who-china-coverup-conspiracy-theories/
Renewables will power Australia’s economic growth — RenewEconomy
Labor MP Josh Burns says that if Australia is to grow its economy and create new markets we must take advantage of the future demand for cheap, clean and reliable power. The post Renewables will power Australia’s economic growth appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Renewables will power Australia’s economic growth — RenewEconomy
Tesla says energy market reform must be accelerated in Australia, not delayed — RenewEconomy
Tesla argues for energy market reforms to be accelerated as Australia’s big energy incumbents call for delays. The post Tesla says energy market reform must be accelerated in Australia, not delayed appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Tesla says energy market reform must be accelerated in Australia, not delayed — RenewEconomy
Smoke and high-temperature cut-outs hit solar and wind output in summer from hell — RenewEconomy
Smoke impacting solar and high temperature failures in wind turbine hubs threw two new curve balls at the market operator as it sought to keep lights on in summer from hell. The post Smoke and high-temperature cut-outs hit solar and wind output in summer from hell appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via Smoke and high-temperature cut-outs hit solar and wind output in summer from hell — RenewEconomy
June 21 Energy News — geoharvey
Opinion: ¶ “Stars Have Aligned For Hydrogen Economy” • Hydrogen, for use as a carbon free fuel and as energy storage for renewables, is attracting unprecedented interest. And all of the factors that are required for the construction of a hydrogen economy are falling into place, the expert panel assembled for the PE Live 7 […]
Financial institutions funding nuclear weapons – theme for June 20
Nobody except a few erratic multi-billionaires is willing to gamble their money on “peaceful” nuclear power. Still, your taxes are going to so-called “commercial” nuclear power, if you live in a nuclear country.
But banks, pension funds, insurance companies and asset managers are investing in nuclear weapons – and you wouldn’t even know that your money is going there. Don’t Bank on the Bomb has listed institutions around the world with substantial investments in nuclear arms producers. Fo example From 2013 to 2016, United States 226 Financial Institutions made an estimated USD$ 344 billion available to 27 nuclear weapon producing companies .
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weaspons, (ICAN) has identified financial organisations funding nuclear weapons The report Don’t Bank on the Bomb, updated annually by PAX, provides details of financial transactions with companies that are heavily involved in the manufacture, maintenance and modernization of US, British, French and Indian nuclear forces.
ICAN is appealing to financial institutions to stop investing in the nuclear arms industry, as any use of nuclear weapons would violate international law and have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. By investing in nuclear weapons producers, financial institutions are in effect facilitating the build-up of nuclear forces. This undermines efforts to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world and heightens the risk that one day these ultimate weapons of mass destruction will be used again.
Engaging in dialogues with financial institutions about their investments in nuclear weapons companies can help to raise their understanding of the effects of nuclear weapons and their status under international law. Here are some tips for letter-writing:
- How to begin: Let the financial institution know who you are. Do you hold a bank account with them? Are you a member of their superannuation plan? Do you own shares in their company? Are you writing as a representative of a particular organization? Are you simply a concerned citizen?
- What to include: Inform the financial institution that you are aware of their investments in nuclear weapons companies. Specify which companies and briefly describe the activities these companies are engaged in. Outline why you believe that financing nuclear weapons is illegitimate.
- Ask for information: Inquire as to whether the financial institution has a policy on investing in the arms industry. If you are already aware that such a policy exists, ask the institution to explain how its investments in nuclear weapons companies can be justified under the terms of the policy.
- Call for action: Call on the financial institution to divest from all nuclear weapons companies. Explain that nuclear weapons are illegal to use and have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. End by making it clear that you expect a response. – Don’t Bank on the Bomb
Mysterious, manipulative and corrupt process whereby Napandee was selected for nuclear dump site
Name Withheld, National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 39 [Excerpt] “…..So we examine briefly the nomination process in Kimba. When the 28 nominations were received in 2015, the number were then by a mysterious and yet to be released process whereby 6 sites were ultimately deemed suitable by the Federal Government. This announcement occurred in early 2016 and after another round of processes which were just as mysterious, the two sites in Kimba and one site in Hawker were selected to go to the the next round.
But just as quickly as they were announced – Cortlinye (Current MP at that time and now Rowan Ramsey’s land) and Pinkawillinie (Jeff Baldock’s
land) in Kimba, and Barndioota (former senator Grant Chapman and Philip Speakman pastoral lease), suddenly it was noted that Rowan Ramsey’s nomination of Cortlinye was in direct conflict with Section 44 of the Constitution, so his land nomination was withdrawn. Pinkawillinie, which was Jeff Baldock’s nomination was not accepted as suitable because of lack of community support.
So that left Barndioota as the only candidate. That meant Kimba was taken completely off the list as a possible site announced April 29th 2016. And that should have been the end of it.
https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/3878053/kimba-not-going-nuclear/
Then following the Federal Election in July 2016, just a few months later, the portfolio of Minster of Resources was shifted from Josh Frydenberg and given to Matt Canavan. And then the goalposts for nomination were changed…. and suddenly Kimba was on the list again, with three different nominations – Napandee (Jeff Baldock’s land), Tola Park (Jeff Baldock’s land) and Lyndhurst (Brett and Michelle Rayner).
So effectively Jeff Baldock seemingly pursued this dump and the nomination process if you look at how many sites he submitted! And he became proactive by being an active member of the newly formed Working for Kimba’s Future (in 2016) AND one of the members of the Kimba Consultative Committee!
There was no apparent submissions required for these nominations in this “second intake” or at least it was not advertised! Many people in Kimba assumed that the previous ones submitted when Cortlinye and Pinkawillinie were nominated would be used for these two new sites of Napandee and Lyndhurst. Tola Park was not taken any further after the nominations were announced possibly because it had too many neighbours to deal with.
To bring the point absolutely to point – Jeff Baldock was intent on making this happen, by submitting his land, not once, not twice but three times! And inserting himself into the Working for Kimba’s Future Committee AND an active member of the Kimba Consultative Committee! Rowan Ramsey did not do this when nominating his land. Brett and Michelle Rayner did not do this when nominating their land. (And go to Hawker – Grant Chapman and peter Speakman did not do this when nominating their land – although granted they do not actually live in the area either!)
Why would you allow an OBVIOUS INVESTED PERSONAL INTEREST be on the Kimba Consultative Committee – where the members WERE SELECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT! And it gets worse than that – the required NUMBERS OF PEOPLE REQUIRED – 6 FOR, 6 AGAINST and 6 NEITHER – were not achieved for the committee when the selected names came back, and when questioned why this is so, were told that it didn’t matter because they were a non voting body. However that is not true as the Committee was used to decide the boundaries for the voting.
“5.20 Mrs Toni Scott outlined her concerns with the allocation of places to the Kimba Consultative Committee: Bruce McCleary…informed people at the meeting that the committee would consist of six people opposed, six people supportive and six people who are neutral. That was also again given to members of our group by the Minister—that that’s how the makeup of the committee would be. On the day that the committee was announced, we were extremely concerned that there were only four people who had expressed opposition who were actually on that committee…
Bruce Wilson took my concerns on board and told me that the makeup of the committee didn’t really matter because it’s a non-voting body.15 5.21 However, it does appear that the Kimba Consultative Committee (KCC) has
been asked to make at least on significant decision: We were told by Bruce McCleary that the KCC would be a non-decision making body. However, our concerns probably came to light a bit in the May meeting, when the KCC was asked to vote on whether we should request that the Minister consider altering the boundaries for the ballot.”
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanageme
ntfacility/~/media/Committees/economics_ctte/Wastemanagementfacility/report.pdf
Which leads to the use of the Local Government Act in the ballot process. It was not an accident of fortune that it was used to conduct the community ballot – as this meant that it could be used also to exclude Traditional Owners as well – particularly the Barngarla people in the case of Kimba.
“5.21 However, it does appear that the Kimba Consultative Committee (KCC) has been asked to make at least on significant decision: We were told by Bruce McCleary that the KCC would be a non decision making body. However, our concerns probably came to light a bit in the May meeting, when the KCC was asked to vote on whether we should request that the Minister consider altering the boundaries for the ballot.16 5.22 By contrast, Dr Susan Andersson explained how the Barndioota Consultative Committee had effectively been sidelined by DIIS and the Minister in relation to defining the boundaries of the community vote: …we spent hours deciding what community is and who will get the vote and whether that includes Quorn, whether outback areas get in and how broad this should be. We had an expert there to help us define community for two sessions. Plus it was on the agenda two or three times: you will get a vote; BCC will be inputting into what area gets a vote.
Then Minister Canavan arrived on his surprise visit and said, ‘The area will be this.’ At a BCC meeting we said, ‘Hang on, we haven’t had our vote yet.’ ‘Oh, haven’t you? You can still have your vote; we’ll listen to it.’ But he’d already made media and public announcements as to what the area was. The BCC had been working towards contributing to what defined the community.17”
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Wastemanageme
ntfacility/~/media/Committees/economics_ctte/Wastemanagementfacility/report.pdf
Although the Act as it stands requires consultation with Traditional Owners, freezing them deliberately out of the community ballot should not the intention of what is considered a right and Australian way of doing things in this day and age – given the scope and timeline of the nuclear waste being considered! Especially when the Local Government Act is only primarily used for Roads, Rates and Rubbish…and electing new council members!
Although the Barngarla people’s Native Title claim was determined on January 22nd 2015, their formal ownership occurred in June 2018, after first being lodged in 1996! Now when was the community ballot originally meant to be conducted for this dump? August 2018. This again is a reason why the Barngarla people are angry. When they conducted their very own ballot in 2019, through an independent ballot agent Australian Election
Company, after being denied one through the Council ballot with boundaries determined by the Minister, their results showed NO VOTES IN FAVOUR OF THE DUMP ON THEIR LAND – 209 eligible to vote, 83 voted NO 0 voted yes! So under Matt Canavan’s loose usage of figures, 100% NO and
0%YES.
But the real kicker are two other points. One that the Baldocks are now actively selling land with three neighbouring famers in Kimba in a large lot called the “Cunyarie Collection”, 9000ha as
advertised February 14, 2020 https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-businessjournal/
large-parcel-of-eyre-peninsula-cropping-land-on-the-market/newsstory/
74188105d449d5920685cdd74637780c
So much for all the media gab about it being good for the community! Actions speak louder than words!
And that the historical information about the announced site, as under the AECOM site study used some historical information from Jeff Baldock himself, who had had the land only for less than 10 years! “The soils at the site are a sandy loam on a relatively impermeable calcrete/silcrete layer at a depth of approximately 0.3m with no known localised flooding or water logging issues (source Jeff Baldock 22 Feb 2018). This is based on approximately 6 years on the property.” Page 72
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-
04/nrwmf_site_characterisation_technical_report_napandee.pdf
This is a flawed proposal from start to end. Having ONE person nominate their land is not the best way of dealing with nuclear waste. This is not considering the very best geological site for this waste.Nor the very safest site for this waste. Just a lottery for the landowner who would “win” the
nomination!
And the goal posts were forever changing. The neighbouring areas were farcical as the diameter of the inclusion zone became smaller and smaller…until it was only the immediate fence lines and have a road in-between and you’re not a neighbour! That is how the 100% neighbour figure was achieved. There were four immediate or direct neighbours to Napandee, but that became 3 after this ruling was used. And those 3 neighbours agreed with the site. The neighbour with the road in-between did not! https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=4211af77-bacf-4cb7-b03c-
98ba573b179b&subId=565156
The Conservation Parks nearby Napandee (Pinkawillinie Conservation Park and also the Gawler Ranges National Park) were not allowed a say as “neighbours” as they are State owned…. as determined by the guidelines set up Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, with advice from Geoscience Australia, independent market research company ORIMA Research the Kimba Consultative Committee… “A neighbour cannot be the Crown in any capacity, a district council or any
other State or Commonwealth government body”
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/nrwmf-neighbour-sentiment-surveyguidelines.
pdf
Senate should reject Nuclear Waste Bill and recommend new consultation involving all Barngarla people.
Carol Faulkner National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 53 . I am totally opposed to any legislative change that would allow a radioactive waste repository to be built on Barngarla traditional land in South Australia. The Barngarla people were not properly consulted. The consultation breached aboriginal regional consultation guidelines in not including all Barngarla people in the consultation process. The limits imposed on the consultation represents a denial of natural justice for the Barngarla people.
The consultation was manifestly flawed by not including all Barngarla people. The Barngarlapeople have a deep connection to their land. The consultation process was flawed in setting an arbitrary government-imposed distance from the proposed repository for the purpose of consultation.The Committee should reject the Bill and recommend a new round of consultation involving all Barngarla people.
In a corrupt and undemocratic process, the Napandee nuclear waste decision has ignored environmental safety dangers
Neville Reid National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 55 I can not believe the Government has not realized how Poorly positioned the Kimba on Eyre Peninsula site proposal is if there is a major leak which there is every chance of it happening with the transporting of old waste containers made of copper concrete and lead full of High Level waste even if the Government thinks naming it intermediate some how make it safer is naive at best and hardly well thought out .
And then storing it above ground near major industrial centers and transport route’s Road and Rail and Export ports is such an ill conceived plan by the LNP, that only understands the needs of commerce but they are putting the whole SA Economy at risk.
A Major leak will shut down these centers as it travels on prevailing winds whichare predominantly from the North West/ South West Whyalla 110km East, Pt Pirie 140km East, transport will be cut through the Eyre Highway then a strong cold front would push it north east to Pt Augusta 160 km North East north south east and west and south to the Eyre Peninsula.
As each cold front and trough passes over the state it will affect the Eyre Peninsula, the Mid North, the Far North, York Peninsula it will make it to Adelaide on a hard blowing North Westerly. Point what these areas contribute to the SA economy if they were affected this state’s would shut down. Get weather maps of prevailing winds and show them it well drift on the wind to Adelaide as well.
I am prepared to help with collating this information with the help of your office ifneed be.I have worked on the waters in this state since I was 14 years old I am now 55 Iknow how the winds prevail in this state.If this dump must go ahead the most logical place to put it is somewhere remoteas possible and stable in the desert some where it cannot affect ground water willnot be affected by Flooding and is safe from any attempt of attack by air fromTerrorists, How could they think in a shed above ground is safe even if they incase it concrete it is still a target.
I do not believe one small town that has been bribed by the Government can make this decision for the whole state this is one of the most corrupt and undemocratic processes I have seen in this country you as members for the people in the Australian Parliament have a duty to prevent such a foolish plan for some one off payments for toxic imported waste look further into their plans there Please protect us My children their Children this is a 50,000 to 100,000 year legacy it must go underground in an ISOLATED PLACE!!!!!If any one would like to discuss any points I have made in greater detail please contact me.
Senator Rex Patrick provides Federal Parliament with another option for nuclear waste storage
 Nuclear dump debate resumes, Stock Journal , QUINTON MCCALLUM, 18 Jun 2020, HOPEFUL: No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA secretary Toni Scott said the group were glad Rex Patrick had provided Federal Parliament with another option for the proposed radioactive waste facility.
SA Senator Rex Patrick’s move to allow the Woomera Prohibited Area to be selected as a site for the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility has been welcomed by No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA secretary Toni Scott, who said it was good he had provided Federal Parliament with another option. “We believe this facility should be in the right place, not the only place that is nominated by an individual,” she said. “The government have looked into the WPA before and it has a lot of suitable attributes, with waste already there, federal security, road and rail access, as well as being remote and not on productive agricultural land. “We believe it’s likely the most suitable place in SA if our state really wishes to pursue the path of hosting a radioactive waste facility.” With a senate inquiry into the Nuclear Radioactive Waste Management Facility ongoing, the dump’s location is still subject to debate, despite the federal government declaring Napandee, 20 kilometres west of Kimba, as the site in February. SA senator Rex Patrick has announced he plans to move amendments to the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Amendment Bill to allow for the nomination of land within the Woomera Prohibited Area as the site, rather than Kimba. “The Federal Parliament will be given a choice on whether the site should be on prime agricultural land on the Eyre Peninsula, in a community bitterly divided about it being built there, or in the remote and highly-secure WPA where a significant amount of low and intermediate level radioactive waste has been stored for more than two decades,” he said. Mr Patrick described the previous site selection process as “highly-flawed” and one that “pitched local against local”. He also said appropriate location prerequisites of 65 per cent community support, and support from neighbouring landholders and traditional landowners were never achieved. Mr Patrick said Woomera was the obvious choice for the site, being remote, having “enormous tracts of land that are not used for weapons testing” and already storing a significant amount of radioactive waste……..https://www.stockjournal.com.au/story/6796460/nuclear-dump-debate-resumes/?cs=4894&fbclid=IwAR0Q0ch76TbATXYQo5hKuI7fMl12p9Sn9VXBgBu0Dm4A3aZQ5HcHJKVKlMs |
|
|
South Australia outlaws nuclear facilities, but yet not S.A. Liberal MP voted against the waste dump!
Kim Mavromatis No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia
Time to let ANSTO sink!
Paul Waldon Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges, 20 June 20,
A farmer come nuclear profiteer maybe reckless and foolish enough to embrace a radioactive dump in the agriculture backyard of his community.
But remember that backyard could be your pantry!
When the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science has reduced the value of Kimba and South Australia’s premium agriculture environment to that of a sacrificial anode, it’s time to let ANSTO sink. https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
1 This month
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
