Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

South Australia’s No Dump Alliance sends a powerful submission opposing Federal nuclear waste dump plan for Flinders Ranges

The project has been framed by the government since its inception as a project where only local communities will be consulted.

 Such an approach is untenable as this is a federal government initiative to develop a purpose built facility for the disposal and storage of Australia’s radioactive waste. This is a national issue that demands national attention and assessment. While it may be politically expedient, it is neither credible nor responsible for the federal government to treat this issue as a local government or community matter.

 “The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association remains totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallerberdina”

There is a strong risk that the waste could become stranded and forgotten about should future governments fail to find the finances or political will to dispose of the waste deep underground.

the residents who are in favour of the proposal have not been given full, complete and unbiased information to inform their decision.

No Dump Alliance submission into the appropriateness and thoroughness of the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility Introduction  .” Vince Coulthard, CEO of the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association. (Submission No. 45) 

The No Dump Alliance is a broad cross-section of South Australian civil society, including Indigenous, public health, trade union, faith and environment groups, academics and concerned individuals that formed in response to proposals to open South Australia up to international high-level nuclear waste importation and dumping. The Alliance also opposes the federal government’s continued push to establish a national nuclear waste dump and store in regional SA.

The No Dump Alliance supports local communities to voice their concerns, welcomes state government legislation that prohibits a nuclear waste dump in SA, and calls for a better process for the management of Australia’s nuclear waste. The No Dump Alliance welcomes this inquiry and the opportunity to contribute this submission. The Alliance also encourages the Committee to hold hearings in the regional areas of Hawker and Kimba to hear firsthand from the communities on the front line. The Alliance also welcomes hearings in Canberra to consider the views of national and state stakeholders and groups. This is a national project and is of national concern.

Spokespeople for the Alliance include Vivianne McKenzie from the Flinders Ranges and Peter Woolford, No Radioactive Waste Dump on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA President and Jamie Newlyn from the MUA SA Branch.

The radioactive waste to be disposed and stored is both “low level” and “long lived intermediate level”. The latter must be managed safely for many thousands of years and current best practice to realise this is by deep geological disposal.

No Dump Alliance members have been closely involved with the current federal waste plan and process and concluded that the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia is flawed and neither appropriate nor thorough. We maintain that the current project should be discontinued.

The following specifically addresses the terms of reference.

  1. a)the financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;

We believe that inviting private landowners to nominate their land for financial gain far in excess of the land value is a non- scientific way to determine a location for a national radioactive waste facility. We also believe that a single party nomination model cannot be credible considered to represent a ‘volunteer’ process.

  1. b) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:
  2. i) The definition of ‘broad community support’

 Since May 2015 the federal government and its DIIS representatives have consistently refused to define “broad community consent” in both public meetings and in writing. Members of our organisation have been told different definitions but none have been able to be confirmed in writing.

The figure 65% has been mentioned and we believe this figure was determined by the result in the flawed Orima telephone survey which purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process.

 A postal vote of Kimba council residents resulted in a 56.5% positive result to proceed to Phase 2, which is well short of the 65% previously mentioned. We reject the claim that this is broad community support, rather it is a sign of a much-divided community.

  1. ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage. The figure 65% has been mentioned and we believe this figure was determined by the result in the flawed Orima telephone survey which purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process. A postal vote of Kimba council residents resulted in a 56.5% positive result to proceed to Phase 2, which is well short of the 65% previously mentioned. We reject the claim that this is broad community support, rather it is a sign of a much-divided community. ii) How ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage.

The NRWMF Community Sentiment Survey purported to survey whether residents of the Flinders Ranges council district (Hawker, Quorn and Cradock) wished to proceed to Phase 2 of the site selection process.

This telephone survey was incomplete and inadequate because it did not survey the entire population of the area and was biased because it only surveyed residents with landline telephones. The flawed survey only asked residents if they wanted to proceed to the evaluation of the site and not actually build a facility. Flinders Ranges council residents have not had an opportunity for a complete postal vote conducted by the AEC.

The Adnyamathanha people are the Traditional Owners of the Barndioota site and their representative body the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA) has repeatedly expressed clear opposition. The No Dump Alliance believes that it is critical that the views and position of the overwhelming majority of Traditional Owners are listened to and respected in relation to the appropriateness of a site.

A postal vote was held for the Kimba council region and resulted in a 56.6% positive result to proceed to Stage 2. This survey did not include the views of the Traditional Owners from the area who must be consulted and should have been consulted at the initial nomination.

 We believe that both survey results were influenced strongly by the offer of $2 million to be spent in the community, and that this was an intentional and deliberate inducement to sway the community opinion towards a positive result.

Despite seeking clarification, we have not been able to ascertain what the procedure and process will be to evaluate whether there is broad community consent should the government wish the project to proceed from Phase 3 to construction.

  1. c) how any need for Indigenous support has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including how Indigenous support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage;

The federal government has stated that no individual group will have a right of veto. The Citizen’s Jury into the former Weatherill state government’s international radioactive waste facility proposal found overwhelming support for the right of veto for Aboriginal people. Former Premier Weatherill wrote to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on 24 October 2017 outlining concerns about a national nuclear waste dump and store plan and recommending that local Aboriginal people should have the right of veto over any dump being built on their lands. The relevant quote from Mr Weatherill’s letter is as follows:

“I recently met with Traditional Owners of the Adnyamathanha community who expressed deep concern about the proposed site at Hawker, and the potential impacts on Adnyamathanha Cultural Heritage”…….” This engagement process was insightful and highlighted the need for a bigger conversation about how Aboriginal people want to be seen, valued and recognised and on ‘unfinished businesses from the past. In particular, Aboriginal people’s history with the nuclear industry demonstrates a need for significant healing. In recognition, the South Australian government committed to provide a local Aboriginal community with a final right of veto over any future facility proposed on their lands. I recommend that the Commonwealth Government now consider adopting a similar policy position as part of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility process.”

 In the NRWMF community sentiments survey by Orima Research released in April 2016 it shows on page 60 of the report that 97% of Indigenous people opposed the facility at Barndioota.

 The Orima report did not table any views of Indigenous people in relation to support for the project to continue.

The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA), composed of 23 different organisations and interest groups released a statement in May 2016 opposing a nuclear waste facility.

Recently on March 24, 2018 the ATLA board reaffirmed opposition with the passing of this resolution:

 “The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association remains totally opposed to the nuclear waste dump at Wallerberdina

This is our land, our culture and we must have veto over this toxic waste being dumped in our country. Udnyus come and go but we will be here forever. We say NO to the waste dump, for our grandchildren and their grandchildren and many generations to come.”

In the 2016/2017 ATLA annual report stated: “The National Waste Dump continues to be an issue and ATLA remains totally opposed to the waste dump at Wallerberdina. ATLA has been treated very poorly in this whole process and it has been a real struggle to ensure our voice is heard.”

 The No Dump Alliance understands that ATLA was not approached or engaged until the NRWMF project was into stage 2.

Surveys are not assessing the views of Adnyamathanha people who live outside the region; with a significant part of the community living in Port Augusta and Adelaide.

  1. d) whether and/or how the Government’s ‘community benefit program’ payments affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;

 We believe that the government has linked the project to the promises of jobs and community grants as an inducement to deliberately influence community consent. We believe this is intentional and deliberate, and designed to sway the community into returning a positive result towards the project.

There have been many discussions and assertions by local residents that they have decided to be in favour of the facility by the mere fact that the government says it will bring jobs and money. This is despite scant detail being provided by the project proponent about the employment and economic impacts of the planned facility.

  1. e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring; and

The project has been framed by the government since its inception as a project where only local communities will be consulted.

 Such an approach is untenable as this is a federal government initiative to develop a purpose built facility for the disposal and storage of Australia’s radioactive waste. This is a national issue that demands national attention and assessment. While it may be politically expedient, it is neither credible nor responsible for the federal government to treat this issue as a local government or community matter.

The community to be consulted for the Barndioota facility was originally designated at a 50km radius around the dump, which was then extended to include Quorn and the whole Flinders Ranges council.

 The community to be consulted for the Kimba facility was designated as residents of the Kimba council on the electoral roll.

The construction of a facility could have a significant impact on the reputation of either community, with a detrimental impact on the tourism and farming industries upon which the communities depend.

  1. f) any other related matters.

The radioactive waste facility is intended to dispose and store both “low-level” and “longlived intermediate level” radioactive waste.

The facility is intended as an “interim” location for the “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste, as world’s best practice currently views deep geological disposal as the preferred management option. The waste would be stored above ground, as the current government does not have a site or a process to determine a site to build its final deep geological burial facility. There is a strong risk that the waste could become stranded and forgotten about should future governments fail to find the finances or political will to dispose of the waste deep underground.

Our members and colleagues have attended many of the federal government’s presentations and have found them biased and flawed towards focus on the “low-level” waste, and with no attention given to the extremely long-term risks involved in the storage of “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste.

The presentations have also failed to acknowledge any terrorism risks of creation of a “dirty bomb” from the “intermediate” waste.

 We therefore believe that the residents who are in favour of the proposal have not been given full, complete and unbiased information to inform their decision.

A decision this serious to accept the so-called “interim” storage of “long-lived intermediate level” radioactive waste that has implications for the future security of South Australia and should not be solely or primarily made by the small community of people who currently reside in the districts of the Flinders Ranges and Kimba councils. Such an approach also deeply disenfranchises communities along the extensive transport corridors any such facility would require.

Conclusion

 The members of the No Dump Alliance maintain that the site selection process for a national radioactive waste storage facility at Kimba and Hawker in South Australia is flawed, and neither appropriate nor thorough. We share the view held by many civil society groups  that the current project should be halted whilst a thorough national audit of radioactive waste is conducted with an independently assessed review of the range of options available to best manage Australia’s waste. Our members and spokespeople continue to witness and seek to highlight the high level of stress and pressure this plan is causing in the communities of Hawker and Kimba. In December 2017 the No Dump Alliance supported a ‘Don’t Dump on SA’ rally on the steps of Parliament House in Adelaide. Invited speakers made the following statements about support for the National Radioactive Waste Management Project:

 “I was the member of parliament that tried to get the last dump on the road at Woomera. The Kimba experience has taught me a very great amount. Quite frankly, the government and ANSTO cannot be trusted with this job. They cannot be trusted with the management of nuclear waste.” Barry Wakelin, former federal Liberal politician. “

Last year we voted as the Uniting Church in SA to stand in solidarity with the Adnyamathanha people in opposing the placing of a nuclear waste dump on their land. We are here today renewing our commitment to that solidarity and to join with you as fellow South Australians in this resolve.” Dr Deidre Palmer, former moderator Uniting Church (SA)

“The Flinders Ranges is not the right place for any nuclear waste facility. The purported benefits of this dump, if realised, will equal only 1% of jobs in tourism and just 2% of one year of tourism income for the Flinders Ranges and outback. Any drop-in tourism will wipe out any possible economic benefit. Everyone, including the government and ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation), agree that the Flinders is not suitable for long term disposal of intermediate level waste, but that is where it will be stored until another site is proposed, accepted and built. This may take decades or centuries and may never happen. We are creating a toxic legacy for our children and grandchildren. Safeguards and legislation put in place today will be brushed aside when it’s convenient for future governments. This can never be the right place to bring intermediate level waste.” Dr Susi Andersson, Hawker resident and local GP. “

We stand with Traditional Owners of this land, we stand with the farmers of this land”. Jamie Newlyn, Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia SA Branch and No Dump Alliance spokesperson.

 “The Flinders Ranges is an iconic area, people come from all over the world to visit. I’m saddened to hear that the government wants to spoil this beautiful, pristine area with a devastating piece of junk. We certainly understand that there has to be somewhere they can store it, but you don’t take a pristine area and destroy that. We ask that the state government stand with the Adnyamathanha community to stop this waste dump

Advertisements

May 25, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Toni Scott asks: will the government hound the Kimba and Hawker communities until they support nuclear waste dumping?

How many times can the Government come back to a community and hound them until they gain broad community support?

I recommend that for something as signiWficant as building a permanent facility hosting hazardous waste it is imperative to have broad community support of no less than 70% absolute majority (meaning 70% of those eligible to vote)

Toni Scott SUBMISSION TO SENATE INQUIRY INTO THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. (Submission No. 44, with 4 attachments)   Thank you for the opportunity to present my views to the senate inquiry into the process for a  national radioactive waste management facility at Kimba and Hawker in SA.

I am an active resident of the Kimba Community and am involved with many community organisations within the town. I own and operate a farming business with my husband, we have 3 small children and I also work part time in Administration at the local Hospital.

Over the past 2 years my husband and I have been involved with this process as direct neighbours of the first round of nominations at Kimba. We have found the process inconsistencies extremely frustrating and stressful.

I ask that you please take my views and recommendations into consideration and I would be happy to be called as a witness to provide further information in the form of a hearing.

  1. a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquision of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines;

All financial incentives been offered to individuals should be made available through public information including monies received through access agreements.

It is my view that communities should nominate to host the facility not individual land owners. This process could include local council coordinated public consultation including information from both sides of the argument prior to nominating, if there is broad community support from a town then the nomination is submitted instead of the other way around.

  1. b) How the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:
  1. i) The definition of broad community support and
  2. ii) How broad community support has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage

The definition of broad community support is very vague. The Minister has refused to set a% of support required for the process to progress through the stages. I have submitted a freedom of information request asking for communication between the Department and Minister Canavan outlining information on how they intend to define broad community support. My FOI request was rejected and I am currently waiting for a case manager to follow up for me through the Australian Information Commission.

Phase 1 Summary Report 2016 ii – The independent Orima Survey indicated 51% of the Kimba Community was not opposed. 582 submissions were received and 80% of them were opposed.

– Summary of Engagement in the Kimba Community December 2016iii – This engagement was prior to the second round of nominations in Kimba. The Working for Futures group indicated to the department that there had been a large increase in support. Results showed there was in fact only a slight shift, of the 300 members that spoke to the Department 56% were supportive of a new nomination.

– Phase 1 Summary Report 2017iv – The Department received 112 written submissions from Kimba residents with 86% opposed. A total of 396 letters were received in relation to the Kimba nominations but for those from outside of the Kimba council boundary results were not reported on. This included letters from people only 20kms out of Kimba who fall outside the council boundary or land holders with property only 10km from nominated site but they fall outside of the council boundary.

AEC Results v– 56% voted yes to go through to stage 2 of the process this % is of those that voted (it is actually only 50% of eligible voters)

How many times can the Government come back to a community and hound them until they gain broad community support?

I recommend that for something as significant as building a permanent facility hosting hazardous waste it is imperative to have broad community support of no less than 70% absolute majority (meaning 70% of those eligible to vote)

  1. d) Whether and/or how the Governments community benefit program payment affect broad community and Indigenous community sentiment;

 The $2 million dollar community benefit fund can only be seen as a bribe for people to vote to go through to the next stage. The Department representatives have encouraged people to dream about what the money could do for the community. Many of the projects they have suggested including improved phone and internet service and better health facilities are all things that our town like all other Australian Communities should be entitled to anyway.

  1. e) Whether wider (Eyre Peninsula or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so how this is occurring or should be occurring;

I believe the views of those living close to the facility are ultimately affected the most and therefor their opinion is of the highest importance closely followed by people living or owning property in the community of where the land is nominated. I don’t believe the boundary should be measured by a council boundary it should be set by a radius and should be prioritised in the following order

– Neighbours within the 10km radius views should be of the highest ranking

– Residents & land holders within 50km of the property should all have the opportunity to vote.

Residents of the Eyre Peninsula and communities along potential freight routes should be consulted and their submissions taken into consideration.

– South Australians should have the opportunity to have their say on the State Legislation prohibiting the building of any Radioactive Waste Facilities within our state.

  1. f) Any other related matters.

Community members find it very difficult to trust the process when time and time again issues of unfairness arise, I have many other concerns including but not limited to:

– In the National Waste Management Act 2012 it states $10 million will be credited to the host state or territory to be spent on health, education and infrastructure.

It should be the communities money not the state and the Community should decide if, when and how it is spent.

– Throughout this second consultation neighbours from the 10km radius have been disregarded and only those with an immediate fence line have been considered neighbours. This is inconsistent with our first round of consultation and with the consultation at Hawker.

– The Kimba Consultative Committee (which I am a delegate on) was supposed to consist of an even spread of people who are opposed, neutral and supportive of the facility. Unfortunately of the 15 committee reps only 4 people are opposed.

– The Community Liaison Officer was supposed to be a person with neutral views but to no surprise the Department employed a local who has been openly supportive of the facility. Community members who are opposed find it difficult to speak openly with the Liaison officer about their concerns.

– For a process to be considered truly transparent information such as nominated sites, nominator financial payments and information regarding processes around broad community support need to be made readily available to the public.

I strongly believe prior to a final community vote as to whether a facility is to be sited in a community, members of the community NEED to be given all the information in writing including:

  1. What percentage of support will be required for broad community support.
  2. Exactly what waste will be stored at the facility.
  3. What will the facility look like.
  4. What are the jobs that will be required to run the facility and exactly how many are there.
  1. How much money will the community receive and how will it be distributed.

i FOI Internal Review Letter

ii Phase 1 Summary Report 2016

iii Summary of Engagement in the Kimba Community December 2016

iv Phase 1 Summary Report 2017

v AEC report

Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia

May 25, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

The Custody Notification System saves Aboriginal lives. Why isn’t it national?

Gerry Georgatos   @GerryGeorgatosle’ 14 Mar 2018

‘We know that notifying an Aboriginal legal service
when an Aboriginal person is arrested saves lives and costs little.
The lack of nationwide action is unacceptable

‘The CNS has been championed by the federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Nigel Scullion.
We have had a number of conversations about the CNS and he gets it,
he understands the need for it to be rolled out nationally.

‘He saved the CNS in NSW and the ACT by funding it to mid-2019,
pulling together the $1.8m out of his portfolio,
even though it was the responsibility of other portfolio holders.

‘The CNS has also been championed by WA’s Senator Sue Lines
who knows how desperately her home state needs it.

‘The Western Australian state Labor party has committed to implementing the CNS when elected.
It is time every state and territory does the right thing and implements the CNS.
There is no greater legacy than to save lives.

‘I will wrap up with the words of members of Ms Dhu’s familyUncle Shaun Harris said,
“We do not want this to happen to anyone else.
Our families are heartbroken and the pain has not left us.”
Ms Dhu’s mother, Della Roe, said,
“My daughter should be with us today.
Her loss haunts me each day and it will remain but it will give me
at least an ounce of peace to see the CNS implemented.”’
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/the-custody-notification-system-saves-aboriginal-lives-why-isnt-it-national

May 24, 2018 Posted by | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL | Leave a comment

Environmental Defenders Office shows up flaws in Department of Industry, Science and Innovation’s report on nuclear waste siting

With all of the proposed sites there was strong opposition to moving onto phase 2 of the process. The two preferred sites chosen, both in South Australia, also had strong opposition, but the strong opposition was slightly less that the other three sites. Slightly less opposition cannot amount to ‘broad community support’.

Barndioota site:

The Phase 1 summary report also states that 65% of those surveyed were in support of progressing to stage 2. From our assessment of the raw data, this figure is incorrect. The data shows a figure of 51% of those surveyed being opposed to progressing to stage 2.3 Additionally, there was almost unanimous indigenous opposition to this site.

The Kimba site does not meet the Government’s criteria as having ‘broad community support’ and needs to be abandoned as a potential national radioactive waste facility

All Australians should have the right to have a say on this issue. Furthermore communities along any transport routes need to be informed of the risks and consulted in relation to the proposed sites before any site is chosen. This is an essential part of ascertaining support for the project .

 

Environmental Defenders Office. Melissa Ballantyne Coordinator/Solicitor Environmental Defenders Office (SA) Inc.   Submission to the Senate Committee Inquiring into Site Selection for the National Nuclear Waste Facility (Submission No. 43) 

The Environmental Defenders Office (SA) Inc (“the EDO”) is an independent community legal centre with over twenty-five years of experience specialising in environmental and planning law. EDO functions include legal advice and representation, law reform and policy work and community legal education. The EDO appreciates the opportunity to provide a submission to this Inquiry, which is seeking comment on a number of Terms of Reference.

The EDO submission relates to the following terms of reference: “The Government has stated that it will not impose such a facility on an unwilling community, with particular reference to:

.b) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process, including:

  1. The definition of ‘broad community support’ and ii) how ‘broad community support’ has been or will be determined for each process advancement stage …………..e) whether wider (Eyre Peninsular or state-wide) community views should be taken into consideration and, if so, how this is occurring or should be occurring; …….” 1. Broad community support

Continue reading

May 23, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Friends of the Earth debunk the propaganda of pro nuclear shill Ben Heard

Neal Blue – General Atomics

Ben Heard and the fake environment group ‘Bright New World’ that accepts secret corporate donations  Foe.org  This webpage factually rebuts some of the misinformation promulgated by paid nuclear lobbyist Ben Heard, whose fake environment group / corporate front group ‘Bright New World’ accepts secret corporate donations.

For factual rebuttals of the misinformation promulgated by other nuclear advocates please visit: https://nuclear.foe.org.au/propaganda/

Would you do consulting work for this company or promote its uranium mine in South Australia? Ben Heard has done both.

Scientists debunk the disgraceful anti-renewables propaganda of Ben Heard, the paid nuclear lobbyist whose fake environment group accepts secret corporate donations

Can we get 100 percent of our energy from renewable sources?

New article gathers the evidence to address the sceptics

Public release ‒ 17 May 2018

Lappeenranta University of Technology

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/luot-cwg051718.php

More dangerous misinformation – nuclear power/weapons connections

Ben Heard – the paid nuclear lobbyist whose fake environment group accepts secret corporate donations – claims that: “Peace is furthered when a nation embraces nuclear power, because it makes that nation empirically less likely to embark on a nuclear weapons program. That is the finding of a 2017 study published in the peer-reviewed journal International Security.”

That’s a lie twice over. Firstly, it isn’t true. Secondly, Heard’s assertion isn’t supported by the International Security journal article, written by Nicholas Miller from Dartmouth College.  Miller’s article downplays the power/weapons connections but much of the information in his article undermines his own argument (and Heard’s). In Miller’s own words, “more countries pursued nuclear weapons in the presence of a nuclear energy program than without one”, “the annual probability of starting a weapons program is more than twice as high in countries with nuclear energy programs…..https://nuclear.foe.org.au/ben-heard-secret-corporate-donations/

May 23, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | 1 Comment

Will Australia’s Prime Minister Turnbull cave in to USA pressure for Australia to join in USA efforts against Iran ?

US calls on Australia to pressure Iran out of nuclear weapons program, Perth Now, Peter MitchellAAP, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has called on Australia and other nations to help execute the Trump administration’s tough new campaign to ensure Iran “has no path to a nuclear weapon – not now, not ever”.

Pompeo, in his first major foreign policy speech since becoming secretary of state, on Monday used fiery language to outline America’s strategy after US President Donald Trump earlier this month defied the wishes of Australia, France, Great Britain and other allies and pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal.

He said the US was ready impose the “strongest sanctions in history” against Iran and listed 12 demands the regime must follow, including providing the International Atomic Energy Agency with unqualified access to all sites throughout Iran.

“In the strategy we laid out today, we want the support of our most important allies and partners in the region and around the globe,” Pompeo said in his address to the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC.

“Certainly our European friends, but much more than that.

“I want the Australians, the Bahrainis, the Egyptians, the Indians, the Japanese, the Jordanians, the Kuwaitis, the Omanis, the Qataris, the Saudi Arabians, South Korea, the UAE, and many, many others worldwide to join in this effort against the Islamic Republic of Iran…….. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said on May 9 he regretted Mr Trump’s decision to pull out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal between Iran and the US, Britain, Russia, France, China and Germany.https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/donald-trump/us-calls-on-australia-to-pressure-iran-out-of-nuclear-weapons-program-ng-b88843974z

May 23, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics international | Leave a comment

Australia’s Federal government process for nuclear waste dump siting disrespects indigenous community

It has been said that this dump will not go ahead if the community is opposed to it, therefore we don’t understand why this discussion is even still happening given that the clear majority of Traditional Owners are so opposed to it?

This area is currently under some protection from the Aboriginal Heritage Act of SA however, we are concerned that the Federal Government may attempt to override this state legislation. This concern is increased given that the government has suspended federal environmental and Aboriginal heritage protections during the siting period for the planned dump.

ATLA is in partnership with IBA in owning the Wilpena Pound Resort and we don’t want a waste dump to affect our tourism future.

It is NOT international best practice to go against the Traditional Owners and we call upon the federal government to stop this proposal immediately

How can you determine Indigenous support, for each process advancement stage, when ATLA was not approached until the project entered phase 2.

Adnyamathanha Traditional Land Association RNTBC, Submission to the senate inquiry into the Selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia. Introduction (Submission No.42)

The Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association RNTBC is the peak body for all matters relating to land, culture, heritage, language and native title for Adnyamathanha people. Adnyamathanha country includes the oldest mountain range in the world and we have the oldest living culture in the world.

Adnyamathanha people are important keepers of the knowledge of this country that is recognised worldwide. This is a very important role for each and every one of us to keep this culture strong and to protect this mountain range and surrounding country and ensure our knowledges are understood by future generations.

The Association has been set up on a culturally appropriate model that allows all Adnyamathanha people to have representation on this peak body. We have a governing committee of up to 24 members and each of these members represents a particular group of Adnyamathanha people. Our Board of Directors meet throughout the year to make the decisions in relation to the matters arising and where necessary decisions are brought back to the community for discussion and ratification.

This has been a very successful process for us all with our Consent Determination being handed down in 2009. We have been united in this process and by working together we have really achieved a great deal for our people and for the future generations. We have only achieved this because we work so hard to keep our culture strong and we were able to prove that we know our country and we know our story lines and our language is kept strong.

ATLA is in partnership with IBA to purchase the Wilpena Pound Resort.

Muda

Yura Muda is our term for our spiritual and cultural beliefs, it gives us our law, our rules for living and defines our spiritual beliefs and our boundaries. We believe our Muda in a way that is deeper than most other religions.

Some areas of our Muda have been disturbed or destroyed, by mining and other developments over the years and this causes a great deal of distress to our people. Once the land is destroyed the Muda is gone, we can no longer pass on that cultural and spiritual information to our younger generations and this of course effects our cultural survival.

The Waste Dump

The nuclear waste facility proposed for the Wallerberdina/Barndioota is in our country. We understand that this federal plan seeks to deal with the disposal of low level waste and the interim storage of intermediate level waste for a non-defined period at the facility site. In this submission we refer to the plan as a dump, please note that this refers to both the dump and store concepts. Our organisation has voted on several occasions stating we are totally opposed to the waste dump in that particular area.

We have been opposed to this dump from day one and we have made our views public where ever possible. Continue reading

May 21, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Australian government increases pressure for nuclear waste dump – (will the Senate Inquiry be irrelevant?)

Make peace by defying SA nuclear dump  https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=55371 Michele Madigan 17 May 2018

As Aboriginal elder and justice campaigner Kevin Buzzacott has said: ‘If we can’t make peace for the country, and look after the country — what’s the good of us?’

Sunday 29 April 2018 marked the second anniversary for many such South Australian peacemakers. It was on that date in 2016, at 2.30am, that Adnyamathanha Elder Aunty Enice Marsh heard the news that the federal government had ‘chosen’ the Flinders Ranges to be the ‘top of the list’ site of the proposed national nuclear dump.

Incredulous at hearing this on the 8am news, I rang Aunty Enice. ‘I’m sitting here trying to eat my weetbix and keep my thoughts calm,’ she said. ‘But do you know what I was thinking? Colonisation is again attacking the First Nations people and poisoning their land.’

For her colleague, Regina McKenzie, it was ‘like getting news of a death’: death to a 60,000-year cultural heritage.

Since then, South Australia’s international grain farming area of Kimba has again emerged as an alternative site. At last month’s first joint meeting in Port Augusta, both Kimba and Flinders Ranges peoples opposing the dump reported that after ‘a quiet last few months’, the pressure from the federal government is now back on with a vengeance.

The announcement of $2 million in ‘untied’ government grants to various local applicants in each region has been integral to this. What was surprising to the Kimba opponents, faced with the absence of five of their key colleagues, was the unannounced (at least to them) appearance of the Minister, National Party Senator Matt Canavan, at this announcement.

When challenged about this lack of notice, the senior public servant’s response was that he hadn’t been ‘really sure’ that the Minister was coming. Kimba opponents cite this as just another example of the government campaign strategy: ‘It’s all about stealth.’

The Minister also announced that the Australian Electoral Commission local voting for and against either region becoming Australia’s national nuclear dump would take place on 20 August. Currently there is a Senate Estimates Committee examining the process of site selection and related matters, with its recommendations due on 13 August — leaving hardly time for a dispersion, reading and respectful cognisance of its findings prior to the vote.

Political maneuvering is again evident in the insistence of the Minister to tightly restrict the voting area — as if the small numbers of local people will be the only ones affected. Kimba farmer opponents warn constantly of the danger to their international markets of other crops and produce (such as Port Lincoln’s seafood trade) on the whole of the Eyre Peninsula region.

The oft-repeated government saying: ‘We will not impose the federal nuclear dump on an unwilling community’ continues to fly in the face of the lately renewed state legislation, which actually forbids the transportation of such waste into South Australia.

On 28 April, some of us ‘southerners’ joined locals at the glorious Wilpena Pound (pictured) site to inform national and international tourists of the Australian government’s intention to make the region home to Australia’s highest level nuclear waste — if permitted.

Predictable reactions to the news (‘Incredible!’ ‘Why?‘) included inquiries about the distance from the Pound. Amazement followed the map sighting: that any government would deliberately jeopardise such an internationally recognised site by proposing, just 40km away, a dump site for nuclear waste. Measured by radioactivity, over 90 per cent of the waste would be intermediate long lived nuclear waste from the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney — waste that will be hazardous for thousands of years.

Our dinner at the camping ground was accompanied by ring-necked parrots and, later, flocks of apostle birds. In the morning, my prayer companions included a mother kangaroo, who fossicked among the leaves while keeping herself discreetly behind the wire fence. Her joey however was a close encounter type, constantly circling within a metre of my chair.

The Flinders is an idyllic place. Kimba is important grain farming country. No wonder much of the emphasis in the government campaign, and by local proponents for both regions, continues to be on the low level nuclear waste component.

With the campaign stretching past its third year since the announcement of the respective leaseholders simply ‘offering’ their respective properties, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal opponents are rock solid in their constant efforts ‘to look after the country’. But it has come at huge personal and communal costs.

Barry Wakelin, the retired Coalition federal member, is one of the farmers fiercely opposing the plan. In the face of groundwater, transport and serious, hugely long-term safety risks, Wakelin insists, ‘This is a national issue, not something that a regional community should be left to deal with.’

A national response (in the form of a petition being circulated by Conservation South Australia) can be made in solidarity with the country and peoples who will be affected by the proposed site. Click here to sign the petition.

 

May 19, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Response to ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems’

   Science Direct 18 May 18 

May 19, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, reference, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Scientists refute Ben Heard’s paper opposing reneweable energy

Can we get 100 percent of our energy from renewable sources? https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/luot-cwg051718.php New article gathers the evidence to address the sceptics LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 

Is there enough space for all the wind turbines and solar panels to provide all our energy needs? What happens when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow? Won’t renewables destabilise the grid and cause blackouts?

In a review paper last year in the high-ranking journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Master of Science Benjamin Heard (at left) and colleagues presented their case against 100% renewable electricity systems. They doubted the feasibility of many of the recent scenarios for high shares of renewable energy, questioning everything from whether renewables-based systems can survive extreme weather events with low sun and low wind, to the ability to keep the grid stable with so much variable generation.

Now scientists have hit back with their response to the points raised by Heard and colleagues.The researchers from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Delft University of Technology and Aalborg University have analysed hundreds of studies from across the scientific literature to answer each of the apparent issues. They demonstrate that there are no roadblocks on the way to a 100% renewable future. Continue reading

May 19, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, reference, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Busting the pro thorium nuclear spin

Should Australia consider thorium nuclear power?  The Conversation 

Today, advocates of thorium typically point to a variety of advantages over uranium. These include fail-safe reactor operation, because most thorium reactor designs are incapable of an explosion or meltdown, as was seen at Chernobyl or Fukushima. Another is resistance to weapons proliferation, because thorium reactors create byproducts that make the fuel unsuitable for use in nuclear weapons.Other advantages include greater abundance of natural reserves of thorium, less radioactive waste and higher utilisation of fuel in thorium reactors. Thorium is often cast as “good nuclear”, while uranium gets to carry the can as “bad nuclear”.

Not so different

While compelling at first glance, the details reveal a somewhat more murky picture. The molten salt architecture which gives certain thorium reactors high intrinsic safety equally applies to proposed fourth-generation designs using uranium. It is also true that nuclear physics technicalities make thorium much less attractive for weapons production, but it is by no means impossible; the USA and USSR each tested a thorium-based atomic bomb in 1955.

Other perceived advantages similarly diminish under scrutiny. There is plenty of uranium ore in the world and hence the fourfold abundance advantage of thorium is a moot point. Producing less long-lived radioactive waste is certainly beneficial, but the vexed question remains of how to deal with it.

Stating that thorium is more efficiently consumed is the most mischievous of the claimed benefits. Fast-breeder uranium reactors have much the same fuel efficiency as thorium reactors. However, they weren’t economic as the price of uranium turned out to rather low.

May 18, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Senate climate report is a warning for Australia’s military

Climate change warning for Australia’s military    Former defence chief Admiral Chris Barrie, who led Australian forces until 2002, says a new Senate committee report on the security risks of climate change must be taken seriously. SBS World News, By James Elton-Pym  , 18 May 18 

 

May 18, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

Climate change is a clear and present danger to Australia’s security – Senate report

Senate report: climate change is a clear and present danger to Australia’s security, The Conversation,  Matt McDonald, Associate Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland, 

The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade yesterday presented its report on the national security implications of climate change.

The report makes several findings and recommendations, noting at the outset that climate change has a range of important security implications, both domestically and internationally.

Tellingly, none of the expert submissions questioned the rationale for this inquiry, nor the claim that climate change challenges Australian national security.

The report concludes that:

the consensus from the evidence (is) that climate change is exacerbating threats and risks to Australia’s national security.

Significantly, it also notes that climate change threatens both state and human security in the Australian context. Here are some of the key security implications.

Sea-level rises and natural disasters are key challenges

The report emphasises the risks posed by rising sea levels and an increase in the frequency and intensity of environmental stress (droughts and floods, for example) and natural disasters such as cyclones. In turn, it notes that these could trigger population movements, with people displaced by extreme weather events or rising seas.

This, the report argues, would have significant implications for the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions involving the ADF have increased significantly in Australia and our region in recent years. The report predicts that the ADF will face even more pressure to carry out this type of mission in the future.

In its submission, the Department of Defence pointed out that the ADF was not established to provide these roles. The report recommends the creation of a senior leadership position within Defence to plan and manage disaster relief missions both here and abroad.

Australia, and its backyard, are particularly vulnerable

The report notes that Australia and its region are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Australia’s population is largely clustered in coastal areas, and this is also true of the Asian region generally and the Pacific specifically. Pacific island nations – as low-lying and with limited resources for implementing adaptive measures – are acutely vulnerable to sea-level rises. In the Asian region 40 million people were displaced by natural disasters in 2010-11 alone.

The report argues that Australia’s obligation to its neighbours in the region, acknowledged in recent statements on the Pacific, will create significant pressure on Australia and its defence force to manage the implications of climate change. It recommends sending even more aid to the Pacific region to help build climate resilience.

Defence needs to plan ahead

While the report acknowledges Defence efforts, a key finding is the urgent need for Defence to plan for a climate-affected world………https://theconversation.com/senate-report-climate-change-is-a-clear-and-present-danger-to-australias-security-96797

 

May 18, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

Janette Thomas – on the biased “community consultation”on Barndioota nuclear dump plan, seismic and flooding dangers

Janette Thomas Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia (Submission No 36)

My name is Janette Thomas, resident of Quorn since 2003. My submission is written to explain the adverse effects of The Federal Government Nuclear Waste Dump siting selection process on my local community, my family and myself. I am deeply concerned that a nuclear waste facility is being considered for a site near Hawker on the Hookina flood plain.

Terms of Reference:

a) The financial compensation offered to applicants for the acquisition of land under the Nominations of Land Guidelines:

The Barndioota shortlisting site was publicly announced in November 2015. It was also mentioned in the November 2015 Community Newsletter of the Flinders Ranges Council by our Mayor in his “Mayors Message” stating “The first Council knew of this was calls seeking information from media outlets”.

Attachment 1 – FRC Community Newsletter, November 2015

In December 2015, The Department of Innovation, Industry and Science (DIIS) held information “drop-in” sessions in both Hawker and Quorn. It is not known how many residents availed themselves of this opportunity to learn more, however it is stated in the Mayor’s Message that “only a few residents visited them to find out more about the proposal”. I did take the opportunity to go and see what was being displayed, and spoke to the DIIS representatives. I voiced my concerns strongly, however it did not appear that there were any notes taken – just an attempt by the representatives to rebut any of the issues that I raised.

Attachment 2 – FRC Community Newsletter, December 2015

A presentation by the DIIS was held at the Quorn Town Hall on 15.2.16. The information given to the meeting was all positive and “talked up” the benefits to the community. For example:

  1. The $10 million dollars the host community would receive if the nuclear waste facility was to be sited in the area.
  2. 2. The 15 FTE jobs that would be available to operate the facility.
  3. 3. The annual $2M Community Benefit Package that would be available for local approved applications during the site selection process.
  4. 4. The tourist opportunities – it was suggested that tourists would come to the area to visit the facility.
  5. 5. Once the site is chosen the landowner is to receive 3 times the current value for the 100 hectares required.
  6. 6. The “temporary” storage of the Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) was barely mentioned, if at all, until question time when the panel was repeatedly asked about how it would be stored and for how long.

b) how the need for ‘broad community support’ has played and will continue to play a part in the process

A phone “survey” was undertaken by Orima over the period late February to early March 2016 to gauge the local community support to proceed to Stage 2, ie does the community want the various surveys to be undertaken to evaluate the area as suitable or not, for the storage of nuclear waste.

I answered a telephone call and was asked for the male occupant of the house between certain ages. My partner was over the age requested, and I was not eligible to do the survey, and so our household was not invited to participate. I heard of similar experiences later. I would like to have had the opportunity to make a statement at that time. How is it that a small number of phone calls about such a serious issue of “hosting” a national nuclear waste dump, can then be manipulated to gauge community support to proceed forward to the next stage. It has been suggested that the people who had no opinion were counted as being “in favour”.

Many people had not heard of the short listing of Barndioota, and had not had a chance to think about what they were saying yes, no, or don’t know to. There was publicity given through newsletters and DIIS mailouts, advising that there would be officers visiting from Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) on a regular basis, who could provide more information and answer any queries, however this all occurred after the decision was announced to proceed to stage 2. I did attend one of their visits voicing my concerns. Their answers were very biased – that there was nothing to be concerned about – refer below: ( f – any other related matters – A).

f) any other related matters

A. The people attending the town meeting 15.2.16 were given the opportunity to ask questions. Many were concerned about the Barndioota site location for many reasons. Some being:

  1. The Flinders Ranges is renown as being a very seismic active locality. Refer to attachment 3 – Independent Geological Report.
  2. 2. Barndioota is situated on a flood plain, notorious for extreme periodic flood events and massive historic mud flows. Refer to attachment 3 –
  3. Independent Geological Report. 3. Question time revealed that there would also be Intermediate level nuclear waste (ILW) stored “temporarily”. When queried how long is temporary – the reply was vague – different figures were quoted. 20, 30 – possibly up to 100 years. If this is the case, I see no reason to move the ILW from its current storage site until a suitable, safe, permanent site is established. Refer to attachment   4 –Quorn Mercury, (Community Meeting pp1-2)

B. The Barndioota site shortlisted, was part of a private leasehold property, and the landholder had not considered or consulted the neighbours or local community before making his application. He had full knowledge of the search for the nuclear waste site having served on three Senate Select Committees related to this industry: Dangers of Radioactive Waste, 23/3/95 to 24/04/96 (Chair from 30/03/95); Uranium Mining and Milling, 08/05/96 to 15/05/97 (Chair from 23/05/96); and Lucas Heights Reactor, 17/08/00 to 24/05/01, but the local community didn’t. This has been a major flaw in the process of a possible nuclear waste dump facility for many reasons.

  1. Neighbours and community should have been given the opportunity to discuss the ramifications of storing nuclear waste in their area as a matter of respect, similar to the building application process of local government.
  2. 2. To date there has been millions of dollars spent in “world best practice” obtaining a suitable site for the nuclear waste facility. For example:

a. The Orima Survey undertaken to proceed to the next stage.

b. Staff travel and accommodation costs for the many visits over the last 2 ½ years during the process period.

  1. Travel and accommodation costs for the numerous groups who have been taken to the Lucas Heights facility.
  2. d. The travel and accommodation costs of the French group who were asked to give account of the facility in their home country.

e. The $2million Community Benefits Programme made available for application as an incentive during the process to the next stage. Currently there is a second $2million application process underway for the Barndioota site. These processes are currently being replicated in Kimba and will be available for all other sites that proceed to the same stage.

f. The appointment of a full-time Liaison Officer (who appears to be in favour of the facility and not impartial).

g. There are various committees, with members receiving payment to cover their costs of time and travel.

h. There have recently been major costly site surveys undertaken

This will be the process for each of the shortlisted sites therefore multiplying the costly exercises manyfold. Continue reading

May 18, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

South Australia’s battles against nuclear waste dumping won, – and now fought again

EXTRACT from:  A journey to the heart of the anti-nuclear resistance in Australia: Radioactive Exposure Tour 2018, NUCLEAR  MONITOR  Author: Ray Acheson ‒  NM859.4719, May 2018 “……The federal government of Australia wants to build a facility to store and dispose of radioactive waste in South Australia, either at Wallerberdina Station near Hawker or on farming land in Kimba.

Wallerberdina Station is located in the Flinders Ranges, the largest mountain range in South Australia, 540 million years old. Approaching from the north on our drive down from Lake Eyre can only be described as breathtaking. The red dirt, the brown and green bush, and the ever-changing purples, blues, and reds of the mountains themselves are some of the most complex and stunning scenes one can likely see in the world.

Most people might find it shocking that the federal government would want to put a nuclear waste dump smack in the middle of this landscape. But after visiting other sites on the Rad Tour, it was only yet another disappointment ‒ and another point of resistance.

What is known is that the Wallerberdina site is of great cultural, historical, and spiritual significance to the Adnyamathanha people.  It borders the Yappala Indigenous Protected Area, which is a crucial location for biodiversity in the Flinders Ranges. Its unique ecosystem provides a refuge for many native species of flora and fauna, contains many archaeological sites as well as the first registered  Aboriginal Songline of its type in Australia, and is home to Pungka Pudanha, a natural spring and sacred woman’s site.

In case that isn’t enough, the area is a known floodplain. Our travels around the proposed site contained ample evidence of previous floods that sent massive trees rushing down the plain, smashing into each other and into various bridges and other built objects. The last big flood occurred in 2006.

The Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners were not consulted before their land was nominated for consideration by the government for the waste dump. “Through this area are registered cultural heritage sites and places of huge importance to our family, our history and our future,” wrote Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners in a 2015 statement.  “We don’t want a nuclear waste dump here on our country and worry that if the waste comes here it will harm our environment and muda (our lore, our creation, our everything).”

We met Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners Vivianne and Regina McKenzie, and Tony Clark, at the proposed site. They invited us into the Yappala Indigenous Protected Area to view the floodplains and swim in the beautiful Pungka Pudanha. We’d just been camping at Wilpena Pound in the Flinders Ranges National Park only a few kilometres away. It is impossible to understand the government’s rationale for wanting to build a toxic waste dump on this land so cherished by its Traditional Owners, local communities, and tourists alike.

The McKenzies have been working tirelessly to prevent the proposed dump from being established, as have other local activists. Fortunately, they have some serious recent successes to inspire them. In 2015, the federal government announced a plan to import 138,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste from around the world to South Australia as a commercial enterprise. But Traditional Owners began protesting immediately, arguing that the so-called consultations were not accessible and that misinformation was rife.  In 2016, a Citizen’s Jury, established by then Premier Jay Weatherill and made up of 350 people, deliberated over evidence and information. In November that year, two-thirds of the Jury rejected “under any circumstances” the plan to import or store high-level waste.24 They cited lack of Aboriginal consent, unsubstantiated economic assumptions and projections, and lack of confidence in the governmental proposal’s validity.

Other battles against proposed nuclear waste dumps have been fought and won in South Australia. From 1998 to 2004, the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, a council of senior Aboriginal women from northern South Australia, successfully campaigned against a proposed national nuclear waste dump near Woomera. In an open letter in 2004, the Kungkas wrote: “People said that you can’t win against the Government. Just a few women. We just kept talking and telling them to get their ears out of their pockets and listen. We never said we were going to give up. Government has big money to buy their way out but we never gave up.”

Connected communities

The attempts by the Australian government and the nuclear industry to impose a waste dump in the Flinders Ranges, just like their attempts to impose waste dumps and uranium mines elsewhere in the country, or their refusal to compensate victims and survivors of nuclear testing, are all mired with racism. They are rooted in a fundamental dismissal and devaluation of the lives and experiences of indigenous Australians, and of proximity to cities but more importantly, to power.The industry and government’s motivations for imposing nuclear violence on these people and this land are militarism and capitalism.

Profit over people. Weapons over wellbeing. Their capacity for compassion and duty of care has been constrained by chronic short-termism ‒ a total failure to protect future generations. The poison they pull out of the earth, process, sell, allow others to make bombs with, and bury back in the earth, wounds us all now and into the future.

But nuclear weapons are now prohibited under international law. New actors are challenging the possession of nuclear weapons in new ways, and nucleararmed states are facing a challenge like never before.

The nuclear energy industry ‒ and thus the demand for uranium ‒ is declining. Power plants are being shuttered; corporations are facing financial troubles. Dirty and dangerous, the nuclear industry is dying.

This is in no small part due to the relentless resistance against it. This resistance was fierce throughout all of the country we visited, from Woomera up to Lake Eyre, from Roxby Downs to the Flinders Ranges. We listened to stories of those living on this land, we heard their histories, witnessed their actions, and supported their plans…..

https://antinuclear.net/2018/05/12/a-journey-to-the-heart-of-the-anti-nuclear-resistance-in-australia-radioactive-exposure-tour-2018/#more-60401

May 18, 2018 Posted by | aboriginal issues, Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment