Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Labor likely to amend the Nuclear Waste Bill, removing certainty about the Napandee dump happening

October 6, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste dump – a Federal abuse of a small rural town

Regina McKenzie   Fight To Stop a Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 6 Oct 20
To watch the horror of a rural town, being torn apart , the tremendous amount of stress the people of Kimba are facing, wether it be the yes or no camp, no one deserves this.
I know that heavy weight of having this nuclear waste dump like a dark foreboding shadow hanging over your once secure close knit community, watching family, friends and acquaintance being ripped apart , the helplessness ones feels watching everything disintegrate around you.
DIIS have a lot to answer for the emotional and mental abuse this waste dump as caused on these small rural towns, separated from the rest of South Australia to bear such a large responsibility and to leave the rest of South Australia to watch in horror these little town tear each other apart, the mental anguish that will forever scar us, the rifts in family, and friends , what a pitiful federal government to do this to us, its abuse on a grand scale

October 6, 2020 Posted by | aboriginal issues, Federal nuclear waste dump, health, South Australia | Leave a comment

Federal government hiding its toxic nuclear waste Act under the cover of budget fuss

From A letter from Dr Margaret Beavis,
DR MARGARET BEAVIS, Medical Association for  Prevention of War, 6 Oct 20,
“Hiding behind the budget media extravaganza, tomorrow the Government will hold a senate vote to lock in Kimba as the site for highly radioactive nuclear waste.
**********
The bill will deny any juridical oversight or review, despite major flaws in the proposal. The proposed “temporary storage” of nuclear waste in Kimba is a second -rate cheap solution.
Countries like Finland are spending $5bn on deep geoplogical disposal which is world’s best practice.
**********
In contrast, this plan cost-shifts on to future generations, who are left to do the job properly at great expense.
**********
There are many other problems. These include deliberately misleading marketing, a deciding vote using a biased sample and a complete disregard of traditional owners,
                                                                    **********
Claims that moving the waste is urgently needed to continue nuclear medicine are patently false.  The federal nuclear regulator, ARPNSA, has been crystal clear that there is absolutely no rush. Low-level waste has been the main focus, yet the elephant in the room is intermediate waste that stays radioactive for 10,000 years.
                                                              **********
The people of Kimba remain deeply divided.. Kimba’s vote was biased towards businesses who may profit from the facility. It excluded farmers who live near the site.
                                                                **********
At Hawker last ye ar, a much more appropriate 50km radius was used, and the proposal was clearly rejected.
                                                              **********
This bill locks in a second-rate process and a second-rate facility that will be a major liability for South Australians in the future. There is plenty of time to do it right.
It is an old political trick to release bad news when no-one is paying attention, known as “taking out the trash”.
But this time the trash is highly radioactive. If this legislation passes, it will come back and haunt South Australians for generations to come.”

October 6, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Divisions in Labor, over nuclear waste dump plan

Federal Labor divided over plans to block SA’s nuclear waste dump facility, The Age, By Rob Harris, October 5, 2020 — A 40-year effort to establish a nuclear waste dump in remote South Australia faces a rocky passage through Federal Parliament after Labor signalled it is prepared to block the Morrison government’s attempts to resolve the long-running debate.

The decision, rubber-stamped by the federal caucus in lengthy debate on Monday, has sparked further divisions within the opposition, with veteran senators Alex Gallacher and Kim Carr expressing fierce criticism of their party’s position.

There are also concerns within federal Labor that its stance could unwittingly hand Prime Minister Scott Morrison a double-dissolution trigger should the crossbench sink the laws.

The government intends to introduce legislation to finally establish a low- and medium-level nuclear waste facility at Napandee, a farm on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula, having spent seven years and more than $60 million finding a suitable home……..

Labor will seek to amend the laws so that the minister responsible, Resources Minister Keith Pitt, can use existing powers to nominate any site under the current legislation. Labor says the changes would still give the local community access to a significant community fund on offer and would ensure the decision be subject to a judicial review.

Seven Labor MPs spoke up in the debate over the legislation, which lasted for more than an hour………

Opposition science spokesman Brendan O’Connor said federal Labor supported the need for a national facility to store radioactive waste.

This government has had existing powers under the current legislation for the past seven years to determine a site, but under the guise of compensation has sought to remove proper scrutiny, through this proposed legislation,” he said.

“This is a contentious issue and should be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny to ensure that the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice have been applied given the national significance of this matter.”……..

A Senate committee last month recommended the legislation be supported but three members – the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young, Independent senator Rex Patrick and Labor senator Jenny McAllister – issued dissenting reports.

Senator McAllister said the proposed facility had not received the support of the relevant traditional owners in South Australia.   https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/federal-labor-divided-over-plans-to-block-sa-s-nuclear-waste-dump-facility-20201005-p5628p.html

October 6, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, politics | Leave a comment

Pretty despicable -tax breaks for company exporting weapons to Saudi Arabia, UAE.

Tax break for weapons exports to Mid-East countries accused of war crimes, Michael West Media, by Michelle Fahy | Oct 6, 2020   Australian weapons manufacturer Electro Optic Systems, with financial support from the federal and ACT governments, is capitalising on the ‘growth market’ of the Middle East, one of the world’s most volatile regions. Michelle Fahy reports.

As has been reported repeatedly, remote weapons systems manufactured by EOS are being exported to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia despite both countries being accused of war crimes. Numerous UN reports have detailed shocking human rights violations over the six years of the Yemen war.

After a shutdown due to Covid-19, EOS announced last month that it is exporting again.

EOS and the federal government have been asked repeatedly for proof that its weapons are not being used in Yemen. “Trust us,” is the standard response.

Assurances from a company chasing millions in profit and a government intent on catapulting Australia into the global top 10 of weapons exporters seem to be the best the public can expect in terms of accountability.

There is zero transparency when it comes to Australian weapons exports………..

Government support for EOS

EOS has received extensive government support, including an exemption from paying state payroll tax. Under questioning last November by the ACT Greens, Chief Minister Andrew Barr said the ACT Government provided support to EOS (PDF p44), “principally for its space industry related activity”. While EOS separates its space industry work from its weapons side, both companies operate in the same group under the same board……..

EOS has so far supplied the UAE and Saudi with its remote weapons systems. The systems are mounted on armoured vehicles and can incorporate a light cannon, machine gun, grenade launcher or anti-tank missile, which EOS does not manufacture. The system enables the weapon to be operated from inside the vehicle, which makes the soldier safer. It can identify targets and automatically aim the weapon, making the firing of the weapon faster and more accurate. In military parlance, the system enhances lethality. See it in action here.

The claim that it was not a weapons manufacturer may have been technically correct when asserted by EOS and Barr, but that is no longer the case.

Last month EOS announced it had moved into production with a new range of directed energy (laser) weapons. The weapons are being marketed by EOS as ‘drone kill’ technology (counter unmanned aircraft system or CUAS). EOS says “CUAS are entirely defensive systems”. The potential market is large. EOS has named its new range of weapons Mopoke, after the small native Australian owl.

EOS has not disclosed its list of interested customers for Mopoke, but industry insiders – such as AuManufacturing – have noted that its first customers are likely to come from the Middle East, given drone attacks on infrastructure there……….

EOS is now unequivocally a weapons manufacturer, and likely to soon start exporting its weapons to the Middle East.

Supplying weapons to war crimes accused

Melissa Parke, a lawyer, former federal Labor MP, and human rights expert, is one of three UN-appointed Eminent Experts on Yemen. Parke told SBS Dateline last year:

“No country can claim not to be aware of the violations being perpetrated in Yemen. To continue to provide weapons in the knowledge of such violations is both morally and legally hazardous.”

A former secretary of the Defence Department, Paul Barratt, has also stated his position on these weapon sales:

“Regardless of whether Australian-made weapons [are] crossing the border into Yemen, Australia now has a national policy which seeks and facilitates weapons sales with countries that stand accused of gross violations of human rights and likely war crimes. When did this particular trade in arms become official Australian policy? As a country that routinely asks other countries to abide by the rules-based international order, it would seem hypocritical, at best, that Australia is now willing to … make a profit from weapons sales to nations that are openly flouting this international order.”……….

In addition to ministerial lobbying, EOS Defence Systems has received federal financial support, including:

  • $3.7 million from Defence between 2013 and 2016
  • $41.5 million performance bond from Export Finance Australia (EFIC) (PDF p66)

The company has also gained from influential appointments to its board. Former Chief of Army, Peter Leahy, joined the EOS board in May 2009, just 10 months after retiring as army chief. In April 2016 Leahy was joined by former Chief of Air Force, Geoff Brown, less than 10 months after he had retired from the air force…… https://www.michaelwest.com.au/eos-weapons-export-transparen

October 6, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, business, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australian State laws have weak environmental standards

Major gaps’: no state meets national environment standards, The Age, Mike Foley, October 4, 2020 —  State and territory governments should make major reforms to their environmental laws and increase compliance regimes to meet the national standards, new research has found.

The findings are revealed in a report from the “Places You Love” alliance of conservation groups, released on Monday, which found “not only does no state or territory law meet national standards, but in some jurisdictions, the environmental protections in state and territory laws have actually been weakened”.

This week the Senate is set to debate the federal government’s bill to hand approval powers for major projects to state governments, in a bid to remove bureaucratic duplication and speed-up project development to boost the economy.

Environment Minister Sussan Ley has pledged that any changes to The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act will not reduce current level of environmental regulation…….

Ms Ley has been criticised by environment groups for rushing her bill through Parliament. It passed the lower house in August and could be enacted as soon as next week – ahead of a major review of the laws by former competition watchdog boss Professor Graeme Samuel, which is due by the end of October.

Professor Samuel said Australia’s “current environmental trajectory is unsustainable”. National laws were “not fit to address current or future environmental challenges”, he said, while for industry they are “ineffective and inefficient”…….

The EPBC Act was enacted in 1999 and created a list of “matters of national environmental significance”, including World Heritage areas, internationally listed wetlands and threatened species. While state laws do include some protections for these matters, federal government has wielded the most powerful protections for the past two decades.

The report found no state or territory legislation met the necessary suite of “national environmental standards required to protect matters of national environmental significance”.

Protection of threatened species habitat from development is one of the most significant functions of the EPBC Act. States run their own offset policies, which can allow developers who destroy protected habitat to mitigate the damage by protecting or restoring habitat somewhere else. State offset standards frequently do not meet national standards…….. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/major-gaps-no-state-meets-national-environment-standards-20201002-p561iz.html

October 5, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, politics | Leave a comment

Grossly inadequate Senate report on National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Bill

The report released on 14 September 2020 by the majority of the Senate committee inquiring into the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment Site Specification,Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill  is  both grossly deficient and biased and does no credit to the members of the committee.

**************************************
I can only put this down to a combination of lack of knowledge and possibly even ignorance on the part of both the committee members and the researchers from the committee secretariat of the subject of the inquiry which is of major and lasting importance to all of Australia and needs more than truck driving experience for its proper consideration.
**************************************

While I do not intend to comment on all of the report in detail I will refer to some aspects of the introduction being chapter 1 including the conduct of the inquiry but more extensively to the second part of the report dealing with support for the legislative changes and the evidence of the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

**************************************

……… In describing the background for the inquiry the committee has relied on rather older information which is surprising considering the very recent developments in the field of nuclear waste management which have been completely ignored in the report.
**************************************
……. it seems that the committee has heavily relied on the explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill and the subsequent ministerial statements and responses having blithely accepted them with little or no proper scrutiny of their content and accuracy.
**************************************
This also applies to the submissions by ANSTO and the Department of Industry Science Energy and Resources which did not elicit any questioning or testing of the accuracy of their content.
**************************************
……….. the heart of the intended legislative changes  will remove various fundamental rights including seeking judicial and administrative reviews.
**************************************
……….. It should have been obvious to the committee that the Barngarla will under no circumstances permit the storage and disposal of nuclear waste in any part of their lands within South Australia irrespective of what discussions and negotiations may take place even with an independent mediator.
**************************************
………. The conduct of the inquiry also leaves a lot to be desired since the committee failed – and seemingly deliberately – to call any experts on nuclear waste from overseas to provide proper advice and suggestions to the committee instead of relying exclusively on the technical evidence by or on behalf of the government.
This makes the majority report even less credible which is already the view of some overseas experts who are surprised at the deficiencies in the evidence to justify the main recommendation of the report.
**************************************
……. many of the supporting views are said to be based on general scientific or technical reasons but  some of these are made in sheer and blind acceptance of the government’s information without any testing or examination of their veracity..
**************************************
………… The concept of the local agricultural industry coexisting with the nuclear facility is completely disingenuous as is amply demonstrated by recent situations overseas including in particular in France and to suggest that the facility will not affect the agricultural environment and produce of Kimba is nonsensical.
**************************************
What is more the report has completely ignored the provisions of the Disposal Facilities Code (2018) of ARPANSA which provides at section 3.1.22 as to the criteria for the selection of a non-radiological site that “the immediate vicinity of the facility has no known significant natural resources   ………… and has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use”
It follows that these two factors significantly displace the perceived economic benefits which should be a major consideration as to the facility’s proposed establishment..
**************************************
………..from surveys a large percentage of up to 80% of the South Australian population is against the facility which is also the stated position of the state’s parliamentary opposition.
The submissions in support of the facility by the three presumably knowledgeable bodies being the Nuclear Association and Academy of Science together with the local Chamber of Mines and Energy failed to provide any really technical or scientific information and seemed to more of a political nature judging by their brevity which I understood in the case of the Nuclear Association and probably the Chamber was to enable the start of a nuclear energy industry in this country.
**************************************
Again it has surprised me that the committee did not seek any meaningful explanations from these groups as presumably they would hold themselves out as having some expertise with regard to nuclear waste.
**************************************
The evidence and submissions in support of the facility by the local community including the District Council are self servicing and appear to swayed by the perceived financial grants and benefits provided by the government which surely must be understood to be creating a false economy doomed to ultimate failure……….
**************************************
Perhaps the most glaring examples of the insular and ignorant conduct of the community  supporters of the facility are their contentions that its establishment and the voting for its acceptance are applicable and relevant only to Kimba. Considering the importance of this issue to the whole nation and that it is to intended to be a central national facility it should and must extend well beyond their unrealistic and quite selfish attitude by is seen by their rather ludicrous contentions.
What is even more critical is that the inquiry made no attempt to ascertain the accuracy of these claims despite their national significance………..
**************************************
What really makes the majority report so unconvincing is that none of the evidence has been questioned or tested as to its competence and accuracy and the committee as chosen not to call evidence from international experts who would very quickly show the incompetence of the government as to the underlying technical issues of the inquiry to justify the legislative changes.
This becomes even worse when a principal witness on behalf of the government is accused of lying which in a court of law would have lead to a preferment for perjury……….
**************************************
………. the government has rejected many requests for detailed information of the radionuclides inventories and funding for an independent assessment and scrutiny of the government’s proposals which will no doubt be a consideration for ARPANSA in dealing with the licence applications
**************************************
Unlike the committee stating “that the issue of radioactive material is an emotive one” it is in fact very important and scientifically technical especially as it concerns present and long term safety of the whole population.
The committee has badly failed in its inquiry in both testing the credibility of the claims by the government and other supporters of the facility proposal and in neglecting any examination of the lack of expected and prescribed requirements including among other things the safety case and the radionuclides counts.

October 2, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, spinbuster | Leave a comment

 Pine Gap could play role in accidental US-China nuclear fight 

 

 Pine Gap could play role in accidental US-China nuclear fight  NT News, 30 Sept 20

Heightened US-China tensions have increased the risk of an accidental nuclear exchange between the two superpowers — and whether or not the Northern Territory’s Pine Gap surveillance base is playing a role in hyping this up needs to be looked at ……. (subscribers only)

October 1, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Julian Assange could face life in America’s most dreaded ‘Supermax’ prison

October 1, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, civil liberties, legal, media | Leave a comment

Legacy of Maralinga bomb tests -a reminder of need for safety in matters nuclear

Sixty years on, the Maralinga bomb tests remind us not to put security over safety, The Conversation    Liz Tynan, Senior Lecturer and Co-ordinator Research Student Academic Support, James Cook University September 26, 2016   It is September 27, 1956. At a dusty site called One Tree, in the northern reaches of the 3,200-square-kilometre Maralinga atomic weapons test range in outback South Australia, the winds have finally died down and the countdown begins……….
And so, at 5pm, Operation Buffalo begins. The 15-kilotonne atomic device, the same explosive strength as the weapon dropped on Hiroshima 11 years earlier (although totally different in design), is bolted to a 30-metre steel tower. The device is a plutonium warhead that will test Britain’s “Red Beard” tactical nuclear weapon.

The count reaches its finale – three… two… one… FLASH! – and all present turn their backs. When given the order to turn back again, they see an awesome, rising fireball. Then Maralinga’s first mushroom cloud begins to bloom over the plain – by October the following year, there will have been six more.

RAF and RAAF aircraft prepare to fly through the billowing cloud to gather samples. The cloud rises much higher than predicted and, despite the delay, the winds are still unsuitable for atmospheric nuclear testing. The radioactive cloud heads due east, towards populated areas on Australia’s east coast.

Power struggle

So began the most damaging chapter in the history of British nuclear weapons testing in Australia. The UK had carried out atomic tests in 1952 and 1956 at the Monte Bello Islands off Western Australia, and in 1953 at Emu Field north of Maralinga.
The British had requested and were granted a huge chunk of South Australia to create a “permanent” atomic weapons test site, after finding the conditions at Monte Bello and Emu Field too remote and unworkable. Australia’s then prime minister, Robert Menzies, was all too happy to oblige. Back in September 1950 in a phone call with his British counterpart, Clement Attlee, he had said yes to nuclear testing without even referring the issue to his cabinet……….
He was also exploring ways to power civilian Australia with atomic energy and – whisper it – even to buy an atomic bomb with an Australian flag on it (for more background, see here). While Australia had not been involved in developing either atomic weaponry or nuclear energy, she wanted in now. Menzies’ ambitions were such that he authorised offering more to the British than they requested.

While Australia was preparing to sign the Maralinga agreement, the supply minister, Howard Beale, wrote in a top-secret 1954 cabinet document:

Although [the] UK had intimated that she was prepared to meet the full costs, Australia proposed that the principles of apportioning the expenses of the trial should be agreed whereby the cost of Australian personnel engaged on the preparation of the site, and of materials and equipment which could be recovered after the tests, should fall to Australia’s account..…..
Britain’s nuclear and military elite trashed a swathe of Australia’s landscape and then, in the mid-1960s, promptly left. Britain carried out a total of 12 major weapons tests in Australia: three at Monte Bello, two at Emu Field and seven at Maralinga. The British also conducted hundreds of so-called “minor trials”, including the highly damaging Vixen B radiological experiments, which scattered long-lived plutonium over a large area at Maralinga.

The British carried out two clean-up operations – Operation Hercules in 1964 and Operation Brumby in 1967 – both of which made the contamination problems worse.

Legacy of damage

The damage done to Indigenous people in the vicinity of all three test sites is immeasurable and included displacement, injury and death. Service personnel from several countries, but particularly Britain and Australia, also suffered – not least because of their continuing fight for the slightest recognition of the dangers they faced. Many of the injuries and deaths allegedly caused by the British tests have not been formally linked to the operation, a source of ongoing distress for those involved.

The cost of the clean-up exceeded A$100 million in the late 1990s. Britain paid less than half, and only after protracted pressure and negotiations.

Decades later, we still don’t know the full extent of the effects suffered by service personnel and local communities. Despite years of legal wrangling, those communities’ suffering has never been properly recognised or compensated.

Why did Australia allow it to happen? The answer is that Britain asserted its nuclear colonialism just as an anglophile prime minister took power in Australia, and after the United States made nuclear weapons research collaboration with other nations illegal, barring further joint weapons development with the UK. …..Six decades later, those atomic weapons tests still cast their shadow across Australia’s landscape. They stand as testament to the dangers of government decisions made without close scrutiny, and as a reminder – at a time when leaders are once again preoccupied with international security – not to let it happen again.  https://theconversation.com/sixty-years-on-the-maralinga-bomb-tests-remind-us-not-to-put-security-over-safety-62441?fbclid=IwAR3-AXJA_-RZTlr1AW6qxgcFRPuOX5IIi163L75vLWXFyIOcZGKxbet5DDE

October 1, 2020 Posted by | aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, history, politics, reference, weapons and war | Leave a comment

China’s zero emissions target is contrasted with Australia’s inaction on global heating

China’s escalation is also set to have implications for Australia’s diplomatic position in the Pacific, where it has been attempting to manage China’s rising influence among some of its closest neighbours.

“From both sides of Parliament Australian politicians aren’t understanding it, they approach climate change like it’s just another issue for our Pacific counterparts. What Australian politicians do often miss is this issue is personal,” said Professor Bamsey.

“It concerns Pacific politicians when they get out of bed, they can see the changes to the future of their country when they look out the window.”

China’s zero emissions target puts Australia on notice, The Age, By Eryk Bagshaw and Mike Foley, September 30, 2020 Australia’s former top climate diplomat has warned China’s net-zero emissions target will leave Australia behind, threatening future trade deals and its influence in the Pacific as the Morrison government becomes wedged between the US and China on climate action.

Howard Bamsey, who was Australia’s special envoy on climate change during the Rudd government, said the announcement from President Xi Jinping last week had turned the politics of emissions reduction into a sharp economic and diplomatic issue.

Professor Bamsey, who was also Australia’s ambassador for the environment under the Howard government, said the new policy “pulls the rug out from under the argument” that Australia’s domestic climate goals do not need to accelerate because China was yet to increase its ambitions.

“It’s clear now China is accepting a leadership role,” he said. “Xi made the announcement. That carries all the weight of the state and party.”

The coronavirus has forced this year’s United Nations Glasgow Climate Change Conference to be rescheduled to November 2021, turning Australia’s international emissions obligations into a major election flashpoint. The earliest month a federal election can be held is August 2021 and voters are expected to go to the polls by the end of next year.

China, which is simultaneously the world’s largest polluter and biggest producer of renewable energy, pledged to go carbon neutral by 2060 at the UN General Assembly last week………… Continue reading

October 1, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

Morrison government refuses to sign leaders’ pledge on biodiversity

September 29, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment, politics | Leave a comment

Dr Helen Caldicott and Independent Australia bust the media spin on ‘small nuclear reactors’

HELEN CALDICOTT: Small modular reactors — the next big thing?  https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/helen-caldicott-small-modular-reactors–the-next-big-thing,14342#disqus_threadBy Helen Caldicott | 27 September 2020  Politicians debating nuclear power as an energy source, know little of the facts that make small modular reactors a bad idea, writes Dr Caldicott.AUSTRALIAN politicians are contemplating developing nuclear power for this country. In their ignorance, they are mooting “small modular reactors” (SMRs) about which they clearly know little.

The so-called “nuclear renaissance” died following the Fukushima catastrophe when one-sixth of the world’s nuclear reactors closed. However, global nuclear corporations – ToshibaNuScaleBabcock & WilcoxGE HitachiGeneral Atomics and the Tennessee Valley Authority – did not accept defeat.

Their new strategy has been to develop small modular nuclear reactors without the dangers inherent in large reactors — safety, cost, proliferation risks and radioactive waste. But these claims are fallacious for the reasons outlined below.

Basically, there are three types of SMRs which generate less than 300 megawatts of electricity compared with current day 1000 megawatt reactors.

Light water reactors designs

These will be smaller versions of present-day pressurized water reactors using water as the moderator and coolant, but with the same attendant problems as Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Built underground, they will be difficult to access in the event of an accident or malfunction.

Mass-produced (turnkey production) large numbers must be sold yearly to make a profit. This is an unlikely prospect because major markets – China and India – will not buy U.S. reactors when they can make their own.

If safety problems arise – as in General Motors cars – they all must be shut down which will interfere substantially with electricity supply.

SMRs will be expensive because the cost per unit capacity increases with a decrease in reactor size. Billions of dollars of government subsidies will be required because Wall Street is allergic to nuclear power. To alleviate costs, it is suggested that safety rules be relaxed, including reducing security requirements and a reduction in the 10-mile emergency planning zone to 1,000 feet.

Non-light water designs

These are high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGR) or pebble bed reactors. Five billion tiny fuel kernels consisting of high-enriched uranium or plutonium will be encased in tennis-ball-sized graphite spheres which must be made without cracks or imperfections — or they could lead to an accident. A total of 450,000 such spheres will slowly and continuously be released from a fuel silo – passing through the reactor core – and then be re-circulated ten times. These reactors will be cooled by helium gas operating at very high temperatures (900 degrees Celsius).

A reactor complex consisting of four HTGR modules will be located underground, to be run by just two operators in a central control room. Claims are that HTGRs will be so safe that a containment building will be unnecessary and operators can even leave the site – “walk away safe” reactors.

However, should temperatures unexpectedly exceed 1,600 degrees Celsius, the carbon coating will release dangerous radioactive isotopes into the helium gas and at 2,000 degrees Celsius the carbon would ignite creating a fierce graphite Chernobyl-type fire. 

If a crack develops in the piping or building, radioactive helium would escape and air would rush in, also igniting the graphite.

Although HTGRs produce small amounts of low-level waste they create larger volumes of high-level waste than conventional reactors.

Despite these obvious safety problems and despite the fact that South Africa has abandoned plans for HTGRs, the U.S. Department of Energy has unwisely chosen the HTGR as the “Next Generation Nuclear Plant”.

Liquid metal fast reactors (PRISM)

It is claimed by proponents that fast reactors will be safe, economically competitive, proliferation-resistant and sustainable.

They will be fueled by plutonium or highly enriched uranium and cooled by either liquid sodium or a lead-bismuth molten coolant. Liquid sodium burns or explodes when exposed to air or water and lead-bismuth is extremely corrosive producing very volatile radioactive elements when irradiated.

Should a crack occur in the reactor complex, liquid sodium would escape, burning or exploding. Without coolant, the plutonium fuel could reach critical mass, triggering a massive nuclear explosion scattering plutonium to the four winds. One-millionth of a gram of plutonium induces cancer and it lasts for 500,000 years. Extraordinarily, claims are made that fast reactors will be so safe they will require no emergency sirens and emergency planning zones can be decreased from ten miles to 1,300 feet.

There are two types of fast reactors: a simple plutonium fueled reactor and a “breeder” in which the plutonium reactor core is surrounded by a blanket of uranium 238 which captures neutrons and converts to plutonium.

The plutonium fuel, obtained from spent reactor fuel will be fissioned and converted to shorter-lived isotopes — caesium and strontium which last 600 years instead of 500,000. Called “transmutation”, the industry claims that this is an excellent way to get rid of plutonium waste. But this is fallacious because only ten per cent fissions, leaving 90 per cent of the plutonium for bomb-making etc.

Three small plutonium fast reactors will be grouped together to form a module and three of these modules will be buried underground. All nine reactors will then be connected to a fully automated central control room operated by only three operators. Potentially then, one operator could simultaneously face a catastrophic situation triggered by the loss of off-site power to one unit at full power, in another shut down for refuelling and in one in start-up mode. There are to be no emergency core cooling systems.

Fast reactors require a massive infrastructure including a reprocessing plant to dissolve radioactive waste fuel rods in nitric acid, chemically removing the plutonium and a fuel fabrication facility to create new fuel rods. A total of 10,160 kilos of plutonium is required to operate a fuel cycle at a fast reactor and just 2.5 kilos is fuel for a nuclear weapon.

Thus fast reactors and breeders will provide extraordinary long-term medical dangers and the perfect situation for nuclear weapons proliferation. Despite this, the industry is clearly trying to market them to many countries including, it seems, Australia.

You can follow Dr Caldicott on Twitter @DrHCaldicott. Click here for Dr Caldicott’s complete curriculum vitae.

September 28, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, technology | Leave a comment

Kimba mayor Dean Johnson shows his ignorance on nuclear wastes

Kazzi Jai  Fight to Stop ma Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia
Note to Mayor Dean Johnson……Comparing Leigh Creek coal mine and Port Pirie Lead Smelter to this proposed dump in Kimba is RIDICULOUS!
Both Leigh Creek coal mine and Port Pirie Lead Smelter were endorsed and wanted BY ALL SOUTH AUSTRALIANS AT THAT TIME when they were established – Leigh Creek coal mine in 1941 and Port Pirie Lead Smelter in 1915!

The Federal Government had NOTHING to do with either of them!

And….BOTH produce waste ON SITE – which is NOT SENT SUBSEQUENTLY INTERSTATE!

We take care of our own waste produced in our own state – not try and SHAFT it onto another state so that it becomes THAT RECEIVING state’s problem and responsibility AS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FOR KIMBA STANDS!

Kapeesh!

September 28, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Australians recorded frog calls on their smartphones after the bushfires – and the results are remarkable 

Australians recorded frog calls on their smartphones after the bushfires – and the results are remarkable 

Jodi Rowley, Australian Museum and Will Cornwell, 

Frogs are one of the most threatened groups of animals on Earth. At least four of Australia’s 240 known frog species are extinct and 36 are nationally threatened. After last summer’s bushfires, we needed rapid information to determine which frogs required our help.

September 28, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, environment | Leave a comment