Australian govt documents name Whyalla, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln as possible ports for nuclear waste transport
Dan Monceaux shared a link.Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South AustraliaThey include: Whyalla and Port Pirie (in the event of the Hawker site being chosen) and Whyalla, a yet-to-be-constructed port and Port Lincoln (should a site near Kimba be selected). Options are being explored regarding road and/or rail corridors.
The technical documents in which these details are found can be downloaded at the link https://radioactivewaste.gov.au/site-selection-process/key-documents-and-faqs?fbclid=IwAR2FpBZP-wqi6hdIDVh6P8hCWw-Lb0tWb_bk94THxjO9df8nSrdqRazZzeYbelow. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/
ZEN Energy and the stunning solar future for South Australia
Natural Advantage, 14 years ago, Richard Turner rigged up a solar-powered battery to bring some modern convenience to his kids’ cubby house. In 2018, after an incredible journey, the business is ready to revolutionise the economy and transform our state’s prosperity.
Established in 2004 in South Australia, ZEN Energy was created by Richard to get solar powered battery storage into Australian homes.
In 2010 ZEN was the state’s fastest growing company. In 2012, BRW magazine wrote up ZEN as the fourth fastest growing company in the country.
This year, British billionaire industrialist Sanjeev Gupta bought 50.1 per cent of ZEN, creating the new entity SIMEC ZEN Energy as part of his plan to own the power supply to the Whyalla Steelworks – purchased in 2017.
Gupta’s plan for ZEN is simple: power the steelworks and the associated businesses nationally with the cheapest electricity available. And in 2018 the cheapest electricity available is renewable.
But cheap doesn’t come easy. ZEN Energy is only around for Sanjeev Gupta to invest in because a lot of hard work across many generations has come before it………..
Richard isn’t mad the State Government awarded Tesla the contract for the Hornsdale battery; in many ways the Tesla brand cleared the political path for action. Richard is more frustrated by the language and mindset of the state that seems – at so many levels – to believe it’s helpless.
Tech-billionaire batteries and steel factory saviours make good headlines – but ZEN Energy tells the far more credible story of this state’s ongoing industry, creativity and resilience.
It just so happens that ZEN Energy’s story starts in a cubby house in a suburban backyard.
Richard’s children Laura and James wanted to put a little light and TV in the cubby house to make it feel more homely and play later into the evening, and so Richard scooped the kids up into the car and headed for the local hobby shop to see what they could buy. The family bought a little solar panel, a regulator, a converter and a battery. Richard recalls the guy at the shop pulling out a whiteboard marker and writing Ohm’s Law on the shop’s whiteboard.
Watts = Volts x Amps.
Rigging up the system and flicking the switch, a light went on in Richard’s mind at the same time as he lit up his kid’s cubby house. There was a business here……….
“South Australia could be the Middle East of the new world,” says Richard.
The statement catches us off guard both in its simplicity and its severity.
“We’ve got the very best renewable energy generation resource in the world,” says Richard.
“We’ve got the best sun here. We’ve got the best wind here. We’ve got these unique wind patterns that come across the roaring forties, across the Australian Bight that split up and down the Eyre Peninsula. We have nearly two gigawatts of wind power here, and there’s bugger all in the rest of Australia.”
But it’s not the raw product Richard is referring to explicitly when he says South Australia could be the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy. Richard is talking about the whole value chain of the renewable economy epitomised by Sanjeev’s GFG Alliance.
Liberty One Steel in Whyalla (as it has been renamed) and its associated heavy industry across the country will have massive demand for electricity. ZEN will be the clean, green and low-cost energy supply. Off the back of our natural and renewable resources, Richard forecasts radical change in the fortunes of this state.
“When we produce the very lowest cost of power you’re going to have all this new industry evolve. All these traditional industries will revive and gravitate to the region and will employ five times as many people as you employed in a coal-fired power station,” says Richard.
Whyalla – a town built for 100,000 people – has never had more than a quarter of that live there. “We can see, in five years, there’ll be close to 100,000 in Whyalla,” says Richard.
And with low-cost energy we can start to refine – not just mine.
Richard skips from the lithium to graphite reserves of Australia (graphite makes up lithium ion batteries 30 per cent by weight). He speaks with vigour about our clean hydrogen future – hydrogen being a huge and growing fuel source for the energy intensive economies of Korea and Japan who don’t have the renewable energy resources of South Australia.
Sanjeev Gupta will build cars in Australia – electric vehicles – Richard confirms. They’ll be built in either Victoria or South Australia. Regardless of where the cars are built, Richard says, “all the car metals and composite materials will come out of our own factories, powered by the natural energy of the sun”.
Within three-to-five years, renewables will become the dominant energy source in Australia – with coal and gas very much playing a secondary role to fill gaps in energy supply until new hydro facilities come online. Vast arrays of batteries will support critical areas prone to power fluctuations and the national energy regulator AEMO has committed to running immediate pilot programs in the worst affected areas.
Grid scale batteries will reduce severe outages by kicking into action microseconds after a power fluctuation occurs, effectively stabilising the grid. The stability these batteries will create is already causing the industry to predict electricity prices to fall by up to 30 per cent next year.
From bottom of the ladder in the old fossil-fuel energy system, South Australia is set to jump to the top in the new, renewable energy economy. And while the headlines published in our daily paper may continue to put us down, the story of this next stage in our state’s history is far more fantastic.
“South Australia is going to have the most abundant, stable electricity production centre in Australia and probably on earth,” says Richard – a fifth generation South Australian. “In years to come you won’t want to be protecting SA’s power – you’ll be exporting it both interstate and around the world.” https://citymag.indaily.com.au/habits/power/natural-advantage/?fbclid=IwAR0pgkI1MFhRalb81RPawsieK-NCgyYLxAYyqGNo0aGKsnC-SQcSMvvmBc4
Note to Cory Berardi. Nuclear power plants do not really mitigate global warming
Here is the MIT white paper whereby the Conservative Senator promotes nuclear power for decarbonisation of S.Aust electricity generation [18 pages].
What this paper (like most pro-nuke promo’s) fails to mention is that building & then operating a NPP instigates massive upfront carbon deficit thereby INCREASING GHGE; then it takes decades of no probs operation to slowly claw back that initial spike in anthropogenic global warming. And the more you build the greater that initial shock to the biosphere.
All NPP carbon offset claims depend upon whole life 25-40+year scenario’s: NPPs do not somehow magically produce instant carbon mitigation.
Things are crook for the Liberals, when the IPA blasts them on energy policies!
Institute of Public Affairs blasts Coalition’s ‘un-Liberal’ energy policies. IPA’s John Roskam says government should ‘stop all subsidies to coal, wind and anything else’ Paul Karp @Paul_Karp, 27 Oct 2018 The Institute of Public Affairs has blasted the Morrison government’s “big stick” in energy policy – a threat to break up energy companies in a bid to lower prices – accusing it of breaching Liberal values and endangering investment.
The IPA executive director, John Roskam, told Guardian Australia that “heavy-handed intervention” was “positively un-Liberal” and would open the door for Labor to campaign on policies bashing big businesses – which are “simply responding to the policy settings the government itself has created” to make a profit.
Roskam also warned against any form of subsidy for electricity generation including renewables subsidies, underwriting new power generation and indemnifying coal power against a possible future carbon price.
The intervention from the influential rightwing thinktank exposes divisions in the conservative side of politics on energy policy. Some, including MP Craig Kelly and former prime minister Tony Abbott, have called for an end to renewable subsidies and withdrawal from the Paris agreement, in line with demands from the IPA.
The Morrison government has indicated it wants to preserve popular solar subsidies and to stay in Paris while it pushes ahead with competition measures to lower price in the absence of a policy to reduce emissions by 2030.
Roskam said breaking up energy companies “continues the trend of targeting particular industries” as the Coalition did with the bank tax in the 2017 budget and would “further confuse Australians” about what it stands for.
“The idea that the government would determine the shape and size of the industry in this way cuts across every principle of the Liberal party,” he said. “If you want a guarantee that nobody will ever invest in Australia again, this is how you do it.”
The Coalition has promised policies to encourage new generation – including providing a floor price, contracts for difference and government loans – and has not ruled out using those measures to support new coal-fired power stations.
The energy minister, Angus Taylor, has said the government should address investors’ concerns about “political risks”, in a sign it could also indemnify coal power against future emissions reduction policies such as a carbon price. Taylor has also said there is “no plan” to change the small-scale renewable energy scheme.
Roskam said the government should “stop all subsidies to coal, wind and anything else” because “picking winners should be an anathema to the Liberal party”.
Although the IPA wants to see more coal power, Roskam said the government should “reduce the regulatory barriers to them being funded”, not keep the barriers and overcome them with subsidies……
……. Roskam said the Liberal Party is “hopelessly conflicted on climate change” and “riven down the middle”…….
Despite the suggestion emissions and price reductions are incompatible, renewables are forecast to lower prices while coal subsidies would increase energy costs…… https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/27/institute-of-public-affairs-blasts-coalitions-un-liberal-energy-policies
Australia’s 60 Minutes – on Fukushima – a nuclear infomercial
 The 60 Minutes Fukushima nuclear infomercial, Independent AustraliaNoel Wauchope 23 October 2018 A FEW YEARS AGO, Channel 9’s 60 Minutes did an excellent investigation of the Fukushima nuclear accident.
This Fukushima investigation was compered by Liz Hayes. I recall that, at the time, the program was a much more thorough, serious and well-resourced presentation than anything put forward by even the ABC or SBS. However, I was pretty appalled at the latest 60 Minutes coverage of the Fukushima issue, which screened on Sunday (21 October) titled, Is nuclear power the solution to our energy crisis? The main message of this program is a call to scrap Australia’s legislation against establishing the nuclear industry. The argument given is that we need nuclear power because it is supposedly cheap and dependable. We also need it because it is supposedly essential to combat climate change. This time, the reporter is not Liz Hayes. It’s Tom Steinfort, who is described as a “seasoned Channel 9 star”. Does a seasoned Channel 9 star just accept without question the claims made in this episode? Among claims made:
If Mr Steinfort really is a star reporter, I would expect him to have done his homework before swallowing these claims hook line and sinker. ………
So, what do we make of this latest offering about Fukushima, from 60 Minutes? It must have taken a lot of money and a lot of negotiation to get a 60 Minutes camera team inside the Fukushima nuclear station. I assume that the negotiations were largely arranged by Ben Heard, who has influential nuclear contacts overseas — particularly in Russia and South Africa, where he has been a prominent nuclear spokesperson. In Russia, Heard launched Rosatom National Geographic — a nuclear soft sell environmental program. I think that we can be sure of one thing. As Japan plans for the 2020 Olympics – some sections of which are to take place in Fukushima Prefecture – the Japanese Government is not likely to permit a team with any anti-nuclear perspective access to the crippled nuclear power plant. The 60 Minutes media team would have had to have the Japanese authorities on side. I would bet, some companies keen to set up the nuclear industry in Australia would also be on side and keen to assist. There have been rumblings, too, of yet another resurgence for nuclear energy in Australia, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison declaring that he is ‘open to the idea of nuclear power’ and that ‘the source of Australia’s energy doesn’t bother him and he isn’t interested in an ideological debate’. Is it too much to hope that Channel 9 might do something to correct this nuclear infomercial and give us a different, more comprehensive view, rather than one blessed by Japanese authorities and the nuclear power lobby? https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-60-minutes-fukushima-nuclear-infomercial,12023 |
|
|
Another radiation contamination incident at Australia’s Lucas Heights nuclear reactor
Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in another contamination scare amid calls for safety review, By John Stewart and Rebecca Trigger, ABC Investigations 24 Oct 18 There has been another contamination scare at Australia’s only nuclear reactor in southern Sydney, in the same week a report was released recommending immediate action to review safety procedures at the site.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) confirmed five workers reported receiving a dose of radiation, but it was not above allowable limits.
………The Australian Manufacturers and Workers Union (AMWU) told the ABC at 11:30am on Tuesday, five employees working in the industrial handling bay inside building 23 were contaminated by an airborne iodine isotope.
The AMWU said one employee had been sent for thyroid scans, and another had to shave part of his beard off as it was carrying contaminates.
The scare came in the same week as a report into the ageing facility found it failed modern nuclear safety standards, and needed to be replaced, after another worker was exposed to radioactive material last year.
The union said Tuesday’s contamination was a result of comprehensive and repeated failures to protect the safety of workers at the site.
……….‘Legacy’ buildings at nuclear site need action, report finds
A worker was exposed to hazardous material after dropping a vial in an area of the facility known as building 23 in August last year.
The event was deemed the most serious in the world in 2017, according to the International Nuclear Event Scale.
A review conducted by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPNSA) following this incident, found two buildings at the site — 23 and 54 — were relatively old “legacy” facilities designed to meet 1950s-era standards, “and therefore may not fully meet modern standards of nuclear design, safety and operational workflows”.
“However, it should be noted that both facilities have met the safety requirements of the applicable regulators,” the report said.
The report also noted concerns around “unacceptable” behaviours including allegations of bullying and harassment of ANSTO staff.
ARPNSA made 85 recommendations, and directed ANSTO to “take immediate steps to initiate an independent review of the approach to occupational radiation safety of processes and operational procedures in B23″……..https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-24/contamination-scare-at-australias-lucas-heights-nuclear-reactor/10422476
Nuclear weapons for Australia? – at what cost?
The reactor would have been able to generate plutonium which, under the auspices of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.
But the project did not survive an abrupt change of leadership and Australia ended up riding out the remainder of the Cold War as a non-nuclear player.
Five decades later the nuclear anxieties which coloured Mr Gorton’s foreign policy outlook are creeping their way back into international relations.
US President Donald Trump has announced that he will pull the US from the Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, as both countries expand their nuclear arsenals.
India is locked in a nuclear tit-for-tat with neighbouring Pakistan, while China has developed nuclear weapons capable of reaching anywhere in the US.
Historically Australia has sought shelter under the US ‘nuclear umbrella’, but is it time for that to change?
In a recent essay, Dr Stephan Fruhling, the Associate Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific at the ANU, contemplated the “unthinkable option”, and suggested that a nuclear-armed Australia is more likely than ever before.
Fortress Australia
According to Dr Fruhling, Australia’s continuous coastline makes it uniquely positioned to ‘spike the moat’ with tactical, short-range nuclear weapons that could be used against air and maritime forces.
“In air and naval battle on the high seas, nukes can now be employed without significant risk of collateral damage, much like conventional war heads,” he told Late Night Live.
“Australia could establish a maritime exclusion zone in wartime, to increase the military risk for any country planning a major attack against the continent.”
But what would be the cost?
The strategic benefits of any nuclear capability would have to be balanced against the possible implications of breaking out of the US nuclear umbrella.
Australia’s access to US intelligence, technology, and weapons systems may be compromised if it chose to take on a defence strategy that was less reliant on the US.
“Before investing in a nuclear program I think we would have to make a genuine attempt at trying to draw closer to the United States and its nuclear arsenal,” Dr Fruhling said.
If Australia chooses to remain under the US nuclear umbrella, Indonesia presents a unique case in which American and Australian interests may not intersect.
Indonesia is also a US ally, and if it decided to begin its own nuclear program, the implications for the US security guarantee for Australia are not clear.
“Should Indonesia acquire nuclear weapons, relying on US deterrence against a nuclear attack would require a leap of faith about the alignment of Australian and US interests,” Dr Fruhling said..
An Australian nuclear program could lead to Indonesia following suit.
“Indonesia has regional leadership ambitions, and a strong sense of independence and will, in coming years, tower over Australia economically as well as in population terms,” Dr Fruhling said.
“Australian acquisition of nuclear weapons would strengthen Indonesia’s reasons to reciprocate, for status as well as security.”
In the meantime, however, Australia’s non-nuclear status is important in discouraging Indonesia and other regional players from going down the nuclear path……..https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-24/should-australia-have-a-nuclear-weapons-program/10407610
Australia losing all credibility with Pacific neighbours, as Morrison pulls out of global climate fund
 Poor nations castigate Australia for abandoning global climate fund, Canberra Times, By Nicole Hasham, 24 October 2018 Developing nations say a Morrison government snub of the world’s biggest climate change fund hampers efforts to cut global carbon pollution and erodes Australia’s international reputation……
Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced Australia will cease payments to the United Nations-backed Green Climate Fund, a mechanism under the Paris treaty to help poor nations cut emissions and respond to extreme weather and rising seas. Australia’s high per-capita emissions and coal dependence mean it was expected to be a generous benefactor. However, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has pressured the government to abandon the fund and it is unpopular with conservative Coalition MPs, including Tony Abbott. Australia contributed $200 million in the first funding round and took a leadership role in 2016 when it co-chaired the fund. But in a radio interview last month Mr Morrison, when asked if Australia would be bound to its climate targets under the Paris agreement, said: “No, we won’t … nor are we bound to go and tip money into that big climate fund. We’re not going to do that either. I’m not going to spend money on global climate conferences and all that nonsense.” Fund board member Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, of the Democratic Republic of Congo, said Australia’s stance was “beyond frustrating”, particularly in the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that this month warned of devastating planetary damage without radical action. “This backtracking from [the] previous commitment by Australia is disappointing,” he told Fairfax Media. “Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter … it has a major responsibility to provide financial support for developing countries to adapt to and mitigate climate change.” Mr Mpanu-Mpanu suggested abandoning the fund was in contravention of the Paris accord and said commitments by developing nations to lower emissions under the treaty relied on financial support from nations such as Australia. Parties to the Paris deal will meet in Poland in December to finalise the rules of the treaty and “this decision by Australia will cast a shadow on the process of reaching an agreement”, he said……. The condemnation from the developing world further cements Australia’s position as a global outlier on climate action after the government indicated it would not ramp up emissions reduction efforts under the Paris treaty and rejected the IPCC’s call for a coal phase-out by 2050. Developed countries originally pledged $US10 billion to the fund but it was left short after US President Donald Trump withheld $US2 billion of the $US3 billion his nation promised…… https://www.canberratimes.com.au/politics/federal/poor-nations-castigate-australia-for-abandoning-global-climate-fund-20181023-p50beh.html |
|
Has Channel 9’s “60 Minutes” sold its soul to the nuclear lobbby?
Last Sunday’s episode of “60 Minutes was just an infomercial for the nuclear lobby.
But 60 Minutes can do real journalism. Here’s Liz Hayes with her investigation of Fukushima, a few years ago:
60 Minutes Fukushima report
One critic sees reporter Tom Steinfort as being manipulated by nuclear propagandist Ben Heard
Just watched a “60 minutes extra video” where he has an extended interview with Geraldine Thomas. He talks about his Geiger counter on the plane (a Safecast unit that Ben Heard is seen holding in the actual 60 minutes report) and says –
“…the Geiger counter is hovering around 3.5 to 3.6 micro Sieverts – that is about “50 times” the normal exposure you would get in Melbourne or Sydney…”
3.5 is 35 times the average background value 0.1 micro Sieverts. The nuclear propagandists exaggerate the effects of airflight non-contaminating radiation because it suits their agenda. Such dishonesty, such desperation..
It really seems like the nuclear propagandists have thrown everything at this poor unwitting journalist to get this segment – I wonder who actually paid for the airflights (which from the video looked like first/business class)
Oh – and from the display on the Geiger Counter we can say the date of the flight was 23rd of September – and I know Heard was also in Fukushima back in April, so this makes 3+ trips to Fukushima power station.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/permalink/2164537616911217/?comment_id=2165288513502794&reply_comment_id=2165973880100924Safety concerns about Lucas Heights nuclear reactor: needs $210m tax-payer funded upgrade
Steve Dale According to the article below, this is referring to “Building 23” – which “operates a nuclear medicine production facility and is responsible for distributing “finished” products”. So it sounds like ANSTO have got their hands out again for more taxpayer money for their messy, high-volume waste producing nuclear medicine factory. ANSTO should be putting all their efforts into finding methods that minimise the waste eg. cyclotrons.
Unsurprisingly the article also mentions –
“A perception of widespread bullying also emerged, with about one in five ANSTO staff interviewed saying they had “experienced bullying” over a six-month period.” Seems like ANSTO is toxic in multiple ways https://www.abc.net.au/…/lucas-heights-nuclear…/10403532
Sydney nuclear facility needs $210m revamp: report, SMH, 22 October 2018 The federal government’s ageing nuclear medical facility in southern Sydney should be replaced or rebuilt due to safety concerns, an independent report says.
The expert report published on Monday found there was a “make do and mend” culture at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation site in Lucas Heights.
The report found the 1950s-era nuclear medical facility failed to meet modern nuclear safety standards.
A replacement facility has been in the pipeline for several years but plans have been hindered because of federal government budget restrictions, the report says.
The organisation’s boss on Monday argued if work started “today” on a new $210 million building, it could be up and running in five years.
While several modifications have been made to the facility, the report found upgrades cannot resolve all of its problems.
In August 2017, a technician at the facility was exposed to radioactive material that contaminated his hands through two pairs of gloves after he dropped a vial, exposing him to an elevated risk of cancer.
The incident was the most serious in the world last year – the only safety failure that was rated a “Level 3” event or above. It was followed by three other less-serious incidents – “near misses” – within the next 10 months.
“It should be noted that Level 3 events are regarded as serious events in the nuclear industry and any additional events at this level may result in loss of confidence in the organisation,” the report says.
……. The report made 85 recommendations, including that the Australian government commit to a replacement facility as soon as practicable and provide additional funding or find alternative funding for the new site. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-nuclear-facility-needs-210m-revamp-report-20181022-p50b9z.html
Defence Department breached radiation regulations
Defence breached radiation regulations, THE AUSTRALIAN, By RORY CALLINAN, OCTOBER 22, 2018
The Defence Department has blamed poor record keeping for its failure to properly transport and dispose of small amounts of radioactive material contained in lighting systems accompanying old artillery pieces.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency found Defence had breached licence conditions in relation to the material in lighting systems associated with the Hamel 105mm towed light howitzers that were phased out of operation in 2018
Defence failed to comply with regulations in regard to disposing of controlled material without prior approval and not following the transport code for radioactive sources, said ARPANSA’s recently released annual report.
……. The spokesman said after investigating the matter, Defence had acted to ensure that similar incidents would not occur.
He said ARPANSA had been satisfied with the action taken and it accepted no radiation safety impacts as a result of the incident. No fines or enforcement action was warranted, he said.https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-breached-radiation-regulations/news-story/543e133be974ee5cd69e0343f54a2201
NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP DECISION DELAYED BY COURT ACTION
The selection of a preferred site in rural South Australia for a national radioactive waste dump will likely be delayed until next year. …. (subscribersonly)
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/decision-on-nuclear-waste-dump-location-delayed-until-next-year/news-story/380157b786abf27c905e517f1c98503a
Liberal moderates to demand $1 billion for climate change fund
Liberal moderates concerned at the Coalition’s lack of climate change policy are set to demand Scott Morrison revitalise the ailing direct action policy with a $1 billion injection into the Emissions Reduction Fund.
Warning that the climate change lesson from Saturday’s Wentworth …. (subscribers only) https://www.afr.com/news/liberal-moderates-to-demand-1-billion-for-climate-change-fund-20181021-h16xaq
Traditional Owners launch campaign challenging Origin Energy over NT fracking consents
to challenge Origin Energy over claims it has consent for controversial gas fracking plans
across some of the Northern Territory’s most pristine
landscapes, waterways and iconic tourism regions.
‘Traditional Owners, the Protect Country Alliance and supporters will address
a press conference prior to the AGM, coinciding with the launch of a national campaign
calling on Origin to drop plans to frack the Northern Territory. …
‘Stuart Nuggett [TraditionalOwner] has travelled from the remote township of Elliott
to attend the AGM on behalf of his community, a region at the heart of Origin’s fracking permit acreage:
‘“Our communities haven’t been given enough information about what Origin is planning for our region.
We are worried about the risks fracking brings.
I have concerns over what the impact could be on water. Water is life.
I want the company to listen to our concerns and act on them.”
‘May August is an Alawa grandmother and Traditional Owner
for land under the Origin exploration permits:
‘“We don’t want fracking to start in our area because we have seen
the damage Origin and other companies have done elsewhere in Australia. … ‘
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 