Submission to ARPANSA on the draft Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste
Submission 1 to Code for Disposal of Solid Radioactive Waste (RPS C-3) By Noel Wauchope, 24 Feb 18
Regarding the type of radioactive wastes discussed
The big change in this Code is that it now applies to all types of disposal facility – meaning that higher level nuclear wastes are planned for. The draft Code states on page 9:
– “Australia has no high level waste (HLW) and is unlikely to possess any in the foreseeable 108 future”
But the plan is obviously to include reprocessed nuclear wastes returned to Lucas Heights, from France, where they are classified as High Level Wastes, not Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW) The vitrified waste we received back from France has a radioactivity over one Billion Becquerels per gram (one GigaBq/gr). France considers this High Level Waste http://inventaire.andra.fr/…/2006_summar…/files/docs/all.pdf
Many people are aware of the approx 10 cubic metres reprocessed spent fuel classed as ILW & returned from France in 2015. Not more generally known is the fact that there is much much more ILW destined for ‘temporary storage’ above ground (contrary to IAEA best practice) in the proposed repository
Currently there is no official determination about what is actually to be accumulated there – hence the delay in remediating the leaking drums at Woomera and failure to properly inform the local communities, also thereby wrongfully expecting them to sign off on an unknown quality/quantity.
Regarding the containers for transport and interim storage of radioactove wastes
CASKS. No detail is given in the draft Code, which calls for
“appropriate selection of waste forms and packaging”.
There are problems both in transport and in storage above ground for hundreds of years
For example – accidents, includng fires. The Mont Blac Tunnel was one fire in 1999 that had temperatures of 1000 degrees celsius, while dry cask tests only reach 760 degrees for no more than 20 minutes http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/…/Infrastructural…/mont.htm
There is no detail on the containers for radioactive waste. This is becoming an issue overseas. The Swedish Environmental Court has ruled against their planned radioactive waste repository because of concerns about the copper canisters planned. http://www.dianuke.org/landmark-swedish-court-judgment-nuc…/
USA’s The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) allows U.S. nuclear plants to store or transport spent fuel waste in thin walled welded stainless steel canisters designed to withstand a crash at 30 miles per hour https://www.newtimesslo.com/…/a-pact-with-the-devil/Content…
Britain has similar concerns. https://cumbriatrust.wordpress.com/…/swedens-problem-is-al…/ February 21, 2018by cumbriatrust
Regarding the transport and interim storage of radioactive wastes
TRANSPORT. In all its 65 pages has just the bare 2 lines, which refer the reader to another document. The dangers in transporting nuclearwastes for over 2000 km across the continent are glossed over. But it is well known that such transport over very long distances is risky. Washington, D.C. Mayor Carolyn Goodman – “Anywhere it’s transported is at risk because of the tunnels, the bridges, the railroads, the roads,” she said. “An accident … puts millions and millions of people around the country at risk for loss of life, cancer and everything else.” , https://lasvegassun.com/…/in-dc-goodman-highlights-dangers…/
INTERIM STORAGE. This is a nice phrase for what is likely to turn out to be STRANDED WASTES. Page 43 of the draft Code – “Near surface disposal facilities are generally designed on the assumption that 1295 institutional control has to remain in force for a period of time. For short lived waste, 1296 the period will have to be several tens to hundreds of years following closure.”
This Code will approve and give the go-ahead for the plan to have this temporary above-ground storage set up BEFORE there is any building of a permanent deep disposal repository.
Regarding the discussion of COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY . Page 17 of the draft Code defines “Community” In this Code the term ‘community’ is used to define the level of spatial and social organisation at which the issue of demographics must be addressed by the license applicant in terms of ‘the impact of the facility on the community in which the facility is, or is to be situated’. In general usage ‘community’ refers to a geographical area defined for the purpose of consultation.”
The Code thus eliminates the interest of the broader community – in rural South Australia, in the State of Sout hAustralia, and in the whole country.
Even while considering just the immediate local community, the Code states, on page 23, that one criterion for the location is that it must be a site “which has little or no potential for agriculture or outdoor recreational use”. I wonder what the farming community in the Kimba area think of this?
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science appoints giant American corporation AECOM to assess nuclear waste dump sites
AECOM (formerly known as AECOM Technology Corporation) is an American multinational engineering firm…AECOM traces its origins to Kentucky-based Ashland Oil & Refining Company,
Successful Tenderer To Conduct Site Characterisation 2 February 2018
Successful tenderer to conduct site studies.
THE Department of Industry, Innovation and Science today announced AECOM is the successful tenderer to assess technical suitability of sites being considered for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
The “site characterisation” works that they undertake under the contract will be conducted on all three of the nominated sites, currently being considered: two in Kimba and one at Wallerberdina Station……..
AECOM was the successful tenderer of five applicants, based on factors including its engineering and radioactive waste management experience, combined with specific experience operating in South Australia.
Radioactive waste is currently stored in more than 100 locations around Australia, and the Site Characterisation is part of Phase 2 of a process to establish a single, safe facility to consolidate the waste.
The facility will be the permanent repository for Australia’s low level radioactive waste, and it will also temporarily store our intermediate level radioactive waste………
“While these assessments are underway, our extensive community consultation will continue.
“Additionally, within the next week we will see the closing of applications for the Community Benefit Program for both communities, on Monday 5th February 2018.
“We have the right experts and the right staff in place to advance this project through various decision points this year,” McCleary said.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science to set up another pro nuclear ‘Economic Working Group’ (EWG)
Kimba residents to be involved with nuclear economic investigation https://www.eyretribune.com.au/story/5241635/kimba-residents-to-be-involved-with-nuclear-economic-investigation/
Kimba residents have the chance to be directly involved in investigating economic opportunities and issues relating to the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
As part of the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science’s ongoing consultation, an Economic Working Group (EWG) consisting of local community members will be established to consider the proposal.
Working group members will consider how economic benefits could be realised, or issues addressed, if Kimba is selected as the location for the national facility.
Opportunities that could come from the facility may include contracting works in construction, ongoing work during operation, and flow on roles in everything from the service industry to tourism.
Head of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce Bruce McCleary said the project had economic potential.
“This project has potential to generate significant local economic opportunities and this committee will give locals the chance to directly explore that,” he said.
“We know that local community members are best placed to highlight where there are local opportunities, and where more opportunities need to be created.
“Members of the Economic Working Group will work with the Kimba Consultative Committee and the department’s project team to discuss the ways the proposed facility could enhance the local community.
“The committee members will also be tasked with identifying any economic activities that could be impacted by the facility.”
The group will be based on the model already implemented in Barnidoota.
“I encourage all interested local community members – those for, against or undecided on the proposal, to put in an Expression of Interest in joining the Kimba Economic Working Group,” Mr McCleary said.
The Kimba Economic Working Group will consist of a maximum of 10 members, including a Chairperson.
Expressions of interest are now open and close at 5pm EDT on March 13 2018.
For more information on the selection criteria and how to apply to be a member of the Economic Working Group, go to www.radioactivewaste.gov.au.
REGARDING THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY – summary of letter to Industry Minister Matt Canavan
Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW), 23 Feb 18 REGARDING THE NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY (NRWMF )
1) The process is very divisive. Repeated, highly damaging processes imposed on previously cohesive communities are causing significant harms.
2) Considerable amounts of persistently misleading information have been and continue to be presented to communities. Incorrect and incomplete information does not result in genuine consent.
3) There is a failure to observe international best practice standards for the highly radioactive long lived intermediate level waste (ILW) management. There is no disposal plan whatsoever for ILW, leaving the problem for many future generations.
REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE PRODUCTION FOR EXPORT
1) There is a lack of demonstrable “Net benefit”. The proposed 40 year-long expansion of medical isotope production needs genuine cost/benefit analysis to make sure this is not a heavily subsidised product being sold into the global market at the expense of the Australian community both now and in the future. Independent NEA/OECD economic modelling finds only 10-15% cost recovery of isotope manufacture when there is genuine inclusion of all costs.
2) The expansion will create 40 years of significantly increased production of ILW.
3) ANSTO has a narrative of global shortages, yet given falling demand and increasing global supply there is no shortage of Mo99. The NEA/OECD predict a significant oversupply.
4) Again, there is no plan whatsoever for disposal of the additional ILW generated.
Both processes are unacceptably flawed.
Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW) urges
* A halt to the current NRWMF process until such time as world’s best practice is followed. There is sufficient capacity at the Lucas Heights facility, once regulatory approvals are met, to store Low Level Waste (LLW) and Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) well into the next decade.
* Cessation of expansion of nuclear medicine for export, and a phase out of exports, until there is demonstrated, publicly available, clear analysis of cost/benefit and plans for appropriate disposal of the substantial amount of ILW this process will generate.
* Transparent evaluation of “net benefit” to the Australian community. This as a whole must underpin the process, and be based on cradle to grave impacts of production.
* Recognition that currently the information provided to communities is riddled with so much misinformation it calls into question the underlying validity of any community consent process.
In closing, it is clear there is an urgent need for an independent inquiry into the production and management of Australia’s nuclear waste.
Longterm slump in uranium industry looks like being permanent
Very few mines could operate at a profit at current prices. Some mines are profitable because earlier contracts stipulated higher prices, while many mines are operating at a loss.
And with the cost of a single power reactor climbing to as much as $20 billion, proposals to introduce nuclear power to Australia seem more and more quixotic and are now largely limited to the far right ‒ in particular, Australians Conservatives’ luminary Senator Cory Bernardi and the Minerals Council of Australia.
BHP marketing vice-president Vicky Binns said in December 2017 that uranium markets would remain oversupplied for close to a decade, with downward pressure remaining on uranium prices
Uranium industry slumps, nuclear power dead in the water Jim Green, Online Opinion, 23 F
……….These days, the market exhibits multiple levels of weirdness, all stemming from the growing acknowledgment that nuclear power and the uranium industry face a bleak future.
The uranium market has a “subdued outlook” and Cameco’s uranium is now “more valuable in the ground” according to Warwick Grigor from Far East Capital, because the cost of production is higher than the prices currently being offered. Cameco CEO Tim Gitzel agrees, saying in January 2018 that at current prices “our supply is better left in the ground.” So uranium industry executives and market analysts are finally coming around to rallying cry of the anti-uranium movement: Leave it in the ground!
We’ve also had the odd situation over the past year of nuclear lobbyists arguing repeatedly that the nuclear power industry is in “crisis” and wondering what if anything can be salvaged from “the ashes of today’s dying industry“. Usually such claims come from the anti-nuclear movement ‒ sometimes more in hope that expectation.
And we’ve had the odd situation of industry bodies (such as the US Nuclear Energy Institute) and supporters (such as former US energy secretary Ernest Moniz) openly acknowledging the connections between nuclear power and weapons ‒ connections they have strenuously denied for decades.
Such arguments are now being used in an effort to secure preferential treatment for uranium mining companies in the US. Ur-Energy and Energy Fuels have lodged a petition with the Department of Commerce seeking a mandated requirement for US power utilities purchase a minimum 25% of their requirements from US mines. Uranium is “the backbone of the U.S. nuclear deterrent and fuels ships and submarines in the U.S. Navy”, the companies state………
Another miserable year for the uranium industry Nuclear power has been stagnant for the past 20 years. Although power reactors account for an overwhelming majority of uranium demand, uranium production ‒ and prices ‒ have been up and down and all over the place.
Uranium mine production increased by 50% from 2007 to 2016. The increase was driven, initially at least, by expectations of the nuclear renaissance that didn’t eventuate. Mine production plus secondary sources (e.g. stockpiles and ex-military material) have consistently exceeded demand ‒ 2017 was the eleventh consecutive year of surplus according to the CEO of uranium company Bannerman Resources.
Stockpiles (inventories) have grown steadily over the past decade to reach enormous levels ‒ enough to keep the entire global reactor fleet operating for around eight years. Supply from mines and secondary sources in recent years has exceeded demand by about 18%.
Those dynamics have put downward pressure on prices. After six years of steady decline, uranium prices were flat in 2017. The spot price as of 1 December 2017 was less than one-third of the pre-Fukushima price and the long-term contract price less than half the pre-Fukushima price.
Countless would-be uranium mining companies have given up, some trying their luck in other areas such as property development or growing dope. Some mines have closed, others have been put into care-and-maintenance, and others have reduced output. But supply has continued to exceed demand ‒ and to exert downward pressure on prices.
Very few mines could operate at a profit at current prices. Some mines are profitable because earlier contracts stipulated higher prices, while many mines are operating at a loss. Many companies have been loathe to close operating mines, or to put them into care-and-maintenance, even if the only other option is operating at a loss. They have been playing chicken, hoping that other companies and mines will fold first and that the resultant loss of production will drive up prices. “We have to recognise that we over-produce, and we are responsible for this fall in the price,” said Areva executive Jacques Peythieu in April 2017.
Current prices would need to more than double to encourage new mines ‒ a long-term contract price of about US$70–$80 is typically cited as being required to encourage the development of new mines.
The patterns outlined above were repeated in 2017. It was another miserable year for the uranium industry. A great year for those of us living in uranium producing countries who don’t want to see new mines open and who look forward to the closure of existing mines. And a great year for the nuclear power industry ‒ in the narrow sense that the plentiful availability of cheap uranium allows the industry to focus on other problems.
Cut-backs announced
The patterns that have prevailed over the past five years or so might be changed by decisions taken by Cameco and Kazatomprom (Kazakhstan) in late 2017 to significantly reduce production. Continue reading
Brewarrina residents step up campaign against proposed nuclear dump.
22 Feb 18 Brewarrina residents, including Ngemba people with local cultural responsibilities, are stepping up their campaign against the proposal for national nuclear waste dump in the region.
A silent vigil will be held during the Council meeting at 8:30am this Friday February 23, followed with a rally on Saturday morning at 9:30am.
In November 2017 the Brewarrina Council revealed that a delegation had traveled to Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney and subsequently engaged pro-nuclear consultant Robert Parker.
Trish Frail, a Ngemba woman who is coordinating the local campaign to oppose the dump, said the community was shocked by the proposal.
“This nuclear facility will not benefit our town, the community or the environment,” Ms Frail said.
“Ngemba people are custodians for the Ngunnhu Fish Traps. The site is claimed to be over sixty thousand years old and is heritage listed, being the oldest man-made structure in the world.”
“The Biami Traps were once a great gathering site for all clans to trap fish and to host corroborees, initiation ceremonies, and meetings for trade and barter.”
“A lot of our younger generation are talking about moving away if a nuclear dump is built on our land, they will lose our culture and our lore, this must not happen. The young people have been helping.”
“Brewarrina will not become a nuclear dumping ground for the Australian Government. We say No Nuclear Bundabunda (poison) on Ngemba Land – Bad Poison,” Ms Frail concluded.
Facebook events
Friday vigil: https://www.facebook.com/events/1222018404595401/?ti=icl
Saturday rally: https://www.facebook.com/events/186908808568897/?ti=icl
Premier Jay Weatherill says that South Australia’s election will be a referendum on renewables
Weatherill: Why state election will be 
referendum on renewables, REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 22 February 2018
South Australia Premier Jay Weatherill might not be able to see much daylight between his Labor Party and the rival Liberals and SA Best, but he’s certainly making sure there is a big difference between his energy policy and those of the Opposition and the upstart party of Nick Xenophon.
Over the past few weeks, before and since the start of the official election campaign, Weatherill has been trotting out almost daily announcements about significant new investments and new targets for renewable energy and energy storage in the state.
It was capped this week with his world-leading 75 per cent renewables target by 2025, the Australia-first “renewable storage” target of 750MW, Australia’s first battery manufacturing plant, to be built by Germany’s sonnen, and any number of individual renewable and storage projects.
There is good reason for this. Renewable energy, according to the polls, is a lot more popular than the Labor government, struggling under the burden of 16 years in power and about an even bet with the Liberals, with Xenophon the wild-card.
…….Weatherill insists the pursuit of renewable energy has been a success. The Australian Energy Market Operator, having “dropped the ball” is now managing the system properly (new CEO Audrey Zibelman has been a “breath of fresh air”, he says), and renewables have not been the cause of any outages.
“What we have demonstrated is that despite having 48.9 per cent renewable energy, we haven’t had any reliability issues that caused outages because of the size of our renewable energy,” Weatherill says
The blackouts in September 2016, and in February last year, were caused by major weather events and failures in the National Energy Market, the latter when “perfectly good supply” (a major unit at the Pelican Point gas generator) was not switched on because of “the way the market works.”
That prompted the SA government to intervene, building its own emergency back-up, and launching a series of initiatives that has seen the world’s biggest lithium-ion battery built by Tesla, and the world’s biggest solar tower with molten salt storage due in 2020.
This has been accompanied by a series of investments and studies in battery storage, pumped hydro and hydrogen energy projects, along with virtual power plants and micro-grids.
And the Tesla big battery, next to the Hornsdale wind farm, is already having an impact, particularly in markets that provide network services known as FCAS (Frequency Control and Ancillary Services).
“The Tesla big battery is already smashing the FCAS market, and we will get fantastic benefits from not being ripped of by the existing generators for those FCAS services,” Weatherill says.
………Labor’s 75 per cent renewable energy target compares to the Liberals pledge to can any state-based initiative, even though both have programs to encourage battery storage in households.
Xenophon’s SA Best is only now starting to roll out its policy proposals, which include creating a new “not-for-profit” retailer, and a tender for 150MW of “dispatchable” renewables.
Weatherill is hopeful Labor can continue without having to strike a deal with Xenophon’s SA Best, but says he is confident, if he must, in being able to convince Xenophon to come on board with Labor’s energy policy, notwithstanding Xenophon’s support of anti-wind campaigns in the past.
“I think I can persuade Nick that this is an appropriate future for South Australia,” he says. “I hope to get there on my lonesome without a coalition. If we do (need to strike a deal), I won’t be compromised on this, because it is critical for the future of the state.”…….http://reneweconomy.com.au/weatherill-why-state-election-will-be-referendum-on-renewables-47132/
Labor’s doublespeak about Adani coal mine plan
Greens use Labor’s Adani indecision to ramp up Batman campaign
Activists seize upon Labor’s contradictory messages on Queensland coalmine in battle for inner-city Melbourne, Guardian, Katharine Murphy Political editor@murpharoo 21 Feb 2018 18.
Townsville City Council censors documentary about Adani coal megamine plan
Anti-Adani documentary screening axed for safety reasons, not politics, council says, ABC News, 21 Feb 18 By Josh Robertson Public safety concerns, not politics, were behind the axing of the screening of a documentary on the Stop Adani protest movement, a north Queensland council says.
The latest comments on ARPANSA’s site about Code for Radioactive Wastes
James & Cindy Shepherdson We feel very strongly that there should be no consideration at all of having any type of radioactive waste stored on agricultural land. ARPANSA also needs to take into consideration the social ramifications of any proposed site on any populated, productive land.
Janet Tiller Nuclear waste and food producing districts do not mix. I say no.
The whole process is flawed and one sided. The guidelines keep changing when the outcomes don’t suit what the government are seeking.
Graham Tiller BROAD community support. Set figure 70% and dont change it.
Completely transparent and fair process a must.Not the present pathetic process. Not to be on any agriculture aquaculture and horticulture areas of food producing land. Food and nuclear waste do not mix . Clean and Green
The yes / no vote should be the whole state not just one town.
Local vote to be 100km radius of nominated sites. Neighboring councils should be notified and have input .
GrahamTiller Continuous lies, change of guide lines, half truths proper gander misleading information have been a issue through the whole process period in kimba. And of course the 2 mill. bribe and the 10mill. bigger bribe . Not much for the destruction of a ounce perfect safe and prosperous community . Greed sums it up, it’s all about the money. https://www.arpansa.gov.au/code-disposal-solid-radioactive-waste-rps-c-3
Hunters Hill residents still waiting on government to clean up uranium contaminated land
Hunters Hill residents wary of latest announcement on uranium contamination, ABC News, 20 Feb 18, By Jade Macmillan
Residents on Sydney’s lower north shore have dismissed the Government’s latest plans to clean up land contaminated by a uranium smelter more than hundred years ago as “a hollow promise”.
Property Minister Victor Dominello announced $30 million to remediate the waterfront land on Nelson Parade in Hunters Hill, the former site of the Radium Hill refinery, which closed in 1915.
The area was also occupied by a carbolic acid plant until the early 1900s and a tin smelter until the 1960s.
Residents have spent decades urging the Government to remove the affected soil, which the NSW Environment Protection Authority found it was contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, coal tar pitch, arsenic and lead.
“Having this funding should give the community confidence that we are determined to remediate the site,” Mr Dominello said, ahead of a public meeting of more than 200 residents on Tuesday night.
“The Government is currently considering suitable disposal locations for the waste, and is in discussions with the Federal Government on the possibility of using the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility earmarked for development in South Australia.”
The minister did not provide a timeframe for the works and a site for the radioactive facility has not yet been selected.
Rosemary Manusu, 80, who has lived on Nelson Parade for more than 50 years, said she had little faith in the announcement after years of inaction from successive governments.
“It’s been promised and promised about three or four times. So until they actually start moving it, I don’t believe a word they say,” she said……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-21/hunters-hill-uranium-contamination-residents-wary/9468272
Mark Parnell outlines The Greens environment policy for the coming South Australian election
At the South Australian State Election Leaders’ Forum on the environment “South Australia: Our Future”, I outlined the Greens vision for an environment that is clean, healthy and resilient.
Protecting South Australia’s environment means:
• 100% renewable energy by 2025
• A healthy River Murray
• Valuing our wildlife and biodiversity
• Protecting the Great Australian Bight
• Opposing destructive and polluting industries
• Marine sanctuaries
• Investing in our National Parks and Reserves
• No nuclear waste dump
• Enhancing urban open spaces and landscapes
Nuclear waste canisters will themselves eventually become toxic radioactive trash
Paul Richards No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 20 Feb 18, Even if they were the to last not 4, 40, or world’s best practice type with the limited liability guarantee of a 100 years;
The canisters after any time period, create yet more nuclear waste, along with their toxic radioactive contents, that all have to be repackaged creating more nuclear material to be stored.
This process, of repackaging, whether it’s 4, 40, or a 100 years, goes on indefinitely.
To add another layer of complexity to this utterly illogical process, this waste grows exponentially over this indefinite timeline of essential care.
As nothing but steady decay into volatile, life-damaging radionuclides occurs, phasing from one type to the next. A process that literally is indefinite, unimaginable in human governance terms. Even ‘if’ no nuclear waste and unspent fuel are created by the nuclear cycle, of mining, milling, rod construction and the reactor outcomes, including decommissioning reactors.
The pretense that Lucas Heights nuclear spent fuel rods are an “asset”. No, they are wastes
Steve Dale Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia If France and others stop reprocessing our spent nuclear reactor fuel, some organisations will no longer be able to call it “an asset”.
“‘The spent fuel rods at Lucas Heights can only sensibly be treated as high level waste. The pretence that spent fuel rods constitute an asset must stop” from the Research Reactor Review, Future Reactions: Report of the Research Reactor Review, 1993
Australia’s shocking cruelty to Aboriginal people with disabilities: Solitary confinement
‘The abuse of Aboriginal prisoners with disabilities in Australian jails is confronting, and ongoing.
‘In Part 3 of this special series for New Matilda, Michael Brull looks at the use of
solitary confinement against disabled Aboriginal prisoners,
exposed in a report written by Human Rights Watch‘
‘Human Rights Watch (HRW) observes that under international law, solitary confinement means
confining a prisoner for 22 hours or more per day “without meaningful human contact”.
Prolonged solitary confinement occurs when solitary confinement is extended past 15 consecutive days.
‘HRW documents in its report that various specialists on international law
from various United Nations human rights organisations have found that under international law,
it is unacceptable to impose solitary confinement on people with disabilities
under any circumstances. … ‘
Read Part 3 of MichaelBrull‘s interesting, thought-provoking, comprehensive, compassionate & concerned article
focusing on the SolitaryConfinement of AboriginalPeopleWithDisabilities:
newmatilda.com/2018/02/19/behind-bars-part-3-australias-shocking-cruelty-aboriginal-people-disabilities-solitary-confinement/
1 This month
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
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
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
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 