Science researcher debunks Tony Abbott’s climate claims
Tony Abbott’s climate claims debunked: researcher dissects 2013 statement Guardian, Michael Slezak, 23 Jan 16 Sophie Lewis was so annoyed about the way science was ignored in the political debate about climate change she went to work to disprove the myths. Climate scientists are regularly infuriated by the things politicians say. But it’s not often they publish a scientific paper tearing a politician’s comments to shreds.
Sophie Lewis, from the Australian Research Council’s centre for excellence in climate science, has done exactly that, dissecting statements about climate records made by the former prime ministerTony Abbott in 2013.
Last week, temperature figures showed 2015 was officially the hottest year on record. Before that, 2014 was the hottest year on record. And scientists are expecting 2016 to once again win the dubious honour.
Heat records are being broken with wild abandon. Last year, 10 months broke temperature records.
Climate scientists say a rise in the average temperature caused by greenhouse gas emissions makes extreme heat records more likely.
In 2013, the UN’s top climate official, Christiana Figueres, linked bushfires in Australia to climate change. Abbott called such claims “complete hogwash” and said drawing links between broken records and climate change was a sign of desperation.
Lewis says she was frustrated by the gap she saw between what the science showed and what some politicians said was happening.
In a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Weather and Climate Extremes, Lewis pulls Abbot’s comments apart, shred by shred…………
The first way to understand Abbott’s claim is that in any system, the longer you wait, the more often you will see records fall. But Lewis points out that the exact opposite is true. In a system without any sort of trend, such as a random string of temperatures, the first one will be a record-breaker, by default. The second one will have a 50% chance of being a record-breaker. The third has a one in three chance of being a record breaker … and so on. In a very long temperature series, you should see very few records being broken, and they will break less often over time.
Unless, of course, there is a warming or cooling trend………
Lewis ran a series of climate models in which the greenhouse effect was removed – so all that was left was natural variability. Unsurprisingly, in those models, high temperature records were less common than they are in reality. In other words, the record-breaking that we have seen cannot be explained by natural variation……http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/23/tony-abbotts-climate-claims-debunked-researcher-dissects-2013-statement-australia
Geoff Russell Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust: convince public that radiation is OK
Geoff Russell’s Submission is all about how to overcome public dislike of the nuclear industry.
I love it! Russell doesn’t bother with the nuances of argument, or indeed, even with the facts. Here he goes on radiation:
“The demonstrated health risks associated with the Fukushima meltdowns are various and it’s simple to show that radiation was and remains the smallest. Fear of radiation demonstrably killed more people than radiation could ever have. “
Note the use of the word “demonstrated”. As with smoking, the cancer cases from ionising radiation appear decades later – but not much in the early years after exposure, can’t be “demonstrated then) .
Russell explains that public concern about Fukushima radiation is due to “ignorance” and ““incompetent news reporting”. He tries to demolish any information that Chernobyl nuclear radiation caused illness or death. He’s good at dazzling you with jargony non-science : – “Put another way, normal DNA damage is about 10,000-15,000 times greater than the public was getting from radiation at Fukushima”
Russell’s forte is rubbishing well known people, authors Guy Rundle and Mark Willacy, Professor Ian Lowe, and also governments: “But it isn’t just the news media that seem to go out of their way to ignore evidence, the Government of Japan provides an excellent, but tragic, example with its response to the meltdowns at Fukushima in 2011” He rubbishes the Japanese government’s response to the Fukuhsima nuclear disaster as an over-reaction, with the evacuation as unnecessary.
He rubbishes the idea of ionising radiation as a cause of cancer, except for these odd remarks
“only a small section of the community will generally be at any significant risk at all; young children and pregnant woman…….The Hiroshima and Nagasaki doses and outcome makes it clear that any general outcome from Fukushima can only be, at worst, a slight ripple in cancer rates….”
(Now we know who matters to Geoff Russell, and who doesn’t!)
He attacks the accepted Linear No Threshold Theory (LNT) of radiation – the one endorsed by World Health Organisation (WHO) all reputable health organisations world-wide:
“Radiation experts know that LNT is simply a model which is useful in some circumstances but quite clearly wrong; both for high doses and low doses”
“……If this Royal Commission is to present an expansion of the nuclear industry as a viable option in South Australia it must deal explicitly with the causes of the Fukushima evacuation. ….. The truth is that the Fukushima meltdowns never posed any significant public health risk and that the Government of Japan mishandled the event from the outset and at every subsequent point.”
Russell goes on to a big jargony waffle about why ionising radiation in water is of no concern. Then he wanders all over the place about other causes and mechanisms of cancer development.
Russell’s conclusion:
The Royal Commission is uniquely placed to learn from the past, but it will need to deal with the drivers of nuclear fear in the community. To build confidence in the community, the Commission’s report will need to convince both sides of politics to speak with one voice about the misinformation that drove (and drives) the Fukushima evacuation. Appeasement, in the form of more and more levels of safeguards and protocols to attempt to say that “it can’t happen here” isn’t the answer.
There will always be accidents despite every effort to avoid them. Planes still crash, but people understand the relative risks and board them regardless of personal fear. They understand that fear is their personal problem and not a function of the objective facts…….
In Australia in 2010-11 there were 7730 Worker’s45 Compensation claims for serious injury resulting from falls from a height. How many were associated with rooftop solar panels? As far as I can see, nobody is even counting, but a million solar rooftops means more people on ladders; many of them amateurs. This is real danger, the kind that can put you in a wheel chair for the rest of your life. http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Geoff-Russell-22-07-2015.pdf
Floating nuclear reactors – a Submission to #NuclearCommissionSaust
Geoff Hudson’s Submission to the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission recommends SeaBurn – floating Portable Generation IV Reactor Development to process existing used fuel rods.
“…..It is expected that one or more foreign companies like Transatomic Power, GEHitachi, or Westinghouse would be involved. A consortium involving a South Australian Government authority (to be created), one or more overseas companies (to be chosen) and possibly the United States Department of Energy would develop the technology, first on land near a waste repository, and then in ships or submarines.
A major contribution from South Australia will be a significant fraction of the funding. It is expected that the source of that funding will be part of the income from a waste repository. The repository needs SeaBurn to offer reduction in the life time of the wastes, but will support SeaBurn from its income. This synergy means that SeaBurn should not be adopted if there is no waste repository……http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Geoff-Hudson-15-06-2015.pdf
Geoff Russell: a pro nuclear Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
Geoff Russell seems to have sent two Submissions. He is preoccupied with the need for the Royal Commission to build public confidence in the nuclear industry.
“There is extensive evidence that people in Australia are strongly opposed to any artificial nuclear process, and in the view of the author, the entire work of the Commission could easily be wasted because of this opposition.
A procedure to address this opposition is presented, beginning with surveys, passing through production of media materials, to a referendum.”
MANAGEMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE On building public confidence in the nuclear waste dump plan:
“1. The relationship between knowledge of nuclear processes and the desire to limit any nuclear activities or industry. I keep in touch with colleagues who also studied Nuclear Physics, To a man, they regard the great bulk of the general phobia about all things nuclear as an aberrant result of lack of knowledge combined with passionate but incorrect argument.
- The cost of an insurance premium to cover any damage caused by any nuclear accident or leakage. If you can take out a policy which, for example, will pay you $1,000,000 if your farm becomes unsafe for food production for $100 per year, then you are much more inclined to take a rational view of the risks”
Russell advises the Commission to survey public knowledge and level of aversion:
“Measure Correlation between Knowledge and Aversion Check the correlation between the knowledge and the level of aversion shown in the survey. Most people trained in nuclear physics expect that strong aversion will be correlated strongly with low knowledge.
Publicize the Correlation In the event that the correlation anticipated above is observed, then publicise that fact. The ABC or SBS may be willing to assist here. …..”
“Prepare Communication Materials on Nuclear processes Prepare general materials (e.g. a short film) suitable for high schools to explain the actual risks of radioactivity and the actual risks of other industrial processes, especially power production. Provide copies of these materials to schools and the media. Having produced two Ockham’s Razor talks on nuclear issues, as well as a keynote presentation to the Uranium conference held in Adelaide and to a U3A group, I feel able to contribute to this activity, and would welcome the opportunity to do so…”
He suggests an insurance plan for damage to life or property from an nuclear waste establishment.
“…….Analysis The strong public resistance to nuclear power and the storage of nuclear waste means that the chance that nothing will come of this Royal Commission, other than affirmation of the existing public opinion, is very high. This is the elephant in the room, and failure to address it is an admission that the cost and effort of the Commission will be wasted.”……. http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Geoff-Hudson-15-06-2015.pdf
John Emerson’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust – wants a BHP waste dump
John Emerson wants BHP to set up a nuclear waste dump http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/John-Emerson-22-07-2015.pdf – a pity that BHP has ruled this out in its own Submission :
BHP Billiton does not handle or manage intermediate and high-level radioactive wastes. Nevertheless we understand that current thinking is toward long term storage rather than disposal, as it is foreseeable that the contained energy may be able to be harnessed in the future. Irrespective of whether storage or disposal is preferred, BHP Billiton considers that either option would be inconsistent with our core business of mining and the production of high quality copper and associated by-products at Olympic Dam. http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/BHP-Billiton-03-08-2015.pdf
Medical isotopes: tax-payer funded ANSTO should be promoting non nuclear technology
Medical isotope production in Australia: Should we be using reactor based or cyclotron technology? 15th January 2016 Dr Margaret Beavis MBBS FRACGP MPH Medical Association for Prevention of War, Australia Health Professionals Promoting Peace
Campaign against Oman Ama nuclear dump site is gaining momentum
Group steps up campaign against Oman Ama nuclear dump http://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/news/anti-nuke-dump-petition/2905419/ 21st Jan 2016 THE Friends of Oman Ama are continuing to grow their grassroots campaign against the nuclear waste facility proposed for their community.
From hitting the streets of Inglewood to reaching thousands of people online, the group is doing what it can to get its message across. Placards, banners and signs have been displayed across the area, while leaflets have been distributed to every home in Inglewood. The group’s information street stall in Inglewood is also gathering momentum.
Information street stall group members Vanessa Grady and Rechelle Privitera said they believed the overwhelming mood on the street was people did not want the nuclear waste facility. While some were hesitant about signing the petition, street stall members claimed people were happy to sign once they read the information available.
So far the Friends of Oman Ama’s petition has gathered several hundred signatures. The group is encouraging people to have their say on the issue as the consultation continues.
Resident Sue Campbell said the proposal had challenged the community. “I feel we need to come together as a community and determine our own future,” she said. “We need to decide what we want this community to look like in 10, 20 or 30 years time.”
Community consultation on the issue ends on Friday, March 11, at 5pm.
To have your say visit www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/proposed-sites#3.
People directly involved in the Oman Ama proposal will be given an opportunity to take a tour of the proposed property tomorrow afternoon.
Cyclotrons able to produce medical isotopes; no need for Lucas Heights nuclear reactor
This production method for Tc-99m can be used by retrofitting various brands of conventional cyclotrons already in use in hospitals and health centres across Canada.Australian Nuclear science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) not honest about cyclotrons
Medical isotope production in Australia: Should we be using reactor based or cyclotron technology? 15th January 2016 Dr Margaret Beavis MBBS FRACGP MPH Medical Association for Prevention of War, Australia Health Professionals Promoting Peace Likely Recommendations of the #NuclearCommissionSAust
Dan Monceaux , Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Watch 19 Jan 16 List of what I believe are possible or likely recommendations (in no particular order):
– the repeal of state and federal prohibitions blocking nuclear industrial development
– the consideration of the establishment of a nuclear waste repository in SA
– the development of a ‘nuclear fuel leasing scheme’, whereby Australian miners (inc. BHP Billiton & Rio Tinto) receive spent fuel which was created from Australian uranium, and profit from its receipt
– the establishment of an advanced research centre to support the development of next generation ‘nuclear waste recycling’ reactors
(most likely via the newly formed Future Industries Institute, UniSA)
– the consideration of nuclear energy as a ‘low-carbon energy source’ in the future replacement of coal-fired power plants in Australia’s Eastern states
– the relaxation of safety regulations for nuclear industrial workers (inc. uranium miners) including, potentially, the rejection of the LNT hypothesis https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/permalink/1126636220701367/
February 15 #NuclearCommissionSAust’s tentative findings & feedback available
Tim Bickmore Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Watch 19 Jan 16 The Tentative Findings will be available to download from the www.nuclearrc.sa.gov.au from 11am, February 15, 2016 or by contacting the office on 08 8207 1480.
Feedback on the Tentative Findings can be provided to the Commission via its website, email or through traditional mail delivery. Details on this process will be on the NFCRC website soon. 16 https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/permalink/1126636220701367/
South Australian Cabinet gets two new pro nuclear enthusiasts
Leesa Vlahos’ elevation to the Cabinet of South Australia in the Jay Weatherill government was announced on 18 January 2016.
Vlahos was described by the Australian Financial Review as ‘staunchly pro-nuclear’ and advocated for nuclear power in Australia during the lead-up to the Royal Commission into South Australia’s future role in the nuclear fuel cycle. In her 2015 submission in response to the Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission she stated that she had been an advocate for a “modern and safe” nuclear industry for South Australia “for years”. She also encouraged an investigation of the possibility of developing Thorium-fueled nuclear power.
Peter Malinauskas’ elevation to the Cabinet of South Australia in the Jay Weatherill government was announced on 18 January 2016.
In February 2014, Malinauskas expressed his openly pro-nuclear position to the media. At the time, the Labor party remained opposed to the establishment of a new nuclear waste repository or nuclear power plant in South Australia. He told The Advertiser:
“I believe climate change is a real challenge we need to face up to, and nuclear energy can be a safe source of base load power, with zero carbon emissions… We should have a mature debate based on science and economics to determine if a nuclear industry is viable in SA.”
That gives the Weatherill gov’t at least 3 spokespeople within Cabinet (including Koutsantonis) who can sing the praises of the Commission’s findings when released next month.
For the public good: Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust from Robert Eastman
Robert Eastman’s Submission to South Australia Nuclear fuel Chain Royal Commission – on the issue of Nuclear Waste Importing. Eastman provides documentary information on various requirements.
A song of praise for Synroc – Roger Smart’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
Roger Smart’s Submission to South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission.
– a very short submission on the subject of nuclear wastes. It canned be summed up as a Song Of Praise for the Synroc Technology for storing nuclear wastes.
EXTRACT: “The safest and cheapest option available for disposal of high level nuclear waste”
Nuclear Waste Management (NWM) — an Adelaide based Company founded in 1985……..
In 1991 NWM signed a Heads of Agreement with Mayak Production Enterprise, owned by the Russian Ministry of Power and Energy and Greenlawn Association of the Russian Federation to commence a study for the construction of a SYNROC plant. The Russians selected SYNROC as their preferred waste form for the treatment and disposal of their high level waste. They also commenced geological studies to find sites for the disposal of SYNROC in deep drill holes.
………. it proved impossible to find the political/financial and corporate leadership to secure the funding. The reasons were many but during the 80’s and 90’s, the nuclear industry was on the defensive and investment, other that in programs already in place, was greatly reduced. Consequently, NWM ceased operation in 1998
……. A detailed brochure and other material on SYNROC and NWM have been provided to the Executive of the Royal Commission”
**********************************************************************************************
Nuclear accident much worse than reported , April 28, 1993 The nuclear accident at the Tomsk-7 reprocessing plant in Siberia on April 6 was much bigger than first reported, and now may seriously impede expansion of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia.
Spokesperson John Hallam for the antinuclear groups Friends of the Earth and Movement Against Uranium Mining said, “Proposals to build a replacement research reactor in Sydney and a nuclear waste repository in the NT based on Synroc technology would be compromised by a public realisation that both projects depend on the same sort of technology for waste handling that failed so badly at Tomsk”.
Hallam said that information from Russian green groups indicated that the accident was not a 3 on the international nuclear event scale, as earlier claimed, but at least a 5. Chernobyl was a 6…..www.greenleft.org.au/node/4227
Oh my God! Global Warming Is Affecting The TENNIS!
According to Malcolm Tulloch, director of entertainment, crew and sport at the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA), the hotter climate is having an impact on the hundreds of people working at the tournament.
Rising temperatures at Australian Open ’caused by global warming’ http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/01/18/rising-temperatures-australian-open-caused-global-warming Hot temperatures at the Australian Open tennis tournament may be down to global warming, according to some climate experts.Analysis from University of Melbourne Atmosphere and Ocean researcher Ben Hague shows January temperatures in Melbourne have risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius each decade since 1987, but in the two weeks of the Australian Open the increase has been 1.25 degrees.
The Bureau of Meteorology 2015 Climate Statement showed days of extreme weather are on the increase across Australia.
A number of tennis clubs have implemented extreme heat policies to fulfill their duty of care to players, including Victoria based Australasian Academy of Tennis Coaches. Continue reading
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
Australians deserve the truth
about AUKUS
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 