It’s Big Money that impels politicians to promote the nuclear industry
from CaptD 31 Jan 16 The first reason is MONEY and I mean BIG Money. Politicians are always gear 
for Nuclear Payback*
* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback
Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.
The “other” reason is that the Nuclear Industry and their Utilities are desperate to create a radioactive waste dumping site for waste is that they are going to want to site Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) very soon, which companies like SD’s General Atomic are now working on. Since CA has a law that says no more nuclear reactors, until a waste site is developed, the lack of a disposal site is the biggest roadblock they face preventing them from deploying SMRs in CA.
I believe that most Utilities will want to phase out Nat. Gas fired Peaker plants and install SMR’s “because they don’t emit CO2.” That is, unless they are going to be making big money using nat. gas like SDG&E will be, since they already have a contract to import Nat. Gas from Mexico (which Sempra owns a share of, so they will be kind of buying Nat. Gas from themselves) for use in their two new state of the art Billion Dollar Peaker Plants that the CPUC just approved for them (despite the fact that the cost of Wind and Solar generation continues to drop almost monthly)!
SCE just had the CPUC decide against approving a Nat. Gas Peaker plant for them, so you can bet that they are now getting “very excited” about installing one or more SMR’s at San Onofre, since the grid wiring connection is already in place and they are going to be guarding that “nuclear waste” site for decades to come.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/jan/08/oceanside-takes-stand-relocating-san-onofres-nucle/
BTW: All waste facilities should be run by the Government, that way they will always be responsible for it, since Big Waste Corp.’s can go out of business any time they want as as everybody knows Radiation is FOREVER since 50 or more than 100 years is forever to everyone living today.
Christopher Camarsh Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust touts underwater nuclear reactors
Christopher Camarsh Submission to South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Christopher-Camarsh-03-08-2015.pdf
Mr Christopher Camarsh is an investment manager and Managing Director of AIXI Investments. His lengthy submission is a detailed promotion for a company selling underwater nuclear reactors.
“The Blue Energy System (BES) is a new production system for global power generation and distribution. It utilises transportable submerged power stations produced at a central facility that can be located off shore from energy consuming centers.”
Like all the company promotions to the RC, this submission sticks to its role, so of course, no attention to comparisons to non nuclear energy systems.
However, Camarsh does give an opinion approving of South Australia as nuclear dump site
” MANAGEMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE We believe that a waste, storage, disposal strategy is ultimately a sovereign matter but have strong convictions that the commission should recommend South Australia engage in this activity as it contains in our view the most suitable locations globally”
Business South Australia wants nuclear waste import, worried about public opinion.
BUSINESS SA’s Submission to South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Business-SA-03-08-2015.pdf
“South Australia’s clearest economically viable expansion opportunity in the nuclear fuel cycle will be in the form of used fuel storage and disposal”
“South Australia must focus on what the world needs, particularly in the case of used nuclear fuel storage or disposal.”
“In order to build community confidence, it is likely that a pilot storage site would need to be constructed first and this should form part of the Royal Commission’s deliberations.”
Business South Australia’s Submission clearly promotes the nuclear industry, with a commercial argument that completely ignores the negative effects that this would have on other industries in that State.
While its main focus is on the benefits of nuclear waste importing, (as a way of creating jobs, and fixing the budget deficit), Business South Australia is in fact favouring the whole nuclear fuel chain:
“the opportunity to recycle used fuel as technology advances will be lost if South Australia only considers its complete disposal. Storing used nuclear fuel in a deep geological repository will at least enable us to take advantage of advances in areas such as Generation IV nuclear reactor design”
It supports nuclear fuel reprocessing, with touching faith that a safe method will be found, some time in the future:
“Purex technology was developed in the 1950’s and the future of re-processing through the next generation of reactors should not be overlooked on the basis of the pros and cons of this technology alone. Furthermore, there is a view that in future a different process could be used to recover all anions together, including plutonium, to reduce the risks associated with Purex.”
Their submission is ambivalent about uranium enrichment, conversion and fuel fabrication, and nuclear power, but keen on the idea of South Australia developing a shipping industry geared to transporting nuclear fuels and wastes.
They are reassuring about any anxieties over safe transport of radioactive materials, especially shipping, but also about air transport:
“we request the Royal Commission to investigate the practicality of using air freight to deliver used nuclear fuel to a dedicated air strip adjoining a storage or disposal site.”
The State Government’s Industry Participation Advocate is seen to be an important aid to their case for South Australia expanding its nuclear industry role.
Business South Australia is worried about public opinion – it seems that they would like to have nuclear matters decided on by nuclear experts, rather than by the people of South Australia:
“ the Royal Commission should not be fixated on just what the general public prefers, but rather what is in the best interests of the State.”
Anti nuclear atomic physicist is South Australia’s Senior Citizen of The Year
Australia Day: Scientist Monica Oliphant powers on to realise renewable energy vision, ABC News, By Nicola Gage 25 Jan 16, Age seems to be no barrier for pioneering scientist and South Australia’s Senior Citizen of the Year Monica Oliphant. After more than half a century dedicating her life to the renewable energy sector, she has hardly slowed down, at a time when clean energy has become very much mainstream.
“There’s no limit almost to what they can be used for,” she said. “Power generation, charging electric vehicles, charging up your mobile phone, lots of applications.”
But when the passionate physicist began working in the sector, all of those applications were just a thought bubble.
So too were women in science. In the early 60s, Ms Oliphant was the only female in her class to complete her honours in physics. That is where she met her husband Michael, the son of Australia’s pre-eminent scientist and former South Australian governor, Sir Mark Oliphant. She said her father-in-law pushed her to continue with her work.
“I was in awe of him but he did inspire me to always say your mind and to not be frightened of saying what you think,” she said. It was advice she held on to throughout her 18 years at South Australia’s Electricity Trust, when renewables were viewed with suspicion…….
Renewable energy vision becomes mainstream
Slowly, she worked her way out of the corner, with her research helping to prove the worth of solar panels, as the sector became more financially viable.
“I would think that the big break was the German-introduced feed-in tariff,” Ms Oliphant said.
“South Australia was the first to pick up in Australia and that has helped reduce costs and it has taken off since then…….
Last year she travelled overseas to help with a renewable energy project in China.
Ms Oliphant considers herself a tree-hugger and despite beginning her career in atomic energy, she said there was no need for South Australia to invest in nuclear energy.
A royal commission is currently underway into the state’s nuclear fuel cycle.
“For South Australia, with 41 per cent of intermittent renewables on our energy mix, we just don’t need nuclear energy,” Ms Oliphant said.
She said from the beginning, she was confident renewable energy would one day move from the fringe, to the mainstream. “I was sure that it would eventually, not sure why, but I was sure and I wanted to be with it all the way,” she said…. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-25/monica-oliphant-senior-south-australian-of-the-year/7111366
Australia should not be guinea pig for new nuclear reactors – Australia’s Chief Scientist
Dr Alan Finkel, Australia’s Chief Scientist, recommends that IF Australia gets ‘new generation’ nuclear reactors, they should be proven successful first, in some other country:
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. President Dr Alan Finkel Submission to South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission
EXTRACTS
“ If the Royal Commission should favour establishment of a nuclear power plant, ATSE recommends that ‘first of a kind’ (FOAK) technology – specifically, Generation IV reactors should not be considered by South Australia at this time”
Finkel supports a nuclear waste import industry:
“South Australia and thus Australia as a whole is well positioned to undertake waste storage as part of the nuclear fuel cycle.”
But qualifies this:
“The opportunity for South Australia to provide commercial permanent waste storage facilities for overseas nuclear power plant spent fuel owners could exist and would certainly offer commercial opportunities for the State. However, based on the negative public reaction to the poorly explained and marketed Pangea proposal some years ago, the public may still find this concept unacceptable”
It is a careful submission, thorough, and with qualified support for the nuclear fuel chain.
On URANIUM MINING – he recognises that the market is at best uncertain.
On URANIUM ENRICHMENT PROCESSING & FUEL FABRICATION –he is in favour but with some serious qualifications.
On NUCLEAR POWER – only vaguely in favour.:
“ – may require government guarantees and/or government capital injections to encourage investment. This could possibly require the South Australian or Commonwealth governments becoming a stakeholder in the establishment of a nuclear power plant.”
“Any feasibility would also establish the likely cost of power from such reactor technologies and the guaranteed selling price to the grid. If this is not an equitable situation then the project would not be able to proceed. If nuclear power is to proceed in its development it will need to be competitive against carbon fuelled generation including carbon capture and storage (CCS) in its supply of baseload generation, and likely renewable energy generation if storage methods continue to improve”
“EPBC Act would need to be amended. South Australian legislation also regulates environmental and transportation matters, including the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 and the Radiation Protection and Control (Transport of Radioactive Substances) Regulations 2003.”
As mentioned above, Finkel is opposed to Australia being the test place for the first Generation IV reactors
ASSOCIATION OF MINING AND EXPLORATION COMPANIES (AMEC) wants Pro Nuclear Public Education
Submission to South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission –ASSOCIATION OF MINING AND EXPLORATION COMPANIES (AMEC)
A common theme is emerging in the pro nuclear Submissions to the RC. Apart from the common factor these Submissions mostly come either directly or indirectly from vested interests, their common agenda is very often that the RC should recommend public education about the nuclear industry. (and I don’t think that they mean informing the public about the environmental, health, safety, economic hazards – quite the reverse.)
- An equally important theme is to push for removal of laws that accept the nuclear industry as especially hazardous, due to its special danger of ionising radiation:
EXTRACT
AMEC wants “The removal of “mining or milling of uranium ore” from the definition of ‘nuclear action’ in section 22(1)(d) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999”
- AMEC confines itself to promoting the uranium industry – getting tax-payer incentives for exploration, easier licensing, Commonwealth funding, and lessening regulations, weakening environmental approval processes e.g:
“Early implementation of the ‘one stop shop’ environmental assessment and approval process.”
“it is important that the policy barriers applying to container ports identified for uranium export are removed”
- Importantly AMEC wants to make making it easier to get around Native Title:
“Priority focus on resolving outstanding Native Title claims.
Mechanisms that will provide greater clarity and certainty to third parties who need to engage with the Applicant and native title claim group outside the claims process (for example in the context of making future act and heritage agreements) are required.
That consideration should be given as to whether an Applicant can authorise an agent to act on its behalf, and what powers can be abrogated to the agent.”
- And on course – the public education bit:
“The development of a national public education and awareness strategy” The challenge is to increase public education, awareness, confidence and acceptance of the uranium industry.” …’ http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/Association-of-Mining-and-Exploration-Companies-24-07-2015.pdf
Why on earth is the nuclear issue taboo in Australia ?
Why on earth have Australian governments, media, and corporate world been able to put it over the Australian public? I think that the mainstream media are especially to blame? Are they really that stupid? Are their jobs really on the line? So that they can just keep mum about what’s going on in South Australia, because it’s only a South Australian issue?
Only today The Ecologist has discussed the serious terrorism risk in transporting nuclear waste across the world. It is serious concern in UK, USA, in Japan – wherever nuclear waste is piling up.
Only in Australia it doesn’t matter, apparently. Doesn’t get a mention in the articles about what issues Australia faces in 2016. No mention of this very dubious Royal Commission in South Australia. No mention that the ALP will be reviewing its policy on nuclear power.
No other country in the world has considered a nuclear waste importing industry. USA and Japan tried it on Mongolia, receiving a strong and definitive knock-back.
Because of course – it matters only to South Australia?
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission will release its Tentative Findings in Adelaide on Monday 15 February 2016.
“The Commission will then undertake a week-long public information program, visiting key regional South Australian cities and towns including Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Lincoln, Mt Gambier, Ceduna, Renmark and Aboriginal communities in the Far North and West Coast.
Commissioner Kevin Scarce said the release of the Tentative Findings would provide an opportunity to update progress and highlight how the community might comment on the report during a five week feedback period…..
“The Tentative Findings will be a document that reflects the Commission’s current thinking and the evidence behind it. The community then has five weeks to provide written comments on the findings and the evidence upon which it is based.
The Tentative Findings will be available to download from thewww.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.”
Royal Commission Public Meeting details:
* Monday, 15 February – Adelaide Town Hall (6pm)
* Tuesday, 16 February – Port Pirie Yacht Club (1pm), Port Augusta Institute Theatre (6pm), Ceduna Foreshore Hotel (6pm)
* Wednesday, 17 February – Whyalla Mt Laura Homestead (12.00pm), Port Lincoln Hotel (6.30pm), Coober Pedy United Club (6pm)
* Thursday, 18 February – Mt Gambier Main Complex (6.30pm) Renmark Hotel Galaxy Room (6pm)
* APY, Umuwa and Oak Valley community meetings are also being planned for February.
George Bereznai’s Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust – religious faith in “new nukes”
This is a comforting submission that the world can keep on making radioactive trash, in the religious belief that, with faith, sometime in the future, geewhiz nuclear reactors will solve that problem. ( – “it is expected” by whom? Those with clear or vested interests in the nuclear industry.)
Bereznai ( engineering qualifications) wants nuclear power for South Australia.
He’ s not keen on uranium enrichment, but thinks that nuclear fuel conversion and fabrication might be viable.
He pushes for nuclear power – “ the supply of electricity needs to be centrally managed, and must meet the demand at all times. ….base load” . For nuclear as pretty much greenhouse emissions free. Wants the RC to supply information to get “social licence”
“waste. …… is in reality a unique feature, and can be seen as a key advantage of nuclear-electric generation.”……
“The safe management and storage of fuel that has been irradiated in the normal operation of a nuclear reactor has been well established and demonstrated by several thousand of reactor-years of operations”
“It is expected that by the time radioactive fuel needs to be moved from above ground dry-storage to deep geological repositories, fast reactor technology will have reached a level of economic viability wherein the reprocessing of previously used nuclear fuel will be implemented.
While some long lived radioactive by-products may remain after reprocessing and subsequent passes through fast reactors, these volumes will be very small, and can be permanently stored in deep geological repositories.”
“significant benefits to South Australia’s citizens would accrue in the areas of economy, environment, health and safety by …. the construction and operation of nuclear electrical generating units in South Australia.”
South Australian Cabinet nuclear stooge Leesa Vlahos already spruiking for nukes!
Labor MP Leesa Vlahos says pro-nuclear debate ‘getting easier’ March 16, 2015. South Australian Labor MP Leesa Vlahos says pro-nuclear advocates have started to win the debate in the five weeks since Premier Jay Weatherill announced a royal commission into the nuclear industry……(subscribers only) http://www.afr.com/business/mining/uranium/labor-mp-leesa-vlahos-says-pronuclear-debate-getting-easier-20150313-143fhw &http://www.mypolitician.com.au/SA/politician/leesa-vlahos
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
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
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 