Minister off-target with claim Labor cut billions from defence
AAP.com, William Summers March 14, 2022,
WHAT WAS CLAIMED Labor cut billions of dollars from the defence budget when it was last in government.
OUR VERDICT Misleading. Labor cut defence spending in two years while in office, but overall real-term spending went up while in government.
Defence Minister Peter Dutton has questioned the opposition’s commitment to national security by claiming Labor cut “literally billions” from the Defence budget when the party was last in office.
The claim is misleading. Labor increased overall spending on Defence when in government between 2007 and 2013, both in nominal terms and real terms. However, Labor did cut $1.9 billion from the portfolio in 2012/13, its last full year in office.
Mr Dutton made the claim during an appearance on ABC’s Radio National on March 8 in response to comments made by Labor’s shadow defence minister Brendan O’Connor about the need to consider the future role of Australia’s military during natural disasters.
Mr Dutton said: “Defence has record funding. A bit ironic to hear that from Brendan (O’Connor) when (Labor) pulled literally billions out of defence when they were last in government.” (audio mark 6 min 45sec)
When contacted by AAP FactCheck about the basis of the claim, Mr Dutton’s office pointed to budget papers from Labor’s time in office without providing further information. By that measure, Mr Dutton’s claim does not stack up.
Historical Defence portfolio budget papers provide detailed figures on projected spending as well as actual spending that took place in the previous budget year.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) – a think tank majority-funded by the Department of Defence and other federal government agencies – has collated these figures going back to 1997/98 (see here). Its figures include spending on the Australian Signals Directorate, which provides cyber intelligence and other capabilities and falls under the Defence portfolio.
The previous Labor government was elected on November 24, 2007, and lost office on September 7, 2013. Therefore, to judge Labor’s spending record, AAP FactCheck looked at spending from 2007/08 – the fiscal year Labor first came into office – to 2012/13, Labor’s final full year in office.
……………………… Misleading – The claim is accurate in parts but information has also been presented incorrectly, out of context or omitted. https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/minister-off-target-with-claim-labor-cut-billions-from-defence/
Temperatures in eastern Antarctica are 28 degrees Celsius warmer than usual
Temperatures in eastern Antarctica are 70 degrees warmer than usual https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/e2-wire/598842-temperatures-in-eastern-antarctica-are-70-degrees-warmer BY SARAKSHI RAI – 03/18/22
Eastern Antarctica on Friday recorded temperatures that are 70 degrees higher than normal for this time of the year, The Washington Post reported.
Temperatures in the eastern part of the continent have soared 50 to 90 degrees above normal, raising concern from the scientific community.
The Post reported that instead of temperatures being between minus 50 and minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit, they’ve been closer to zero or 10 degrees Fahrenheit, which is considered to be a massive heat wave by Antarctic standards.
BY SARAKSHI RAI – 03/18/22
Temperatures in eastern Antarctica are 70 degrees warmer than usual
BY SARAKSHI RAI – 03/18/22 06:28 PM EDT 818
© istock
Eastern Antarctica on Friday recorded temperatures that are 70 degrees higher than normal for this time of the year, The Washington Post reported.
Temperatures in the eastern part of the continent have soared 50 to 90 degrees above normal, raising concern from the scientific community.
The Post reported that instead of temperatures being between minus 50 and minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit, they’ve been closer to zero or 10 degrees Fahrenheit, which is considered to be a massive heat wave by Antarctic standards.
“In about 65 record years in Vostok, between March and October, values above -30°C were never observed,” climate journalist Stefano Di Battista told the news outlet in an email.
A researcher studying polar meteorology at the Université Grenoble Alpes Dr. Jonathan Wille also tweeted that this heatwave was “never supposed to happen.”
March marks the beginning of autumn in Antarctica, when temperatures usually tend to fall, The Post noted.
Willie tweeted that the warmer than usual conditions over Antarctica were caused by an extreme weather system.
“[T]his is not something we’ve seen before,” he said. “This moisture is the reason why the temperatures have gotten just so high,” he told The Post.
Nuclear testing in Maralinga, sixty years on
Nuclear testing in Maralinga, sixty years on, First Nations communities have borne the brunt of nuclear testing carried out by the British Government in the 1950s. Forced off their land for 30 years, they have since been tasked with monitoring operations as part of their bid for land back. http://honisoit.com/2022/03/nuclear-testing-in-maralinga-sixty-years-on/?fbclid=IwAR3I0PK-6iZhEgsBzkE4ojkVf9PjgS7h0xJ1fLubi2raItB6A by Katarina Butler. March 17, 2022 In the wake of Hiroshima, every major power on Earth scrambled to develop nuclear weapons to maintain military relevance. One such country was Britain, and in a bid to strengthen Australia’s relationship with Brits, the Menzies government offered swathes of land for nuclear testing. The areas chosen were predominantly inhabited by First Nations people.
Testing in Australia was carried out in three locations: Montebello Islands, Emu Field, and Maralinga, between 1952 and 1957. A total of twelve major atomic detonations occurred, creating large fireballs and mushroom clouds that released radioactive debris that is still detectable today. The explosions were similar in size to those seen at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
March 17, 2022 In the wake of Hiroshima, every major power on Earth scrambled to develop nuclear weapons to maintain military relevance. One such country was Britain, and in a bid to strengthen Australia’s relationship with Brits, the Menzies government offered swathes of land for nuclear testing. The areas chosen were predominantly inhabited by First Nations people.
Testing in Australia was carried out in three locations: Montebello Islands, Emu Field, and Maralinga, between 1952 and 1957. A total of twelve major atomic detonations occurred, creating large fireballs and mushroom clouds that released radioactive debris that is still detectable today. The explosions were similar in size to those seen at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
For the surrounding communities, the testing also posed, and poses, significant health risks.
Nuclear fallout is a mix of unfissioned material and radioactive material produced during the explosion (such as cesium-137). Radioactive chemicals do not degrade the way that other explosives byproducts do. Instead, they have ‘half-lives’ which denote the time taken for half of the radioactive material to decay and become inactive (or decay into another lower-weight radioactive compound). Large amounts of plutonium-239 were dispersed during these tests.
Initially, unfissioned plutonium-239 was thought to be relatively harmless. However, recent research from Monash University indicates otherwise. When larger plutonium particles enter the atmosphere, they can release radioactive nanoparticles which spread across the environment attached to dust or rain. As wildlife take up this plutonium from the soil, it is believed to slowly release into other flora and fauna — with dangerous implications for people living on Country. This is particularly concerning considering the 24,100 year half-life of plutonium-239.
In the lead up to the tests, British Armed Forces failed to warn First Nations people of the dangers associated with the program. Only one officer was responsible for covering the thousands of square kilometres to inform whoever he could find. The officer, Walter MacDougall, was then criticised by the Chief Scientists, who wrote that “he is apparently placing the affairs of a handful of natives above those of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”
From 1955 to 1985 the Anangu people of Maralinga Tjarutja were displaced to the nearby Lutheran Mission. While the British’s Operation Brumby attempted to dilute the high concentrations of radioactive material now embedded in the land, concerns about remaining contamination lingered.
In 1985, the McLelland Royal Commission proved that further decontamination efforts were needed. The Royal Commission also criticised the complicity of the Australian Government and its lack of safety concerns. Eight years later, the British Government made a $35 million payment to the $101 million cleanup cost. The process involved the removal and off-site decontamination of hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of soil before its reburial.
The Maralinga Technical Advisory Committee was thus formed to oversee remediation. Decontamination efforts were hindered by the reluctance of the British to accurately disclose the location and extent of testing. Fortunately, only 120 square kilometres of the contaminated 3200 remained unremediated in the year 2000, with clean up and monitoring efforts ongoing today.
Between 2001 and 2009, the South Australian and Federal governments entered negotiations with the Anangu people, ensuring that they would be able to safely return to Country. Anangu people had to prove that they could monitor for erosion, damage or contamination before being officially granted land back.
The disaster of Maralinga is disturbingly familiar. Today, just like in the 1950s, the settler-colonial state of Australia is abusing Country, leaving it victim to climate change-induced fires and floods. We see the deferral of responsibility to Traditional Owners who, yet again, are cleaning up the mess of ongoing colonial violence. In both cases, the struggle for Indigenous land rights must also be a struggle to restore what has been socially and environmentally lost to centuries of colonial damage and abuse.
Debate escalates over controversial nuclear waste storage site
the CEO of the federal nuclear regulator ARPANSA confirmed ANSTO has the ability to manage the waste onsite ‘for decades to come.
Debate escalates over controversial nuclear waste storage site https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/debate-escalates-over-controversial-nuclear-waste-storage-site?Michele Madigan, 15 March 2022
The long conflict between the federal government plan for a national radioactive waste facility in South Australia and the opponents of the plan has continued to escalate in the past months. On 19 November, Kimba on SA’s Eyre Peninsula was declared South Australia’s Agricultural Town of the Year. Notwithstanding this significant honour, on 29 November the federal Minister for Resources Keith Pitt finally made the formal declaration that Napandee in the Kimba district was the chosen site for the proposed federal radioactive waste dump.
With just 4.5 per cent of South Australia as arable farming, the Napandee site is on premier farming country. The Barngarla peoples are the Traditional Owners of the area.
The federal government plan is for two adjacent facilities: one for low-level radioactive waste and the other for long-lived intermediate waste (ILW) from Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). It was quite extraordinary that when interviewed then by SA ABC radio Minister Pitt said only that the facility would be used ‘for low level waste.’
In addition to the ILW already at ANSTO will be the latest shipment of two tonnes of reprocessed nuclear waste from the United Kingdom to Australia. The shipment consists of four 500kg canisters held inside a forged steel container called a TN-81.
Since the late 1990s, the supposed needs of nuclear medicine have always been promoted as key in successive government claims for hosting the nation’s radioactive waste in what understandably might be an otherwise unpalatable addition to any community. Throughout 2021, in the face of opposition, Resources Minister Keith Pitt occasionally emerged to make exaggerated claims of the necessity of the dump for the future of nuclear medicine in Australia.
In this debate around nuclear medicine, it is essential to present up-to-date facts. Nuclear expert Dr Jim Green addressed relevant facts in his paper, Nuclear waste and nuclear medicine in Australia, ‘…According to Medicare figures, nuclear medicine represents less than three percent of medical imaging. Nuclear medicine should not be confused with X-rays using iodine contrast, radiotherapy or chemotherapy, which are used much more commonly used…Nuclear medicine typically uses short-lived radioisotopes and the waste does not require special handling after a short period of radioactivity…’
‘It would be far safer, cheaper and completely possible to keep the long lived intermediate level waste at ANSTO until a required “world’s best practice” underground site is identified and built.’
For decades, ANSTO has presented the argument that there’s no more room for the storage of their own nuclear waste manufactured on site at their Lucas Heights facility. This has been supported by various governments as necessitating the creation of a federal waste facility elsewhere.
However in the 2020 Senate Inquiry, the CEO of the federal nuclear regulator ARPANSA confirmed ANSTO has the ability to manage the waste onsite ‘for decades to come.’
The significant 2021-22 federal budget allocation of $59.8m to ANSTO for building expansion provided a forum for nuclear experts to advise government in the resultant September Public Works Committee hearings. Senator Hughes’ request to explain why Sydney is seen as a safer option for storing its nuclear waste ‘than a far less densely populated area’ gave Dr Margaret Beavis from the Medical Association for Prevention of War, a chance to make a crucial point in the debate:
‘I think the expertise and security at ANSTO is far greater. I also think the risks from this waste pale into insignificance compared to the risks of the nuclear reactor. So, if you’re going to be keeping one large facility secure, you may as well keep it all there. The regulator has said quite clearly that there’s sufficient space at Lucas Heights to store this waste for decades to come. If you’ve got to look after the reactor-which we absolutely do have to do…’
Throughout the long campaign, Traditional Owners, Barngarla women and men, exhausted by the 25 years it took to successfully establish their native title rights over their traditional areas, have been incredulous at being excluded from the vital site vote.
On 21 December, following the Minister’s official declaration, Chair of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation Jason Bilney made the official announcement on State Parliament House steps, of the launch of their court appeal against the federal process which had denied them having a say on their own country.
Bilney faced the media flanked by Craig Wilkins and Barry Wakelin, former Member for Grey and implacable local Kimba opponent to the dump plan. Wilkins as the CEO of CCSA, South Australia’s premier conservation body, the Conservation Council of South Australia took the opportunity to announce their latest report which clearly states, ‘the planned facility is not consistent with international best practice, and waste will be placed in temporary storage without a plan for what happens next.’
In January this year, the Kimba district was affected by floods causing widespread damage to roads and infrastructure. And in February the State Greens initiated Legislative Council debate of opposition to the federal plan concluded with the Greens and Labor opposition in a tied vote with vote forcibly resolved by the Liberal Speaker
The question remains: what are the requirements for this plan to go ahead? An historic hurdle is that the former Olsen Liberal Government passed legislation to prevent radioactive waste being brought into the state. This particular state legislation prohibited the introduction of the higher level waste ILW. Later, the Rann Labor government raised the threshold to prohibit the importation of any national radioactive waste. Thus the State Parliament must conduct a public parliamentary inquiry.
Overriding this South Australian legislation is another obstacle the federal government must deal with to achieve the planned facility. As well, the Barngarla court case is in train, unlikely to be concluded before the federal election. The strong No Rad Waste opposition continues on many levels in Kimba and with their colleagues throughout Eyre Peninsula. The SA State election (on 19 March) is imminent. The regulator ARPANSA must enter into the licensing process of the project. The federal government has named ARWA Australian Radioactive Waste Agency as the department which has carriage of the nuclear facility plan; legislation must be passed for it to become an independent body.
However more than any of the serious domestic hurdles, recent weeks have brought home quite starkly the dangers of nuclear projects including this one. The Chernobyl site was among the first Ukrainian areas to be captured by invading Russian forces. The Russian seizure of Europe’s largest nuclear plant Zaporizhzhia is another cause for alarm.
The present government plan for Australia’s long-lived intermediate level waste means ongoing transportation for the 1700 kms from its present storage place in Lucas Heights, to be stored above ground for the next one hundred years. There is no dispute that this ILW is toxic and dangerous for an unimaginable 10,000 years. At least two nuclear engineers including Alan Parkinson have pointed out the dangers of this plan open as it is to terrorist attacks in this uncertain world.
It would be far safer, cheaper and completely possible to keep the long lived intermediate level waste at ANSTO until a required ‘world’s best practice’ underground site is identified and built. Whichever party is successful in the coming federal elections, it is to be hoped good sense prevails in this crucial national issue.
For further information, visit Nuclear Free Campaign.
Australia’s Radiation Protection Authority approves Lucas Heights as site for increased storage of nuclear waste returned from overseas
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, 16 Mar 22,
Today ARPANSA’s CEO issued a licence to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) to prepare a site for the Intermediate Level Waste Capacity Increase facility at Lucas Heights.
The decision is informed by considerations around the #safety and #security of the facility design, advice from #nuclear safety committees, public consultation and international best practices.
ARPANSA is the independent regulator of Commonwealth entities that use or produce radiation and ensure that community safety and wellbeing remain at the core of our work.
Read more on our website: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/…/arpansa-approves-siting…
Report to U.S. Congress on AUKUS agreement, allows Australia access to Highly Enriched Uranium and Plutonium
Report to Congress on AUKUS Nuclear Cooperation, News USNI, March 16, 2022 On December 1, 2021, President Joseph Biden submitted to Congress an “Agreement among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States for the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information.” This In Focus explains the agreement’s substance, as well as provisions of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended (P.L. 83-703; 42 U.S.C. §§2153 et seq.), concerning the content and congressional review of such agreements.
An accompanying message to Congress explains that the agreement would permit the three governments to “communicate and exchange Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information and would provide authorization to share certain Restricted Data as may be needed during trilateral discussions” concerning a project to develop Australian nuclear-powered submarines. This project is part of an “enhanced trilateral security partnership” named AUKUS, which the three governments announced on September 15, 2021. The United States has a similar nuclear naval propulsion arrangement only with the United Kingdom pursuant to the bilateral 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement.
The partnership’s first initiative, according to a September 15 Joint Statement, is an 18-month study “to seek an optimal pathway to deliver” this submarine capability to Australia. This study is to include “building on” the U.S. and UK nuclear-powered submarine programs “to bring an Australian capability into service at the earliest achievable date.” The study is “in the early stages,” according to a November 2021 non-paper from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, which adds that “[m]any of the program specifics have yet to be determined.”
Agreement Details
The agreement, which the governments signed on November 22, 2021, permits each party to exchange “naval nuclear propulsion information as is determined to be necessary to research, develop, design, manufacture, operate, regulate, and dispose of military reactors.”
As noted, this information includes restricted data; the AEA defines such data to include “all data concerning … the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy.” The AEA and 10 C.F.R. Part 810.3 define special nuclear material as plutonium, uranium-233, or enriched uranium.
The agreement, which entered into force on February 8, 2022, is to remain in force until December 31, 2023, when it will “automatically extend for four additional periods of six months each.” Any party may terminate its participation in the agreement with six months written notice. Should any party abrogate or materially violate the agreement, the other parties may “require the return or destruction” of any transferred data.
The agreement includes provisions to protect transferred data. For example, no party may communicate any information governed by the agreement to any “unauthorized persons or beyond” the party’s “jurisdiction or control.” In addition, a recipient party communicating such information to nationals of a third AUKUS government must obtain permission from the originating party. The agreement includes an appendix detailing “security arrangements” to protect transferred information. Download the document here. https://news.usni.org/2022/03/16/report-to-congress-on-aukus-nuclear-cooperation
South Australian Unions stand with Traditional Owners in rejecting nuclear waste dump
South Australian unions have unanimously supported a motion standing with Traditional Owners to reject a proposed nuclear waste dump in Kimba on the Eyre peninsula and have called on the Marshall Government to do the same.
SA Unions Secretary Dale Beasley said the that South Australian labour movement stood shoulder to shoulder with the Barngarla Traditional Owners in their opposition to the Federal Government proposal to build a nuclear waste dump on the Eyre Peninsula.
“South Australian unions are completely united in their support of the Barngarla Traditional Owners and their opposition to the proposed nuclear waste site at Kimba.
“It is simply extraordinary that the Federal Government would seek to impose a nuclear waste dump on South Australia with inadequate consultation, long term planning and against the wishes of Traditional Owners.
“What’s even more astonishing is Steven Marshall’s abject failure to stand up to Canberra, to stand up for the best interests of South Australians and publicly oppose this nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
When asked about the proposal to build a nuclear waste dump in South Australia Mr. Marshall was quoted in 2020 as saying “finally, a decision has been made and we now get on with it.”
“We have in South Australia a shameful legacy of imposing the impact of nuclear technology on aboriginal communities. Decades after the end of British nuclear tests around Maralinga, radioactive particles containing plutonium and uranium still contaminate the landscape.[i] Given that history, we would have expected Steven Marshall to stand up for the Barngarla Traditional Owners.
This is not the first time Steven Marshall has failed South Australian Aboriginal people. In 2018 he remarkably closed off treaty negotiations with Aboriginal groups, saying he had “other priorities”, having described the process as a “cruel hoax.”
“Aside from being fiercely opposed by the Barngarla Traditional Owners, there are very real concerns around the safety and security of the nuclear waste and its transport 1,700km across Australia to be stored at Kimba, SA.
“The potential and associated risks attached to the transportation and storage of nuclear waste are well documented, yet there has been an absence of consultation with the communities through which this waste will transit. This is an issue for all South Australians.
“The plan to store the nuclear waste, which must be isolated from the environment for a minimum of 10,000 years, will see serious consequences for South Australians for many generations to come.
“South Australian unions join with the Traditional Owners and the South Australian Community in complete opposition to the dangerous proposal and call on the Marshall Government act in the best interests of our state and publicly state its opposition.”
Students, Maritime Union, strongly oppose proposal for nuclear submarine base at Port Kembla
Nuclear submarine naval base at Port Kembla proposal opposed https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/7655576/wollongong-protest-demands-end-to-nuclear-submarine-naval-base-plan/ Ashleigh Tullis 13 Mar 33
Dozens of people gathered in Wollongong to protest the “proliferation of nuclear weapons” following the federal government’s proposal to build a nuclear submarine naval base at Port Kembla.
Port Kembla has been touted as the preferred location for a future base for Australia and visiting nuclear-powered submarine fleets, under a federal government plan.
Rally organiser, Wollongong Undergraduate Students’ Association Education Officer Sean McLachlan said the protest at Wollongong mall on Saturday demanded an end to the AUKUS pact where the US and the UK will help Australia to acquire highly-sophisticated nuclear-powered submarines.
“We see this proposal as a significant act of aggression and exaggeration towards potential war in the future,” he said.
“This latest proposal of having the naval base in Brisbane, Newcastle or Port Kembla, in our backyard, is quite shocking.
“It will be met with strident opposition.”
Mr McLachlan said Wollongong had a strong history of “standing up against all forms of militarism”.
“We are saying no to the naval base, no to AUKUS and no to war,” he said.
“We oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power in any form requires uranium, mining and a massive investment into infrastructure which can be used for the proliferation of nuclear weapons.”
Mr McLachlan said ordinary people had no interest in the government investing in the military but would rather see money spent on expanding social welfare, public and social housing, disaster funding and climate change.
“This is what money should be funnelled into from the government – things that ordinary people could benefit from, not weapons,” he said.
“Instead of building a naval base that will only increase the threat of devastating conflict in the region, the $10 billion slated for this base should be spent on building new schools and hospitals.
“They claim there isn’t enough money for us, but there’s somehow always money for death and destruction.”
Maritime Union of Australia southern NSW branch secretary Mick Cross reiterated the union’s opposition to nuclear proliferation.
“The MUA has always stood for peace, internationalism and justice, and so condemns in any shape or form the proliferation of nuclear capability in any country, especially our own. This includes the development or proliferation of nuclear-powered defence vessels,” he said.
During the rally, Mr Cross said if the base was built, fishing would no longer be permitted, nor families using the foreshore due to security concerns.
“Shame on the LNP government and shame on those who think there is any positive aspect of this nuclear base being built in Port Kembla,” he said.
Mr Cross said he was worried about Port Kembla becoming a “target” once submarines were based there.
He added the port was now entering a “progressive” phase with a focus on jobs in renewable energy industry into the long term, and that was better than than short-term jobs that would be needed to build the base.
Mr Cross said the announcement was a “distraction” ahead of the federal election.
Members of Wollongong Undergraduate Students’ Association, Wollongong Socialists, Illawarra Greens, refugee campaigners, South Coast Labour Council and Southern NSW Maritime Union of Australia branch hoped Saturday’s rally would be the start of an opposition campaign against the proposal.
Strong security measures for secret transport of nuclear waste from Port Kembla to Lucas Heights
There was a large land, air and sea police presence at the port including PolAIr, maritime police officers on jet ski and in large and inflatable vessels, as well as officers on the ground
Police jet skis, helicopter and boats accompanied the ship into the Port. Police officers lined the port banks.
Roads were closed on Saturday night and into the early hours of Sunday morning
Roads closed for nuclear waste transportation from Port Kembla to Lucas Heights, Illawarra Mercury, Ashleigh Tullis, 13Mar 22 A container of nuclear waste has been safely transported to Lucas Heights, a spokesperson for ANSTO has confirmed.
The container, which was transported from Port Kembla overnight, will be stored at ANSTO until a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility is operational.
ANSTO’s group executive for nuclear operations and nuclear medicine, Pamela Naidoo-Ameglio, said as part of international treaties, countries are required to take responsibility for the disposal of any nuclear waste they produce.
Ms Naidoo-Ameglio was tight-lipped about what might happen if the waste were to get into the environment.
“There is no credible risk of that happening,” she told the media.
EARLIER: Bystanders looked on as a nuclear waste ship docked in Port Kembla on Saturday, carry reprocessed radioactive waste.
The bright blue ship was an unusual sight in the Port as full scale police operation was carried out to make sure it was safely docked.
Police jet skis, helicopter and boats accompanied the ship into the Port. Police officers lined the port banks.
Roads were closed on Saturday night and into the early hours of Sunday morning.
The waste was unloaded and transported during a police operation overnight to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)’s interim waste storage facility in Lucas Heights.
The waste – encased in molten glass, canisters and steel casks – left the United Kingdom on January 20 on a specialist nuclear vessel, bound for Port Kembla.
A shipment of the waste, which stems from Australia’s production of nuclear medicine and other products, docked at the port about 11.30am on Saturday.
There was a large land, air and sea police presence at the port including PolAIr, maritime police officers on jet ski and in large and inflatable vessels, as well as officers on the ground, ensuring the safe entry of the ship.
A small crowd of people gathered to watch the ship dock, with some fisherman surprised at police presence.
Live Traffic reports the police operation will see major roads closed between Port Kembla and Lucas Heights for an “oversize vehicle movement”.
Closures will be in place on the northbound lanes of the M1 Princes Motorway between West Wollongong and Waterfall, up Mount Ousley from 11:30pm and 4am.
Southbound traffic on the M1 will remain unaffected.
Motorists are being diverted northbound along Memorial Drive through to Bulli Pass, then Princes Highway to Waterfall.
This detour is not suitable for B-doubles which should travel before the closure commences or delay their journey.
Heathcote Road from Heathcote to Lucas Heights, and New Illawarra Road between Lucas Heights and Menai will also be closed between 1am and 4am on Sunday.
Diversion for Heathcote Road require drivers to travel on the Princes Hwy, River Rd, Menai Rd, Alfords Point Rd, Davies Rd, Fairford Rd, Canterbury Rd, Milperra Rd, Newbridge Rd and Nuwarra Rd.
Heavy vehicle detours including B-Doubles up to 25m will be in place along Princes Hwy, King Georges Rd, Canterbury Rd, Milperra Rd, Newbridge Rd, Nuwarra Rd.
Local residents will be allowed access to Voyager Point, Pleasure Point and Sandy Point only.
Motorists needing to use New Illawarra Road should travel via the alternative route of the Princes Hwy, River Rd and Bangor Bypass.
ANSTO’s group executive of nuclear operations and nuclear medicine, Pamela Naidoo-Ameglio this week said significant expertise would be involved in the transportation of the waste………..
Australia does not have the ability to reprocess spent fuel rods from nuclear operations, so they are sent to facilities overseas where any uranium is stripped and recycled, and the remaining waste is processed…..
Following treatment and reprocessing in the United Kingdom, the material will be temporarily held at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights campus until a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility is built.
“International best practice is that radioactive waste should be stored in a single facility, and we welcome the Federal Government’s recent strong steps to site and build that facility,” Ms Naidoo-Ameglio said.
ANSTO’s last repatriation effort in 2015 saw the waste safely brought into Port Kembla and transported to Lucas Heights. https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/7655555/all-we-know-about-the-nuclear-waste-arrival-at-port-kembla/
Nuclear waste now returning to Sydney can be stored safely at Lucas Heights. Then we need to work on a permanent solution
Australian Conservation Foundation, Dave Sweeney, 12 Mar 22, The Pacific Grebe is a nuclear waste transport vessel that left Cumbria in the UK on 20 January 2022. The ship is now off Australia’s east coast.
On board is a waste transport cannister holding intermediate-level radioactive waste (ILW) being returned to Australia after reprocessing in the UK.
This is serious waste that needs to be isolated for up to 10,000 years. It requires active management and effective regulatory control.
The transport vessel is expected to arrive in Port Kembla this Saturday (12 March) with the ILW to be transported by road to interim storage at the ANSTO nuclear facility at Lucas Heights.
ACF is opposed to nuclear power and weapons in Australia but supports responsible radioactive waste management.
We do not view this waste transfer as an activity to disrupt, but rather as an important time to highlight the Australian government’s deeply flawed handling of the nation’s radioactive waste management.
The federal plan for a national radioactive waste facility near Kimba in regional South Australia lacks a clear rationale and is contested by several interested parties. The Barngarla people, the area’s Native Title holders, were unable to vote against the federal plan in a carefully-curated community ballot.
The Barngarla are challenging the government’s plan right now in the Federal Court. Local grain producers are bitterly opposed, as are a growing number of South Australian political and civil society groups and voices.
Once again battlelines are being drawn and uncertainty increases.
What the Pacific Grebe cargo and interim destination shows is a pathway forward on radioactive waste management.
The vast majority of Australia’s ILW is made and stored at ANSTO. This makes sense as ANSTO has expertise, high security, a permanent on site presence and is home to Australia’s best radiation monitoring and response capacity.
And ANSTO has storage capacity. Right now, following a $60 million dollar federal budget allocation last year, a new extended interim storage facility is being constructed at Lucas Heights.
Together with the existing facilities, Australia’s chief nuclear regulator has confirmed that this waste “can be safely stored at Lucas Heights for decades to come.”
ACF maintains that there is a compelling case that Australia’s ILW be managed in extended interim storage at ANSTO’s nuclear facility at Lucas Heights pending the outcome of a dedicated and transparent review of long term future ILW management.
There is no clear or cogent radiological, public health, environmental or economic rationale for double handling this waste through a planned additional interim storage stage at Kimba.
This waste should come into Port Kembla and be securely transferred by skilled maritime workers and appropriate industry experts. It should then go – without incident – to ANSTO. It should remain at Lucas Heights with the rest of ANSTO’s intermediate level waste as ANSTO is best placed to manage this waste.
After this the much-needed work begins of bringing diverse perspectives from the trenches to the table to answer the missing and very hard question: What is the best thing to do with this stuff in the long term?
Huge cask of nuclear waste to be quietly transported to Sydney
Nuclear waste shipment bound for Sydney https://www.aap.com.au/news/nuclear-waste-shipment-bound-for-sydney/, Tracey Ferrier March 11, 2022,
Police are preparing to escort a monolithic steel cask of nuclear waste to Sydney this weekend, reigniting debate about Australia’s plans for the toxic material.
The hulking capsule resembling something from NASA’s space program contains two tonnes of intermediate-level radioactive waste that will need to be isolated from the environment for thousands of years.
But for the time being it will be stored at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor compound in southern Sydney.
The waste is being returned under the international principle that countries must take back their nuclear leftovers after reprocessing. In Australia’s case that’s been done offshore.
Kimba will be a near-surface facility and a permanent solution for low-level waste only. The intermediate material will once more be in storage.
The federal government has committed to developing a separate end solution for the more toxic stuff. It will involve deep burial but so far there’s no firm plan, and no site has been identified to take it.
Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney says the nation’s most potent nuclear waste should not be moved to Kimba.
He says the problem is being kicked down the road, for some future government to sort out.
We believe there’s a very real risk that this material gets stranded in sub-optimal conditions at Kimba. Move it once, move it well, and move it permanently,” he says.
“Our position is that the Lucas Heights facility is the best place for Australia’s most serious waste. It has the highest security, the highest emergency monitoring and response capacity. It is staffed 24/7, and 95 per cent of the stuff is already there.”
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation operates the Lucas Heights reactor, which supports nuclear medicine and science.
Resources and Water Minister Keith Pitt said it was international best practice to consolidate radioactive waste at a single, safe, purpose-built facility.
“That is what the government is delivering,” he said, while noting it would take several decades to find an end solution for intermediate waste.
He said ANSTO had warned it would need to build three additional waste storage buildings at Lucas Heights if the national facility wasn’t built.
For security reasons, ANSTO won’t confirm when the cask will be moved from Port Kembla to Lucas Heights.
It said the cask is so well shielded that someone could stand next to it for 25 hours and get the same radiation dose as a nine-hour flight to Singapore.
Police have told AAP an operation is planned for Saturday to aid the transportation of cargo to ANSTO’s Lucas Heights campus. It said no further details would be provided.
Liberal Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells wants Port Kembla as nuclear submarine base – Dr Helen Caldicott and Wollongong Council disagree
Port Kembla the ‘obvious choice’ for nuclear submarine base, Liberal Senator says
ABC Illawarra / By Tim Fernandez 8 Mar 2022 Port Kembla could become the home of the first major military base to be built in Australia in more than 20 years, but the prospect of nuclear activity in the region has split the community.
Key points:
- Concetta Fierravanti-Wells says Port Kembla is the “obvious choice” for the base
- Nobel Prize-winning anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott says the base will turn Wollongong into a military target
- Wollongong has been a nuclear-free city since 1980
Prime Minister Scott Morrison confirmed yesterday that a submarine base would be built on Australia’s east coast as part of the AUKUS partnership with the US and the UK.
Port Kembla, Newcastle and Brisbane have been floated as possible locations for the base, but the ABC understands Wollongong is the Defence Department’s preferred site.
………………… Liberal Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells has been advocating for the Garden Island Naval Base in Sydney to be moved to Port Kembla since 2015.
‘Vote-buying gimmick’
The South Coast has a long history of community opposition to nuclear projects and the identification of Port Kembla as a possible destination for nuclear assets has reignited the debate.
One of the pioneers of the Australian anti-nuclear movement, Helen Caldicott, has spent decades raising awareness of the nuclear threat and won the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for her work.
The Berry resident believed the base would pose an unmanageable risk to the area.
“Huge amounts of money being spent, nuclear activity at Port Kembla, which is always dangerous, and making it a target in the event of war, like Pine Gap,” Dr Caldicott said.
“It is just a vote-buying gimmick, obviously, when the Prime Minister should be spending that sort of money on the people in Lismore, many of whom have lost their houses.
“I think it should be treated with cynicism, and for Port Kembla to understand the dangers — both with dealing with nuclear activities and making it a possible target.”
The Labor Party supports the AUKUS partnership, but its candidate in the Wollongong-based seat of Cunningham, Alison Byrnes, has criticised the government’s secrecy around the plan.
“It has been really disrespectful for our community — they deserve to have all the details,” she said.
“The Prime Minister is using national security for his own job security, which suits his political timeline and not national security priorities.”
Nuclear-free zone
Wollongong council has been a nuclear-free zone since 1980 and in 2019 the council adopted the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons…………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-08/port-kembla-submarine-base-proposal-reignites-nuclear-debate/100889814
Jellyfish would inevitably force nuclear submarines into shutdown, if fleet based in Brisbane
 | |||
Jellyfish would ‘inevitably’ force nuclear submarines into shutdown if fleet based in Brisbane, expert says
Leading marine scientist says Moreton Bay, one of three sites shortlisted, is bad choice due to risk to reactors if jellyfish sucked in. Guardian, Ben Smee in Brisbane, @BenSmee, Fri 11 Mar 2022 .
Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines would “inevitably” be forced into an emergency reactor shutdown by swarms of jellyfish if the fleet was based in Brisbane, a leading marine scientist says.
The Australian government this week released a shortlist of three sites – Brisbane, Newcastle and Wollongong – as a potential east-coast home port for the nuclear submarine fleet, which will arrive in about 2036 under the Aukus partnership with the US and the UK.
The Queensland government has been cagey when asked whether it supports a base in Brisbane, a position described as “very strange” by the federal defence minister, Peter Dutton, whose electorate is in Brisbane…………
Jellyfish expert Lisa-ann Gershwin, a leading marine biologist, says Brisbane is “close to the absolute worst place” for a nuclear submarine base, due to the conditions in Moreton Bay and the frequent jellyfish blooms.
In 2006, the US nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Ronald Reagan was forced into an emergency reactor shutdown in Brisbane after it sucked more than 800kg of jellyfish into its condensers, hindering coolant from reaching the main reactors.
Picture if you will America’s biggest, most expensive, most fearsome, awesome supercarrier is on its maiden voyage,” Gershwin said.
“It comes into the port of Brisbane and it sucks in thousands of jellyfish. It was a very embarrassing situation for the American navy. Luckily there was no major accident, nothing happened, nothing exploded.
“But when you’re dealing with nuclear anything, you’ve got to be [more cautious].”
The phenomenon of jellyfish shutdowns is surprisingly common in any power plant that sucks in water as a coolant
Gershwin says any base for a submarine with an in-built nuclear reactor could not be enclosed like Moreton Bay, which is sheltered by Moreton Island and North Stradbroke Island.
“Jellyfish act like plastic,” Gershwin said.
“If you’ve ever seen a pool filter that’s got a plastic wrapper caught, it clogs up … and floods all over the place because it’s not going through the filter. The water gets stopped by this ‘plastic’ and then the water can’t pass by that. Emergency shutdowns of power plants happen all the time, very frequently.”
Gershwin said that if Brisbane was used to base nuclear submarines, a jellyfish shutdown would be “inevitable”………
You’ve got to be really careful about where you put these things. Anywhere that you’ve got warm water, you’re going to have jellyfish. Moreton Bay is just sucked in with jellyfish.”
Brisbane ranked eighth of the sites considered by Defence as a potential submarine base in 2011, with Sydney listed as the best choice.…………. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/11/jellyfish-nuclear-submarine-emergency-reactor-shutdown-brisbane-base-moreton-bay-australia
Lies leave the Assange case exposed – this is a political persecution
Lies leave the Assange case exposed – this is a political persecution, https://www.counterfire.org/articles/opinion/22480-lies-leave-the-assange-case-exposed-this-is-a-political-persecution
John Rees on how a false testimony has further confirmed that the Assange case is a political attack against critical journalists
Watching the US government’s case against Julian Assange is like watching a levitation act at the music hall. You can see that the object floats, but you’ve no idea how. If normal gravitational laws applied, the Assange case would have crashed to the ground already.
After all, a leading prosecution witness has admitted lying in his evidence to the court and the defendant and his lawyers have been spied on by the intelligence agency of the government attempting to extradite him. In any other case, the mere facts of these revelations would be enough to halt court proceedings, but the detail makes the case for abandonment of the extradition even more compelling.
The most recent bombshell is that Sigurdur ‘Siggi’ Thordarson has admitted to Icelandic journalists at Stundin that he lied when he gave evidence alleging that Julian Assange had instructed him to hack US government accounts. Thordarson’s evidence is not marginal to the US case: it’s woven all through the prosecution’s argument, and it is specifically referred to by the judge in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in those parts of her judgement which are hostile to Assange.
Indeed, when the Trump administration realised that their case was weak, they specifically sought out Thordarson in Iceland and reissued their charges against Assange so that it would be, they imagined, strengthened by his evidence. They should have known better.
To say that Thordarson is an unreliable witness is a very considerable understatement. His allegations had been reviewed by the Obama administration and found too problematic to be taken seriously. Trump’s administration re-animated Thordarson in an attempt to breathe life into their flagging case.
Thordason had been a volunteer for WikiLeaks, working to raise funds. He stole some $50,000 from WikiLeaks and he misrepresented himself to the outside world in order to embezzle money. He was also convicted of sexual abuse of children. On both counts, Julian Assange helped put him in jail. His motive for lying once again for the Trump administration is plain: revenge. And his false evidence is meant to bolster a central contention of the US case: that Julian Assange is a hacker, not a journalist.
Quite what has now convinced this serial liar to admit that he invented the material on which the US case so heavily relies we cannot know. But his decision to do so blows a hole through the centre of the case for extradition.
Thordarson admitted to the Stundin investigative team that Assange never asked him to hack anything. In fact, he now says that his previous claim that Assange had instructed or asked him to access computers is false.
Yet this is precisely the evidence on which the US prosecution relies. Indeed, it was so important to them that they tore up their original indictment of Assange on the very eve of the extradition hearing so that they could reissue a second indictment specifically including Thordarson’s evidence – evidence now admitted to be a total fiction.
At this point most cases which had been exposed as relying on perjured testimony would collapse. Not so the Assange case, which is now heading to the Appeal Court where the US will try to overturn the decision of the Magistrates’ Court at the start of this year, which found that the US prison system is so ‘oppressive’ that Assange would be a suicide risk were he committed to it.
It’s not even as if the Thordarson revelations are the first time that evidence has emerged which would normally halt court proceedings in their tracks. It is already a matter of record that Assange and his legal team were spied on by a Spanish security firm reporting to the CIA. The firm, UC Global, were employed by the Ecuadorean embassy to protect Assange when he was granted asylum. They were suborned by the CIA and then supplied them with both audio and video recordings of Assange and his legal team in the embassy. All this has been revealed in an ongoing court case in Spain.
Again, in any normal trial, the revelation that attorney-client privilege had been abused in this way would have been grounds for dismissal. But not in the Assange case. The court seems content to accept the US government’s argument that the CIA would respect departmental boundaries and never tell the Department of Justice any information obtained from the spying operation on Assange. This excuse beggars belief, since the exact function of the CIA is to tell the US government about the threats to national security, as they see it.
And there is the whole core of the problem: the US government under Trump allowed the fiction to develop that the fundamental business of investigative journalism is a threat to national security. Accordingly, Julian Assange became reclassified as a ‘cyber-terrorist’, not a journalist.
In pursuit of this dangerous fantasy, the US government is keeping a multiple award-winning journalist banged-up in a high security jail specifically used for terrorists, in spite of the Magistrates’ Court decision against them.
It’s time that both the US government and the British government brought this embarrassing farce to an end. Every major human rights organisation on the planet has said it is wrong. Journalists’ unions across the globe say its wrong. Parliamentarians in Italy are protesting in their legislature to says its wrong. German MPs are demanding Angela Merkel tells Joe Biden its wrong. Australian MPs are campaigning for Assange’s release in unprecedented numbers. British MPs have been protesting outside Belmarsh because they are not even being allowed a briefing with Assange.
As the Assange case goes to the High Court, we are reaching a critical moment. This is the crucial freedom of the press case of the twenty-first century. If it is lost, the shadow of authoritarian government will be cast longer and darker over the body politic. We should not allow that to happen.
1 This month.
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 