South Australian govt warned by atomic test veteran not to expand nuclear industry
Maralinga British atomic test veteran warns State Government against nuclear expansion in SA, ABC News By Mike Sexton, 22 Aug 15 A veteran of the British atomic tests at Maralinga has warned the South Australian Government against flirting with a nuclear fuel cycle.
Avon Hudson served with the RAAF at Maralinga during the so-called minor trials when radioactive material including plutonium was atomised and, in the process, spread across the sandy desert country.
“It is alright when everything goes okay, but we know they don’t,” he said.
“If we get more and more nuclear power stations then the law of averages is we will see more accidents.” In the 1970s Mr Hudson became a whistleblower by going public with what he knew of the secret trials.
He also became an advocate for the servicemen who had been exposed to radiation during weapons testing in the 1950s and 60s.
He said the men were given little or no protection against the harmful exposure.
“I was handed over like a pick and shovel would be handed over for someone to do a job,” he said.
“[There were] no safeguards, no nothing.”
Mr Hudson estimated of the 8,000 Australian servicemen at Maralinga fewer than 500 remained alive today.
Now in his late seventies he is retired and living in the South Australian town of Balaklava, but continues to agitate against the use of nuclear energy and weapons……..Mr Hudson believed the dangers posed by nuclear energy outweighed the advantages, including the possibility of nuclear fuel being used to manufacture weapons……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-20/veteran-warns-sa-government-against-nuclear-expansion/6711642
No “Nuke State” for South Australia – say Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle
Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle
Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
SUBMISSION TO ISSUES PAPERS 1 – 4
The Josephite SA Reconciliation Circle is a group of concerned citizens with a deep and
abiding interest in the health and well-being of Aboriginal peoples who have already been particularly impacted by the nuclear industry in Australia. We have seen great suffering in Aboriginal communities in the name of progress. The very fact that State funds are being invested in this Royal Commission is deeply disturbing.
We see investment in the nuclear cycle is a backward step and are alarmed by the prospect of
any form of nuclear proliferation. Like many in our community we are shocked that the South
Australian Government could consider going down the path under consideration by the Royal
Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. We want to continue to be proud to be South
Australian, not ashamed. We do not want South Australia to become ‘The Nuke State’.
There is a need for continued social and economic development of South Australia. We
welcome positive change and development and are excited by the potential energy
opportunities for our State. Most recently, we have been buoyed by reports that renewables
expert Dr. Mark Diesendorf from the University of NSW has completed a report showing that
South Australia could be run on 100% renewable energy is just 15 years! There is a way
forward.
We offer the following responses to questions posed in the Issues Papers………
Ambivalence in Port Adelaide Enfield Council about trucking radioactive trash
Trucking nuclear material could clog LeFevre roads, Port Adelaide Enfield Council says, Kurtis Eichler, Portside Messenger August 19, 2015 TRUCKING nuclear material through the Lefevre Peninsula would add “significant” pressure to already clogged transport routes, Port Adelaide Enfield Council says.
Councillors voted last week to send a four-page submission to the State Government to be considered by its Royal Commission into nuclear energy.
Issues raised in the submission included transporting uranium from northern mining areas through Outer Harbor…….In February, contentious climate commentator Professor Ian Plimer pushed for a nuclear reactor in Port Adelaide, saying it would create jobs and make electricity cheaper.
The idea was rejected by Mr Johanson and Port Adelaide MP Susan Close. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger/west-beaches/trucking-nuclear-material-could-clog-lefevre-roads-port-adelaide-enfield-council-says/story-fni9llx9-1227489550161
Nuclear stooge MP Rowan Ramsey touting radioactive trash dump for his electorate
Concern over radioactive storage, Port Lincoln Times, By Olivia Barnes Aug. 20, 2015, THE potential for a low to medium grade radioactive waste management facility in the Kimba and Buckleboo district has some local families concerned.
After an information session in April and a call for voluntary nominations from landholders, two families with properties to the north of Kimba expressed interest in volunteering land for the facility.
The project is still in its early planning stages but a number of residents and landowners who are strongly opposed to the idea of the facility being placed anywhere in the district have decided to act.
Among these families’ concerns are the potential health effects a storage facility could have as well as future property values and the impact it could have on grain prices in years to come.
Cameron and Toni Scott said after their neighbours told them they had expressed interest in volunteering land for the facility, they were immediately concerned.
“When the information session was held in April it was the middle of seeding and a lot of us couldn’t make it,” Mr Scott said.
“Our concern is this facility could be near our farms and homes and we don’t know what the consequences could be in the future.”
Mr Scott said his family’s concerns were that there was no precedent to compare the proposed facility to and so much was unknown. “We don’t know what it could do to the district’s reputation, what it could mean for our grain in the future, we don’t know what the outcomes will be for future generations,” he said…….
Federal Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey is hoping the Kimba district doesn’t “wipe off” the opportunity for a radioactive waste management facility to be located somewhere in the area. http://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/3290460/concern-over-radioactive-storage/?cs=1500
Federal Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey will be holding an information session at the Kimba Hotel on Monday, August 24 at 8pm, similar to the one earlier this year
—
A top Submission on Nuclear Waste Importing for South Australia
The Commission’s whole aim is to further the drive to make South Australia the World’s nuclear toilet. So, the Submissions on this topic of importing nuclear wastes are especially important.
NGOPPON TOGETHER INC sent in a top Submissions on all 4 Issues papers
Excerpts from NGOPPON TOGETHER INC – Submission on Issues Paper 4 – Management, Storage and Disposal of Wastes.
“…..Ngoppon Together’s answer [to Australia’s Lucas Heights wastes] – leave it where it is, where the expertise is, in Lucas Heights where it won’t be out of sight, out of mind; so that we avoid the hope of the pro-nuclear lobby and the consequent burgeoning of high and intermediate level waste in having finally established a repository, nuclear power will be far more possible (and the pressure to establish a nuclear power reactor thus increase.)
Measured by radioactivity, spent nuclear fuel reprocessing waste from Lucas Heights reactors accounts for over 90% of the waste the Government wants to dump … Although the volume of this waste is relatively small – some tens of cubic metres – it is by far the most radioactive material “ANSTO is capable of handling and storing wastes for long periods of time. There is no difficulty with that.” Dr Ron Cameron, ANSTO.(Lucas Heights (quoted in ‘Nuclear Freeways ‘)…….
and waters, its people, its children? In such a vast country to discount the potential high level dangers of transport? Do we have no responsibility towards the future generations of South Australian and indeed Australian children?
Ngoppon Together strongly refutes the muddled, quite fallacious so-called ‘ethics’ argument – We export and so are ethically bound to receive waste. This argument fails, as the people do not choose to export uranium but Governments and companies do. Aboriginal people oppose digging up uranium on their land in the first place and then to compound the burden, in the past at least are faced with the waste being imposed on them and their lands, waste that is up to one million times more reactive after enrichment. Our members point out the obvious realityif any government imports uranium then they import the responsibility for dealing with the implications of the purchase. Fewer than 1 in 6 South Australians are inclined towards reactors or waste dumps in S.A. We remind the Commission of their duties – to inform clearly and fully the SA Community of the facts and implications , rather than to persuade and cajole………Radioactive trash storage would ruin South Australia’s vital fishing, agricultural and tourist industries
Claire Catt’s fine Submission to #NuclearCommissionSAust
CLAIRE CATT: SUBMISSION TO THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION
To the Commissioners, This submission pertains to Issue Paper No 4 Management, Storage and Disposal ofNuclear and Radioactive Waste
The following views and comments are sole my own as a citizen of the State of South Australia. My interest in nuclear issues is longstanding and my concerns are shared by many of my family and friends, here in Australia and overseas.
Issue Paper Question No. 4./ Clean and sufficient water resources are becoming a serious and difficult issue for countries all over the world. Australia is a very dry continent with limited and dwindling water resources. South Australia is its driest state. The nuclear industry requires huge and ongoing water resources which Australia cannot spare, let alone South Australia.
Issue Paper Question No. 4.6 Maintaining security at nuclear installations, both reactors and storage facilities, is becoming increasingly difficult due to geo-political developments. Security and defence issues are causing major concerns in the US and Europe. This heightened threat is relatively new and rising. Costs associated with maintaining security may become prohibitive, especially for a small community like South Australia. Provision of security by profit driven corporations poses its own inherent risks.
Issue Paper Question No. 4.8 Despite many years of research and experimentation, disposal/storage methods remain unsatisfactory, expensive and in terms of safety largely speculative, certainly in the (very) long term.
Issue Paper No. 4.10 It is important for each nation to responsibly address the problems caused by their own nuclear industries. The transportation and shipping of these dangerous material around the world exposes people and environments to unacceptable risks which are greatly reduced when local solutions are in place. Auslralia also needs 10 dispose of its own relatively small amount of medical nuclear waste as safely as possible in the most suitable location, away from large population centres. For this purpose we do require a small storage facility. The solution of this problem wilhin Australia is inthe interest of all Austral ans.
In conclusion I would like to voice my long held view that Australia has been very lucky and wise to avoid the significant problems posed by the nuclear industry all over the world. It would be an extraordinary decision to embark au this high risk venture at a time when much of the population here and overseas is focussing on clean renewable energy solutions which will benefit all including future generations.
South Australian government warned on using public money to encourage nuclear industry
“…..Greens MLC Mark Parnell has questioned why the Attorney-General’s Department is in charge of three tenders seeking on behalf of the Royal Commission business cases for the establishment of a nuclear power plant, a dump and an enrichment facility.
“The Government must tread a very fine line between engaging in genuine open inquiry and actively promoting an expansion of the nuclear industry,’’ he said.
“It is illegal to spend any public money to “encourage” a nuclear waste facility in this State. The tender contract is in the name of the Attorney-General’s Department, so they will need to be very careful about any instructions they provide to tenderers about what to say or what not to say.” – Adelaide Now, August 14, 2015
#NuclearCommissionSAust: an overview of submissions published about Radioactive Trash
So far the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission has published 44 Submissions about Issues Paper 4 – Management, Storage and Disposal of Waste
Surprise surprise! They haven’t published Dr Helen Caldicott’s submission. They haven’t published mine, (written under my full name Noel Christina Wauchope)
Well, as the import of radioactive trash is the main purpose of this shonky Royal Commission, we can expect that they will give priority to the pro nuclear ones.
The tally for the published submissions? – 29 in favour of South Australia importing radioactive trash, 15 against.
Of the 29 in favour- well – they ALL have a vested or very obvious commercial or career interest in the radioactive-trash-import project.
- 9 are actually companies or nuclear associations.
- 2 are government agencies, – ANSTO and the Commonwealth Government.
- 14 Individuals – all with either direct connection to a nuclear /uranium company, or with a political/career motive
- Australian Workers Union – a sad standout? I guess they have bought the nuclear lobby mantra of “jobs jobs jobs”
Nuclear is the wrong direction for SA: Environment groups enter submission to Royal Commission.
Three leading environmental organisations – Conservation SA, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Friends of the Earth, Australia – have submitted a detailed joint submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission which forensically details an extensive series of nuclear myths and false assumptions.
“South Australia’s future lies in renewable energy, not nuclear. It’s cheaper, safer and quicker to roll out,” said Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins.
“This week’s axing of hundreds of jobs from Olympic Dam should raise huge questions about growth potential in the nuclear industry.
“With renewables, we can be in charge of our own destiny, not dependent on decisions made in corporate boardrooms on the other side of the world,” he said.
“Much of the nuclear promotion in SA is premised on the idea of a global nuclear ‘renaissance’, said lead submission author Dr Jim Green. “In fact, the nuclear renaissance is stone cold dead.
“There are fewer reactors now than there were a decade ago. Nuclear fuel cycle markets for enrichment, conversion and fuel fabrication are oversupplied. And as the continuing job losses at Olympic Dam demonstrate, the uranium market is extremely weak and will remain so for years,” he said.
As well as highlighting the contested and constrained status of the current nuclear sector the 248 page report makes a compelling case that the industry’s future will be no brighter.
“So-called Generation 3 reactors projects such as the French EPR and Westinghouse AP1000 are in trouble, with multi-year delays and multi-billion dollar cost blowouts,” said Dr Green. “So-called Generation 4 reactors are decades away and, as a recent report by the French government concludes, safety claims made by Generation 4 advocates do not stand up to scrutiny.”
Many environment, public health and Aboriginal groups have expressed concern that the Royal Commission is being used by the nuclear industry as a Trojan Horse in an attempt to open national and international radioactive waste dumps in SA.
“Australia has yet to find a lasting, responsible solution to domestic radioactive waste so it beggars belief that some are promoting Australia as the solution to the world’s nuclear waste problems.
“Proponents of a deep underground nuclear waste dump in Australia have been coy about the fact that the world’s only deep underground nuclear dump – in the US state of New Mexico – has been shut down following a February 2014 explosion,” Dr Green concluded.
Attachment 1: Two page submission briefing.
Attachment 2: Joint submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission by Conservation SA, Australian Conservation Foundation, and Friend¬¬s of the Earth, Australia.
#NuclearCommissionSAust plan rejected by the Australia Institute
Australia Institute rejects nuclear option for South Australia, International Business Times, By Vittorio Hernandez @ibtimesau on August 13 2015 The global debate on the safety of nuclear power continues, with South Australia joining the debate.
A plan by the state to set up either a nuclear waste dump or a nuclear power station was rejected by the Australia Institute due to major flaw in economic and technical assumptions for a domestic nuclear power industry. Richard Denniss, chief economist of the institute, points to lack of commercial scale of the technology being proposed as the most extreme assumption……..
Even nuclear power is not an option for the state, Denniss said, adding “Even if you totally dismiss issues like security, proliferation, safety, insurance and public opposition, nuclear energy is Australia is a very expensive and very slow option to implement.”
In its submission to the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, the the institute said that if there was a way for other countries to profit from nuclear waste, it would have done so. It said the proposal would only “create a high level waste problem for ourselves in the hopes that we would be able to not merely solve it, but profit from it.”
The submission also cited experience of other countries that use nuclear power, such as France, which sources 80 percent of its electricity for nuclear plants. However, the 2014 net loss reported by Areva, the state-controlled nuclear power company, of 4.9 billion euro was even bigger than Areva’s stock market value of 3.7 billion euro.
The institute instead pushed for renewables such as solar and wind power, although Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is also cold to the idea of wind power, particularly windmills which he considers ugly……. http://www.ibtimes.com.au/australia-institute-rejects-nuclear-option-south-australia-1460187
Nuclear power will be redundant, as renewables develop fast -Conservation Council of SA
SA told prioritise renewables, not nuclear 9 News, AAP , 13 Aug 15, Renewable energy should be prioritised over nuclear power, the Conservation Council of SA says.
Detailing its submission to South Australia’s royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle, the council says the state’s future lies in renewable energy.
“It’s cheaper, safer and quicker to roll out,” the council’s chief executive Craig Wilkins said on Thursday.
“In the time it would take to develop an Australian nuclear power industry, it will be made utterly redundant by renewables.”…..http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/08/13/10/09/renewable-energy-makes-nuclear-redundant
My favourite Submission to South Australia’s Nuclear Royal Commission
suggestions for the Terms of Reference 16 Feb 2015 by Brett Burnard Stokes
That the Commission has come about because of a complex ongoing fraud, with
(a) false statements used in promotion of uranium mining
(b) false statements used in promotion of nuclear power
(a) theft from future generations
(b) spending of money by Government of South Australia
(h) false assurances of safety from exposure to radioactive poisons.
That the Commission has a duty to find that
5- the Royal Commission on Nuclear needs to be wound up and replaced by a Royal Commission Into Cetacean Deaths, to include Port River Dolphins and Sperm Whales and all the recent cetacean deaths in South Australian waters.
South Australian Premier critical of BHP as the company cuts even more jobs
“Our strategy has always been about the diversification of the South Australian economy and I think that we’ve been working on many fronts. Whether it’s education, health industries, tourism, defence … this is an economy of many moving parts,” Mr Weatherill said.
SA Premier Jay Weatherill refuses to explain BHP Billiton’s ‘bad news’ after jobs cut announcement 891 ABC Adelaide , 11 Aug 15,
Mr Weatherill said the company needed to “front the media” after its announcement this week that jobs would go at the mine, including those of technicians, scientists, engineers and supervisors.
It follows on from the loss of 230 positions in South Australia earlier this year.
Mr Weatherill defended the Government’s record on embracing the mining industry and BHP’s expansion plans for the mine. Continue reading
#NuclearCommissionSAust might crash and burn, judging by these submissions
CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING ENERGY UNION excerpt…
bureaucratic, indicates that the views that they consider relevant are extremely limited. For example Aboriginal representatives, who have stated that the difficulty in translating the papers alone is going to prevent many of their communities from participating in this process at all.
URANIUM FREE NSW ISSUES PAPER ONE: EXPLORATION, EXTRACTION AND MILLING The first 6 questions seemed to be aimed at industry to easily to enable their argument for expansion. They are akin to the Royal Commission/Government asking “how can we facilitate the expansion of the industry?” UFNSW is opposed to the expansion or the nuclear industry in SA or anywhere, hence has not answered these questions………
- Only deals with economic viability, but even then ignore issues of reparations, compensation, or insurance costs in the event of exposure, spills, accidents, or even routine emissions.
- The paper quotes the International Energy Agency (IEA) as saying that the expansion of the nuclear industry “depends on listening to, and addressing public concerns, about the technology.”
- Doesn’t address fundamental question of should uranium be mined at all. The entire process is underpinned by an assumption that uranium mining is good and looks at the supposed best ways to go about it.
- Nothing regarding keeping profits in Australia
- Environmental impacts are minimised to native vegetation, water is not separate. Scope very narrow • Minimisation of environmental impacts is not a good enough aim given time of radioactivity, it is unmanageable and difficult or impossible to remediate or rehabilitate sufficiently • This Issues Paper does not provide information regarding direct or indirect Government funding of the nuclear industry, in the past, present or potential future.
- No mention made of the social or environmental costs of Radium Hill, Roxby Downs, Honeymoon, Beverley and Four Mile. Traded price of uranium is provided in a graph, but not costs
- Paper states that international demand for uranium is primarily driven by its use in electricity generation, however it is undoubtedly influenced by the supply and demand for uranium to be used in weapons. Market is influenced by uranium from dismantled nuclear weapons is released onto the uranium market, which is presumably harder to predict
- The issues papers seem to ignore the impacts of radiation on health • No mention of ionising radiation
- The issues papers questions ask about economic and some environmental impact, but completely ignore any cultural or social impacts • No mention on the length of time materials are radioactive and need to be managed for
- Seems to treat uranium like coal or iron, materials that have far lesser risks The questions seem to be written in such a way as to set up opposition to nuclear expansion as emotional and hence discredit it.
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 
