Australian government’s nuclear waste plans unacceptable – Dr Margaret Beavis
 Long-term impact of quick nuclear dump fix https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2021/02/23/long-term-impact-of-quick-nuclear-dump-fix/Legislation to set up a national nuclear waste storage site on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula is being debated by federal parliament. Margaret Beavis argues that both the site selection process and storage plans for long-lived intermediate nuclear waste are unacceptable.
Today, the government is planning a Senate vote to lock in moving highly radioactive nuclear waste to Kimba. This bill will deny any judicial oversight or review, despite major flaws in the proposal. However there is no rush to find a home for Australia’s nuclear waste. The federal nuclear regulator, ARPANSA, has been crystal clear; the nuclear waste at the ANSTO Lucas Heights reactor can stay there safely for decades. Claims that moving the waste is urgently needed to continue nuclear medicine in Australia are patently false. As a GP, I use nuclear medicine and ongoing access is necessary. Other arguments that we need to consolidate nuclear waste at one site are misleading, given hospitals will be handling waste for as long as there is nuclear medicine. Hospitals currently manage their own nuclear medicine wastes on a ‘delay and decay’ basis on site; after use in a patient, the waste very rapidly loses its radioactivity. After a few months the vast majority is safe enough to go to a normal rubbish tip. There will always be multiple sites. Many South Australians would be unaware that this proposed “temporary storage” of nuclear waste in Kimba is a second-rate cheap solution. World’s best practice requires deep geological disposal, which costs a lot more. Countries such as Finland have spent over 40 years researching locations and properly involving communities. They are only now building a deep geological repository, at a cost of over A$5 billion In contrast, the Kimba plan will cost shift onto future generations, who will be left to do the job properly at great expense. Indeed, whilst the government promises to move the waste yet again some decades hence, there are no plans whatsoever for proper longer-term disposal. It is highly likely to end up stranded at Kimba and a significant liability for South Australians. In addition to the dodgy storage proposal, there are many other flaws. The big ones include: four years of a misleading government marketing campaign, a deciding vote using a biased sample of residents and a complete disregard of profound opposition by the Traditional Owners. The site selection process has been poor. The community has endured several years of very one-sided marketing, and remains deeply divided on the issue. Low-level waste has been the major focus thoughout, yet the elephant in the room is the intermediate waste that is radioactive for over 10,000 years. The community vote was based on town boundaries, which biased the sample towards businesses who may profit from the facility. It excluded farmers who are closer to the site than the township. At the alternative Hawker site last year, a much less biased vote with a 50 km radius was used, and the waste was clearly rejected. This current proposal also rides rough shod over the clear opposition of the traditional owners. In April 2020 the Federal Parliament’s own Joint Committee on Human Rights found the National Radioactive Waste Management Act does not sufficiently protect the Barngarla’s rights and interests. The Federal Government admits its proposed legislation will deny farmers, Traditional Owners and other interested parties a right to a judicial review. Indeed, the legislation is designed to do just that. This bill locks in a second-rate process for a second-rate facility that will be a major future liability for South Australians. Highly radioactive intermediate level nuclear waste is going to be with us for a very, very long time. There is plenty of time to do it right. We need a proper disposal plan, not moving the waste unnecessarily to a temporary store and leaving it for our kids to pay for. This waste is highly radioactive for millennia. If this legislation passes, it will come back and haunt South Australians for generations to come. Margaret Beavis is a GP and vice president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War. |
|
Why did ANSTO shut down National Medical Cyclotron, that made medical isotopes without nuclear waste?
ANSTO gets a blank cheque for its nuclear waste production at Lucas Heights?
Greg Phillips, No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia , 13 Jan 2021, Congratulations Canada! “Cyclotron-produced technetium-99m approved by Health Canada”. Why rely on a global network of aging, unreliable, toxic spewing nuclear reactors when you can have a local network of clean, reliable cyclotrons? Especially when pandemics hobble global freight networks. From the article: “The process is safe and precise, employing stable targets and producing little to no long-lived radioactive waste. And, with the right target and extraction systems, these cyclotrons can be used to reliably create technetium-99m regionally and without the need for reactor-based materials.”Because ANSTO shut down cyclotron, Australia has the problem of importing a short-lived medical isotope
|
“……..Australia lost the capacity to make the radioactive isotope iodine-123 – used in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer in the nerve cells of children – just over a decade ago with the closure of the National Medical Cyclotron in Camperdown, NSW. ………
But according to Ansto, iodine-123 is needed in clinical settings by about a dozen patients around Australia at any one time – most of them children with neuroblastoma. This means Australia now relies on imports from Japan. But with a half-life of just over 13 hours – meaning the levels of radioactivity halve every 13 hours – this isotope needs to be distributed to Australian hospitals and health centres very quickly. It expires within 33 hours of being manufactured in Japan. “The challenge with transporting nuclear medicine is the products have a short half-life,” Ian Martin, the general manager of Ansto Health, told Guardian Australia. “We need to get the isotopes from point A to point B before they decay too much to be effective, a complex task when B is in another hemisphere.” ………. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/11/australias-nuclear-medicine-agency-chartered-flights-to-deliver-childrens-cancer-treatment?fbclid=IwAR3o8Da64-dDpv0mwYL0K5jaPZreOGOaQCmDdh4ChzfwQLjsv0sFdBBVBVo 11 Aug 2020,
|
|
A reminder of the danger of ionising radiation, after theft of a nuclear device
|
The machine, a Troxler 3430P plus enhanced nuclear moisture density gauge, went missing from a building site at Eastwood over the weekend. Police said anyone attempting to dismantle the gauge “could expose themselves to radioactive material”. On its website, equipment company Troxler said the devices are commonly used by “contractors, engineers, and highway departments”. They are used to measure the density of substances and “for compaction control of soil aggregate, concrete and full-depth asphalt”. he instruments, which emit neutrons, can contain radioactive elements californium as well as americium, which is commonly found in smoke detectors in much smaller doses but can be more radioactive than plutonium. Police have urged anyone with information about the robbery to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000. Radiation expert Kent Gregory, from Radiation SA, said while the devices were “reasonably intrinsically safe”, they could be potentially lethal if dismantled, and were much more radioactive than household smoke detectors. “By the order of 1,000 times or even more,” Dr Gregory said.
“There have been occasions these things have ended up going through recycling facilities and turned into doorknobs and metal toilet roll holders incorporating the radioactive material.” Dr Gregory said the density gauges were commonly used by road builders to effectively x-ray the ground, and check whether “the right level of compaction has occurred, and the right level of moisture is in the ground before asphalt is applied”. “When I worked for the EPA (Environment Protection Authority) for 10 years, I think two or three got stolen in that time,” he said. “You’ve got to be very, very careful about making sure these [radiation] sources remain sealed.” |
|
Corporate vested interests win as Australian Government weakens Environmental Laws
This Bill is fundamentally flawed in the core untenable proposal to divest national environmental responsibilities to States & Territories. State Approvals of major resource, mining and development projects are mired in ‘conflict of interest’, corporate influence and vested – not public – interests.
David Noonan, Full Submission to the Federal Environment Inquiry, 18 Nov 20, To: The Inquiry Chairperson Senator the Hon David Fawcett, , Senate Environment and Communications Legislative Committee , By email: ec.sen@aph.gov.au
Concern regards this rushed Inquiry into the flawed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020
Dear Secretary
This Inquiry is an unacceptably rushed process, and the Bill takes a pre-emptive and flawed approach to the EPBC Act. The public and the Parliament have a right to see and consider the Samuels Final Report, and the full suite of proposed EPBC Act Reform, National Standards and Amendments.
This Bill is fundamentally flawed in the core untenable proposal to divest national environmental responsibilities to States & Territories. State Approvals of major resource, mining and development projects are mired in ‘conflict of interest’, corporate influence and vested – not public – interests.
Due process and the national interest responsibility to the Protection of Matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) are compromised by this deeply flawed Bill and rushed Inquiry.
State control of EPBC Approvals is proposed through use of unenforceable “Bilateral Approval Agreement” instruments that are not fit for purpose, with little or no State law in place across Australia to even reflect the Objects, obligations and requirements of the EPBC Act.
The Bill unacceptably provides for ‘National Standards’ to be added to Bilateral Agreements with States, rather than legislated in the national interest in the EPBC Act and subject to national consultation and enforcement, with required national resourcing – rather than State paucity. The proposed accreditation process for States to take up federal EPBC powers is not even transparent.
It appears reckless that a core pre-requisite audit of State resourcing and capacity to undertake EPBC Approvals and enforcement roles has not been carried out at this late stage of events.
The Federal government is trying to expedite relinquishing national roles to Protect the Environment while declining to fund States to do so. This is a disrespectful indifference to Matters of NES.
Existing Cth-State Bilateral Assessment Agreements are not enforceable instruments and are not fit for purpose. For instance, no legislative or other mandated changes having been made in South Australia since taking up EPBC Act Assessment roles and responsibilities some years ago.
The non-statutory “EPBC Act Condition-setting Policy” further aligns the Commonwealth to defer to State Conditions of Approval and not set warranted Federal Conditions to properly protect MNES.
I have made a submission to the Independent Review of the EPBC Act, focusing on operation of the Act in protection of MNES under the “nuclear actions” trigger, and Discussion Paper Q.14 on failings of State roles through a case study on BHP Olympic Dam copper-uranium mine public interest issues.
******************
In the case of EPBC “nuclear actions”, including EPBC Act Section 21 & 22 controlled actions in uranium mining and milling, the EPBC Act protected Matter of NES is “the environment” – requiring “whole of environment” scope of impact assessments, and Protection of the Environment such that authorized actions do not have unacceptable or unsustainable impacts.
******************
The Samuel Review, Box 12 Nuclear activities (p.52) states: “To be able to ensure community confidence in these ‘nuclear’ activities, the Commonwealth should maintain the capacity to intervene. To achieve this, the key reform directions proposed by the Review are:
The National Environmental Standards for MNES should include one for nuclear actions. To provide community confidence, the Standard should reflect the regulatory guidelines and protocols of all relevant national laws and requirements.”
**************
However, the Samuel Review (p.110) specifies inadequate ARPANSA Codes as a ‘National Standard’ for nuclear action assessments; OR use of State frameworks judged compliant with these Codes.
********************
In addition, “graded” (limited) assessments as set out in ARPANSA Codes are to replace the scope of “whole of environment” impact Assessments for ‘nuclear actions’ – including for uranium mining.
******************
ARPANSA Codes can reflect vested nuclear industry practices rather than best scientific evidentiary standards. For instance, applying outdated 1991 era ionising radiation occupational exposure limits.
******************
Australia already has a failing record in regulation of uranium mining, in environmental protection and mine rehabilitation issues. Transferring Approvals to States and use of ARPANSA Codes in graded assessments will further compromise environmental protection standards and practise.
******************
By January 2021 South Australia will be the only Australian jurisdiction conducting uranium mining. A case study of BHP Olympic Dam provides a cogent context to evaluate this Bill & Samuel proposals.
******************
Importantly, “whole of environment” scope of uranium mining impact assessment encompasses social, economic, cultural and spiritual impacts, and not just environmental & radiological impacts.
******************
Outdated BHP Olympic Dam legal privileges that override Indigenous Heritage are now under scrutiny before Parliament’s Juukan Caves Inquiry, see Submission No.73 and 73.1 by David Noonan.
******************
It is typical that uranium mining disproportionately affects Indigenous People. ARPANSA Codes do not provide an appropriate basis to assess or respect Indigenous and Cultural Heritage issues.
******************
State governments in SA have failed to revoke BHP’s untenable Olympic Dam legal privileges.
******************
It is a travesty that BHP has deliberately retained 1982 era over-rides of Aboriginal Heritage across the 12,000 km2 “Stuart Shelf Area” around the Olympic Dam mine, and retains outdated legal rights to take excessive volumes of GAB waters affecting the integrity and very survival of GAB Springs.
******************
BHP’s influence in excessive mining of Great Artesian Basin water for Olympic Dam mine shows a State’s inability,
and given real ‘conflict of interest’, a State’s unwillingness to reform such issues.
******************
This scope is necessary to respect Indigenous rights and interests to protect their country & culture.
******************
It is a warning to this Inquiry that the State of SA has failed to protect the unique and fragile Mound Springs. The integrity of Springs relies on continued natural flows and pressure of GAB waters.
These Springs are a protected Matter of NES under the EPBC Act as a listed Endangered Ecological Community and are of significant ongoing cultural and spiritual importance to Aboriginal traditional owners, the Arabana People, who have called for real effective Federal protection of the Springs.
I commend the strong Arabana Aboriginal Corporation Submission No.92 (11 August) to the federal Juukan Caves Inquiry and the Arabana Chairperson’s call for protection of their GAB Springs: ……
“Unfortunately, our springs are disappearing. … The cause of the disappearance of our springs, is water that is being taken from the Great Artesian Basin by BHP’s mine at Roxby Downs. … Unless something is done by the Commonwealth, our springs will disappear… It is unsustainable, destructive of nature, and destructive of our culture to allow the springs to die. Will you please enact laws that ensure our mound springs and culture are recognised, respected and protected?”
This Inquiry must not condemn the GAB Springs to State control of EPBC Act Approval powers.
Pre-conditions to protect GAB Springs from BHP water extraction were set by the Labor Federal government in 2011 but were not applied as BHP abandoned a proposed open pit mine expansion.
If this Bill were to go ahead, the State of SA’s ‘conflict of interest’ role and BHP’s influence in mining GAB waters will combine to continue the exploitation of underground water reserves and the decline in the integrity and very survival of the unique and fragile GAB Springs.
Community confidence requires the EPBC Act to retain Approval powers at a Federal level, and to retain the “whole of environment” scope of Assessments and Protection of the Environment in ‘nuclear actions’ as has been required in our national EPBC Act laws since 1999.
The Inquiry should take up the Arabana People’s call for Federal protection of their GAB Springs.
This brief summary of input is based on my experience: Including some sixteen years as an Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) Environment Campaigner 1996-2011; as lead author consultant on Joint ENGO submissions (ACF, Conservation SA, and Friends of the Earth Australia) to three BHP EPBC Act Olympic Dam Referrals in 2019; and with 25 years involvement across public interest issues in Olympic Dam mine operations and in matters of environment protection legislation.
Please feel free for the Secretary, Members of the Committee and any of their staff, to contact on any aspect of these issues, for further information, clarification or discussion.
Australian doctors accuse government of failing on climate change
“We are also united by our concern about the climate crisis and the impact it is having on the safety and wellbeing of Australians and our neighbours. Public health is inextricably linked to climate health. Climate damage is here now – and it is killing people.”
The doctors accuse Mr Taylor of failing in his ministerial duties by directing public money to fossil fuel projects, failing to adequately reduce Australia’s emissions obligations and by not committing Australia to a 2050 net zero emissions target…….
In the letter the doctors said there is already a noticeable health impact from increased frequency and intensity of bushfires, floods, dust storms, drought and extreme heat in Australia.
“As a result, Australians are already seeing higher rates of respiratory illness, diarrhoea and morbidity requiring hospital admission during hot days, and higher rates of suicide in rural areas during drought years.
“The burning of fossil fuels such as coal and gas that drives global warming is also a major contributor to air pollution – this silent killer is linked to the premature deaths of 3000 Australians each year. Higher levels of air pollution are also associated with increasing illness and death related to ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive airways disease, lung cancer and asthma.” …..https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australian-doctors-accuse-government-of-failing-on-climate-change-20201101-p56ajj.html
As coronavirus cases plummet, it’s time to ask: Is Australia ready for the third wave?
“They are so beaten up by the lockdowns and by the fear messages that they are saying “I don’t want to do anything”.”
Yet notwithstanding the testing, the tracing, the social distancing, masking, mathematical modelling, quarantining and investment in public health, Australians will continue to live with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.
As coronavirus cases plummet, it’s time to ask: Is Australia ready for the third wave? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-25/coronavirus-preparing-for-the-third-wave/12802070 By Catherine Taylor
An uncomfortable question looms over Australia’s steady exit from its second major outbreak of coronavirus: are we ready for the third wave?
Health experts say it’s a question with an equally uncomfortable answer: a third wave remains a real threat and without a tested vaccine all we have is our self-control, and luck, standing between us and a fresh outbreak.
“We should not expect that we can beat this wave, and then it’s done. It’s the beginning of the next phase,” says Professor Jodie McVernon, an expert in epidemiology, vaccinology and public health at the Doherty Institute, who has been working in isolation for months “like a princess in a castle” from the front room of her Melbourne home.
Professor Raina MacIntyre — head of the Kirby Institute’s biosecurity program — goes further: “The only really feasible exit strategy at this stage is vaccination otherwise we’ll continue to face the risk of third, fourth, fifth and sixth waves.
There is a recipe for reducing risk
Nuclear waste dump – a Federal abuse of a small rural town
Regina McKenzie Fight To Stop a Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 6 Oct 20Medical groups are urging Greg Hunt to include climate change in 10-year health strategy
SBS, 22 Sept 20
A national preventative health strategy is useless if it doesn’t address the risks of climate change, experts have told the responsible minister.
Numerous health groups from across the country have signed a joint statement to Health Minister Greg Hunt calling for climate change to be a key part of the national preventative health strategy.
The strategy is currently being developed, with public feedback on its consultation paper open until the end of the month.
Killing the virus comes at enormous cost — doing nothing will cost more.
Killing the virus comes at enormous cost — doing nothing will cost more.
|
Why harsh COVID-19 lockdowns are good for the economy https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-21/why-harsh-covid-19-lockdowns-are-good-for-the-economy/12683486, By Ian Verrender
It has been a pile-on for the past few months as Team Australia has splintered right down the political divide.
Border closures in Western Australia and Queensland have been called out as unnecessary while the Victorian lockdown has been labelled an overreaction that has angered business leaders and drawn the ire of Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The restrictions, we are constantly told, are costing the nation dearly, delaying a return to normal activity and pushing out the timetable for an economic recovery. While some argue state governments are milking the pandemic for political gain, pointing the blame at regional and state governments for our current predicament ignores two important points. The first is that the restrictions have been imposed to limit the spread of a pandemic. It is the virus that is the fundamental cause, not the restrictions. And the second is that, while it’s almost impossible to measure the true cost of the lockdowns and the shutdowns, most critics look only at the costs and completely overlook the economic benefits the shutdowns have delivered. How could lockdowns have helped the economy?Here’s one good example. Continue reading |
Australia’s doctors call for a climate-focused COVID-19 recovery plan
 Medical groups call for a climate-focused COVID-19 recovery plan, https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2020/08/11/medical-groups-climate-focused-covid-19-recovery/ Dominica Sanda Many of the medical professionals on the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic are urging the Australian government to also act on another health crisis – climate change.Australia’s peak medical groups representing GPs, emergency doctors, obstetricians and psychiatrists have written to Prime Minister Scott Morrison urging him to make climate change action a part of the COVID-19 economic response.
The letter, co-ordinated by the Doctors for the Environment Australia, notes the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change are two global health emergencies the nation must respond to. make climate change action a part of the COVID-19 economic response. The letter, co-ordinated by the Doctors for the Environment Australia, notes the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change are two global health emergencies the nation must respond to. make climate change action a part of the COVID-19 economic response. The letter, co-ordinated by the Doctors for the Environment Australia, notes the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change are two global health emergencies the nation must respond to. The mental health impacts are likely to linger for decades, the medical groups say. The doctors argue fossil-fuel combustion is a major contributor to air pollution, while water supplies and food-growing capacity are also threatened by climate change. They’ve urged the federal government to take a health-centred approach in its COVID-19 recovery by transitioning away from fossil fuels, coal, and gas and instead turn to renewables, electric vehicles, and public transport powered by electricity. “Redirecting funds from fossil fuel subsidies towards the production of renewable energy would produce cleaner air, significantly reduce emissions and power an economic recovery,” the letter said. “Climate change is a public health emergency. Failing to mitigate and prepare for climate change risks potentially catastrophic health and economic impacts.” The Royal Australasian College of Physicians said it was vital climate change and its impacts on health are central to the COVID-19 recovery plan. “While COVID-19 poses the most immediate threat to our health, the serious and long-term health impacts of climate change still remain,” spokeswoman Associate Professor Linda Selvey said in a statement. The Australasian College for Emergency Medicine noted the lockdowns imposed on communities during the pandemic reduced CO2 emissions significantly. “The net result was remarkable, and it shows that where there is political will, it is possible to reduce emissions,” ACEM Public Health and Disaster Committee chair Dr Lai Heng Foong said. “We need collective action, including government response to reduce our CO2 emissions, transition to renewable energy sources and build community resilience. Our future is at stake, and we need action now.” |
|
|
Australia seen as successful in Covid-19 response, deplorable in climate response
 Global report gives Australia an A for coronavirus response but a D on climate https://theconversation.com/global-report-gives-australia-an-a-for-coronavirus-response-but-a-d-on-climate-141982 John Thwaites Chair, Monash Sustainable Development Institute & ClimateWorks Australia, Monash University 6 July 20 The global Sustainable Development Report 2020, released this week in New York, ranks Australia third among OECD countries for the effectiveness of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, beaten by only South Korea and Latvia.Yet Australia trundled in at 37th in the world on its overall progress in achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, which cover a range of economic, social and environmental challenges – many of which will be crucial considerations as we recover from the pandemic. Australia’s worst results are in climate action and the environment, where we rate well below most other OECD countries.
South Korea tops the list of effective COVID-19 responses, whereas New Zealand (which declared the coronavirus eliminated on June 8, albeit with a few sporadic cases since) is ranked sixth. Meanwhile, the United States, United Kingdom and several other Western European countries rank at the bottom of the list. South Korea, Latvia and Australia did well because they not only kept infection and death rates low, but did so with less economic and social disruption than other nations. Rather than having to resort to severe lockdowns, they did this by testing and tracing, encouraging community behaviour change, and quarantining people arriving from overseas. Using smartphone data from Google, the report shows that during the severe lockdown in Spain and Italy between March and May this year, mobility within the community – including visits to shops and work – declined by 62% and 60%, respectively. This shows how much these countries were struggling to keep the virus at bay. In contrast, mobility declined by less than 25% in Australia and by only 10% in South Korea. Why has Australia performed well?There are several reasons why Australia’s COVID-19 response has been strong, although major challenges remain. National and state governments have followed expert scientific advice from early in the pandemic. The creation of the National Cabinet fostered relatively harmonious decision-making between the Commonwealth and the states. Australia has a strong public health system and the Australian public has a history of successfully embracing behaviour change. We have shown admirable adaptability and innovation, for example in the radical expansion of telehealth. We should learn from these successes. The Sustainable Development Goals provide a useful framework for planning to “build back better”. The Sustainable Development Goals, agreed by all countries in 2015, encompass a set of 17 goals and 169 targets to be met by 2030. Among the central aims are economic prosperity, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. They are arguably even more important than before in considering how best to shape our post-pandemic world. As the report points out, the fallout from COVID-19 is likely to have a highly negative impact on achievement of many of the goals: increased poverty due to job losses (goal 1), disease, death and mental health risks (goal 3), disproportionate economic impacts on women and domestic violence (goal 5), loss of jobs and business closures (goal 8), growing inequality (goal 10), and reduction in use of public transport (goal 11). The impact on the environmental goals is still unclear: the short-term reduction in global greenhouse emissions is accompanied by pressure to reduce environmental safeguards in the name of economic recovery. How do we ‘build back better’?The SDGs already give us a roadmap, so really we just need to keep our sights set firmly on the targets agreed for 2030. Before COVID-19, the world was making progress towards achieving the goals. The percentage of people living in extreme poverty fell from 10% in 2015 to 8.6% in 2018. Access to basic transport infrastructure and broadband have been growing rapidly in most parts of the world. Australia’s story is less positive, however. On a composite index of performance on 115 indicators covering all 17 goals, the report puts Australia 37th in the world, but well behind most of the countries to which we like to compare ourselves. Sweden, Denmark and Finland top the overall rankings, followed by France and Germany. New Zealand is 16th. It is not surprising, in light of our performance during the pandemic, that Australia’s strongest performance is on goal 3: good health. The report rates Australia as on track to achieve all health targets. Australia also performs strongly on education (goal 4), and moderately well on goals relating to water, economic growth, infrastructure and sustainable cities. However, we perform extremely poorly in energy (goal 7), climate change (goal 13) and responsible consumption and production (goal 12), where our reliance on fossil fuels and wasteful business practices puts us near the bottom of the field. On clean energy (goal 7), the share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply (including electricity, transport and industry) is only 6.9%. In Germany it is 14.1%, and in Denmark an impressive 33.4%. Australia rates poorly on goal 12, responsible consumption and production, with 23.6kg of electronic waste per person and high sulfur dioxide and nitrogen emissions. Australia’s performance on goal 13, climate action, is a clear fail. Our annual energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are 14.8 tonnes per person – much higher than the 5.5 tonnes for the average Brit, and 4.3 tonnes for the typical Swede. And whereas in the Nordic countries the indicators for goal 15 — biodiversity and life on land — are generally improving, the Red List measuring species survival is getting worse in Australia. There are many countries that consider themselves world leaders but now wish they had taken earlier and stronger action against COVID-19. Australia listened to the experts, took prompt action, and can hopefully look back on the pandemic with few regrets. But on current form, there will be plenty to regret about our reluctance to follow scientific advice on climate change and environmental degradation, and our refusal to show anything like the necessary urgency. |
|
Kimba community unaware that Australia’s medicine does not need nuclear reactor
even ANSTO is using cyclotrons for generating imaging isotopes! And we actually have imaging/cyclotron partnerships set up in almost every major city in Australia….do not produce nuclear wastes.……..(expanding nuclear production) so that ANSTO can become one of the major players in the global export market. Where was this information in the glossy handouts given to Hawker and Kimba?
Name withheld. to Senate Committee on National Radioactive WasteManagement Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 [Provisions] Submission 39 Excerpt
“States and territories are responsible for managing a range of radioactive waste holdings, accounting for about one per cent of total radioactive waste holdings in Australia.”…according to the DIIS – “Australian Radioactive Waste Management Framework April 2018”page 7
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-
04/australian_radioactive_waste_management_framework.pdf
And what about the requirement of the diagnostic isotope for Australians? It is afterall in our best interests to maintain this? This is an interesting question. In Senate Estimates Adi Paterson in 2017 stated…. ”As we submitted to the question on notice, currently approximately 28 per cent of molybdenum-99 produced by ANSTO is used domestically. Approximately 72 per cent of Mo-99 produced by ANSTO is exported, meeting a global need for access to life-saving nuclear medicines.” https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%
2Festimate%2F0493150c-8738-423c-a856- 9cb37d9e9073%2F0009;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F0493150c-8738-423c-a856- 9cb37d9e9073%2F0000%22
He then goes on to say later at the Senate Estimates, “The research use of isotopes predominantly takes place in our Camperdown facility, where we produce flourine-18, carbon-15 and oxygen-11.
These are cyclotron-based isotopes which are used for different types of clinical development of new imaging techniques, for developing new drugs and understanding the biological function of human living systems. That is a research cost for the production of those isotopes. There are small
amounts of isotopes whose inclusion into clinical trials we support. We do that under a very careful set of rules that ensures that should those clinical trials be successful we will be able to sell into the market the isotopes we produce that have supported the clinical trials. We have very good protocols on that which are very clear. We also sometimes undertake trials with stable isotopes, which are sourced from different jurisdictions. These are not radioactive isotopes, but with our careful tracing capabilities we can make use of those isotopes as well.”
So, even ANSTO is using cyclotrons for generating imaging isotopes! And we actually have imaging/cyclotron partnerships set up in almost every major city in Australia. For example Adelaide has one set up in the SAHMRI building. The thing about cyclotrons is that the isotopes are generatedon site, and do not have a distance factor involved and do not produce nuclear reactor quantities of nuclear waste!
And just for those interested, there are now advancements being made in immunotherapy and nanotechnology which means that patients can now receive treatment in a way which does not disrupt normal cells as a consequence. Immunotherapy is genetically modifying your own cells and
then reinjecting them into you to fight the cancer cells specifically. And nanotechnology is a way of specifically directing chemotherapy drugs specifically to cancer cells. Scott Morrison has injected almost half a billion dollars into Victoria to aid in this cutting edge technology. And neither involve nuclear reactors. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/nanocrystals-could-change-the-waycancer-
is-treated/7079958
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/peter-maccallum-cancer-centre-to-become-globallifesaving-
cancer-treatment-hub-under-budget-boost/newsstory/
7e6e0880ddac37973d1588c56c13a064
But getting back to the quantities of Molybenum-99 produced by ANSTO. Only 28% is used by Australians. This is for 550,000 doses produced per annum. And 72% is exported. Now, ANSTO has a brand new ANM building which they are intending to use to generate 10 MILLION DOSES PER
ANNUM, so that ANSTO can become one of the major players in the global export market. Where was this information in the glossy handouts given to Hawker and Kimba? With higher production of course comes higher levels of nuclear waste. It is one of the reasons why Canada exited the global
market scene because it was too expensive for their own taxpayers to continue to subsidize.
“Scheduled to be turned on just next year, once the ANM Project is fully operational, Australia will go from producing 550,000 doses of medicine a year to more than 10 million doses a year.“Our medicine production will increase exponentially. We’ll be producing enough medicine to meet more than a quarter of world demand,” said ANSTO CEO Dr Adi Paterson.” https://anstoprod.
cd.pnx.com.au/news/four-million-nuclear-medicine-doses-produced-and-going-strong
The ANM Project received operational licence by ARPANSA in late 2018.So for people like our MP’s to say that we all as Australians use the medical isotopes and therefore are responsible for the nuclear waste generated runs a bit hollow when we are actually propping up a major player in an export market!…..”
Australia must not forget – the plutonium abuse of an Australian child, by Argonne National Laboratory
Paul Langley, https://www.facebook.com/paul.langley.9822/posts/10213752429593121CAL-2, 14 Aug 17, 5 yr-old Simon Shaw and his mum. Simon was flown from Australia to the US on the pretext of medical treatment for his bone cancer. Instead, he was secretly injected with plutonium to see what would happen. His urine was measured, and he was flown back to Australia.
Though his bodily fluids remained radioactive, Australian medical staff were not informed. No benefit was imparted to Simon by this alleged “medical treatment” and he died of his disease after suffering a trip across the world and back at the behest of the USA despite his painful condition. The USA merely wanted a plutonium test subject. They called him CAL-2. And did their deed under the cover of phony medicine.
“Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515-2107, Edward J. Markey, 7th District, Massachusetts Committees, [word deleted] and Commerce, Chairman Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, Natural Resources, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] MEMORANDUM To: Congressman Edward J. Markey From: Staff Subject: The Plutonium Papers Date: 4/20/94
Staff Memo on Plutonium Papers
The medical file for Cal-2 also contains correspondence seeking follow-up from Argonne National Laboratory in the 1980s. Cal-2 was an Australian boy, not quite five years old, who was flown to the U.S. in 1946 for treatment of bone cancer. During his hospitalization in San Francisco, he was chosen as a subject for plutonium injection. He returned to Australia, where he died less than one year later.
Document 700474 is a letter from Dr. Stebbings to an official at the Institute of Public Health in Sydney, Australia, in an attempt to reach the family of Cal-2. This letter reports that the child was “injected with a long-lived alpha-emitting radionuclide.” Document 700471 is a letter from Dr. Stebbings to New South Wales, Australia (names and town deleted), inquiring about recollections of the boy’s hospitalization in 1946. The letter notes that, “those events have become rather important in some official circles here,” but provides few details to the family.
A hand-written note on the letter reports no response through October 8, 1987. Considering the history on the lack of informed consent with these experiments, it is surprising that the letters to Australia failed to mention the word “plutonium.”
The Australian news media has since identified Cal-2 as Simeon Shaw, the son of a wool buyer in New South Wales, and information on the injection created an international incident. The information in the medical file does indicate that at a time when Secretary Herrington told you that no follow-up would be conducted on living subjects, the Department of Energy was desperately interested in conducting follow-up on a deceased Australian patient.
In an effort to determine the full extent of follow-up by the Department after 1986, your staff has requested, through the Department’s office of congressional affairs, the opportunity to speak with Dr. Stebbings, Dr. Robertson, and any other officials who may have been involved in the follow-up. So far, that request has been unsuccessful. It remains an open question as to what was the full extent of follow-up performed in the 1980s, and whether the efforts then would facilitate any further follow-up on subjects now. It seems appropriate for the Interagency Working Group to address these questions as its efforts continue.”
Source: National Security Archives, George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/…/…/mstreet/commeet/meet1/brief1/br1n.txt
See also ACHRE Final Report.
NO MORE DUAL USE ABUSE OF AUSTRALIANS MR PRESIDENT. STOP FUNDING SYKES AND FLINDERS UNIVERSITY IN THE DOE QUEST FOR CHEAP CLEANUP OF URANIUM CONTAMINATED SITES.
Mr. President, you are wrong if you think you can do the same again re hormesis funding in Australia as the USA did with CAL-2. We have not forgotten and do not trust you or your paid agents in Australian universities such as Flinders.
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net
of the week
Nuclear power cannot solve the climate crisis
PETITION https://www.alp.org.au/petitions/australians-dont-want-nuclear-power/
26 Feb – 24 April The Image is not Nothing (Concrete Archives) is a group exhibition that explores the ways in which acts of nuclear trauma, Indigenous genocide and cultural erasure have been memorialised by artists and others. It comes as the result of research by curators Lisa Radford and Yhonnie Scarce whose fieldwork has encompassed sites of significance including Auschwitz, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Hiroshima, Maralinga, New York, Wounded Knee and former Yugoslavia.
—
Submissions to the Senate Committee Inquiry into National Radioactive Management Amendment Bill. 2020. Go to our summaries of significant submissions, conveniently listed in alphabetical order at Kimba waste dump submissions or see all submissions listed at Read the Submissions
