Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Climate change already damaging Australia’s ecosystems

September 19, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

What the pro nuclear people are saying, in Submissions to the Australian Parliament

I have now analysed the available, published, submissions to the FEDERAL. Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. Just looking at the 30 pro-nuclear submissions , for a start, I’m here listing the topics, in order of the arguments most often presented:

  • The subject most often discussed was new nuclear reactors – Generation IV, Small Modular Reactors, and especially Thorium reactors .
  • Then nuclear wastes. These were seen as not really a problem, either already solved, or soon to be solved. Indeed, a number of writers saw radioactive wastes as an advantage for Australia. They suggested a waste repository, set up in South Australia could import nuclear wastes, and that business could then fund the development of nuclear power stations for Australia.
  • Economics. Nuclear power was seen as cost-effective, (with only one exception – one writer was dubious on this)
  • Renewable energy was downgraded, (though one writer argued for a renewables+nuclear project)
  • Safety issues were downgraded, including the severity of Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents New nuclear described as safer now – one saw Fukushima as a learning exercise.
  • Education. Several stressed the necessity of public education, including in schools,  on the benefits of nuclear power.
  • Necessity to end Australia’s ban on nuclear activities.
  • Climate change – nuclear needed to combat this.
  • Opposition to nuclear power was described as irrational.
  • Radiation – low dose ionising radiation discussed as harmless, (one suggested beneficial)
  • Carbon price advised by 2 writers.
  • There  were several other suggestions made, notably that the Government should lead and fund nuclear development, and should be advised by highly paid top technical staff.  The full nuclear fuel cycles is needed “cradle – to grave”. Reprocessing was advocated. Korea should supply the reactors. Nuclear power would give Australia international status. Would help prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.

September 17, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

More than 40 groups representing millions of Australians say NO to nuclear power

September 17, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Australia must not become a missile base, a nuclear target – Young Labor

September 17, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

National Party disdains report from Farmers for Climate Action

Nationals MPs snub launch of farming group’s climate change report  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/16/nationals-mps-snub-launch-of-farming-groups-climate-change-report  

Australia’s agricultural production will fall and food insecurity will rise without a climate strategy, report warns, Sarah Martin Chief political correspondent 16 Sept 19,   Nationals MPs have snubbed a farmers’ group launching a major climate change report that warns the Australian agricultural sector faces “significant threats to viability” without a new national climate strategy.

The report, launched by the Farmers for Climate Action group at Parliament House on Monday, warns that agricultural production will fall, farm profits will decline and food insecurity will increase if the government does not come up with a cohesive national strategy on climate change and agriculture.

Lucinda Corrigan, the chair of Farmers for Climate Action, said she had wanted Nationals MPs to attend the event, saying she believed cross-party support was needed given the challenge facing producers.

“It would have been great if they had been there because they need to take this seriously,” Corrigan said.

“Because being green is actually our agenda, it’s actually a conservative agenda, being a conservationist is a conservative agenda, it is not a green agenda, it has been taken from us and we actually want it back.”

She also said Nationals MPs should consider the concerns within the agricultural sector about climate change separately to the issues affecting the energy sector. Continue reading →

September 17, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

Australian Capital Territory leads the nation in the climate emergency

Canberra acts ‘first’ in the climate emergency, Canberra Times, Penny D Sackett , 16 Sept 19,   On Monday, the ACT government released its Climate Change Strategy 2019-2025, just a few months after declaring a climate emergency in May, the first Australian state or territory to do so. The document contains several more Australian “firsts,” reflecting the government’s desire to lead climate action. Is this new strategy needed, and what does it mean for Canberrans?

Previous ACT climate strategy documents are out-of-date for three reasons: science, economics, and new legislated emissions targets.

Science indicates that increased global warming carries considerably more risk than was known just 10 years ago. It is therefore more urgent than ever before to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rapidly and create a more resilient city in the face of the climate changes that are coming and already upon us.

Second, the rapid advance in new technologies such as battery storage and electric vehicles means that a wider variety of solutions is now economically viable, presenting new opportunities for local investment and job growth. Furthermore, because the monetary and human costs of inaction are so enormous, substantial near-term climate action is responsible both economically and socially.

Finally, the ACT government has recently brought forward its commitment to zero net emissions from 2050 to 2045, and put in place science-based interim emission targets for 2025, 2030, and 2040 to guide the way. These legislated targets, based on advice from the ACT Climate Change Council and in line with global carbon budget responsibilities to hold warming below 2 degrees celsius, are not only an Australian first for states and territories, but world-leading. A new plan is needed to realise the 2025 target of reducing ACT emissions by at least 50 per cent compared to 1990 levels, whilst collecting data that will be vital in meeting the next target in 2030.

So what does the plan hold in store for Canberra and Canberrans?

The starting point of the new strategy is the assumption that the ACT will effectively be powered by 100 per cent renewable electricity in 2020 – an expectation that will likely be met due to the territory’s previous investment in large scale solar and wind generation. Achieving that goal will result in a 40 per cent reduction of emissions from 1990 levels. The additional reduction required to meet the 2025 target will need to come primarily from the transport and gas sectors. After 2020, ACT transport emissions (which overwhelmingly come from private vehicles) will account for 60 per cent of Canberra’s emissions, with gas for heating and cooking making up another 20 per cent or so.

Substantial reduction in emissions from transport and gas use can only be achieved through a change in the choices made by Canberrans, at our work and businesses, and in our homes. Those low-emissions choices must be enabled and supported by government policies and regulations.

The new ACT climate strategy contains several realistic, forward-looking actions that begin to provide the magnitude of support and vision required in these sectors, and many are “firsts” among Australian states and territories. Among these are: ensuring that all new schools and government buildings are all-electric and appropriate for the changing climate; a commitment to maintain 100 per cent renewable electricity supply into the future; and a fossil-fuel-free bus fleet by 2040. …….https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6389173/canberra-acts-first-in-the-climate-emergency/?cs=14246

September 17, 2019 Posted by | ACT, climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

Medical isotopes without a nuclear reactor: it’s time Australia modernised nuclear medicine.

Dr Margaret Beavis, The Age, 16 Sept 19. So the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has failed yet again in supplying nuclear medicine (Cancer drug drought after nuclear fail, (The Age14/9).

Centralised nuclear medicine production means that one failure can bring down the national supply, as has happened on multiple occasions.

Those failures will continue unless we join with Canada,the U.S. the UK and others in investing in non reactor production.

The Canadian TRIUMF consortium last year demonstrated commercial manufacture of technetium in cyclotrons (which are about the size of a four-wheel-drive car and already make many other types of nuclear medicine).  medical approval trials and funding agreements are underway.

A city like Melbourne would need two or three. If one breaks down, another will fill the gap. Another plus – cyclotrons massively reduce the nuclear waste radioactive for more than 10,000 years.

Secure supply and cleaner production – it’s high time that ANSTO looked beyond its own reactor.

September 16, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, health | Leave a comment

Is Australia to be guinea pig for NuScale’s non existent, untested, super-expensive not-so-small nuclear reactors?

Is building small nuclear reactors as ‘loopy’ as it sounds?  news.com.au Charis Chang@CharisChang2  14 Sept 19 Experts have warned of “catastrophic failure” if Australia adopts nuclear power, so why is the Government considering it?

A huge metal structure seven stories high and less than 100 metres wide could contain the key to Australia’s future energy supply.

NuScale’s small nuclear reactors are being spruiked as an exciting new option to supply Australia with reliable and secure electricity as the country shifts away from coal-fired power.

But the jury is still out on this untested technology, which has been called “loopy” and a “fantasy”.

The possibility of Australia lifting its ban on nuclear power is again being debated with politicians like Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce suggesting people living close to reactors could be given free power to help build support for the controversial idea.

Amid growing calls from Coalition backbenchers for the option to be seriously examined, Energy Minister Angus Taylor has called a parliamentary inquiry into whether nuclear is a feasible solution for Australia’s future energy needs. Not everyone is supportive.

In a tweet, former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull suggested nuclear was a “loopy” option.

“The bottom line is renewables + storage are cheaper than new coal let alone the loopy current fad of nuclear power which is the current weapon of mass distraction for the backbench,” he wrote.

Labor has also slammed nuclear as too expensive and wants the Coalition to put the “fantasy” to bed, saying it’s three times as costly as other options and would not be operational for decades.

“It is a distraction that will do nothing to solve the energy crisis that is confronting Australian households and businesses now,” Opposition energy spokesman Mark Butler told reporters recently…….

NuScale has developed a small modular reactor (SMR) that can be made up of 12 separate nuclear modules, manufactured in factories and then shipped to site. Each module could generate 60MW of electricity each. …..

NuScale told news.com.au the modules consisted of reactors inside a metal containment vessel that stood about seven storeys high and 4.5 metres wide.

A plant with 12 modules would likely need to be located on a site of about 14 hectares, which is equivalent in size to about 14 rugby fields……..

IT COULD TAKE YEARS

One of the biggest downsides to nuclear is that it takes ages to build and when it comes to small modular reactors, they have yet to be proven.

NuScale is working towards building its first plant at the Idaho National Lab and is set to begin construction in 2021. It will take five years before the first module is expected to come online in 2026, with the full 12-module plant to be operational by 2027.

There is no guarantee this can be achieved within the expected timeline, and even if it was, the reactors may not be available commercially until 2030. Export sales to countries like Australia could take even longer.

Dr Switkowski, who led a Howard government review into nuclear power, said overseas experience showed timeframes were more likely to be longer than expected, and there were also considerable commercial and political risks because the project would be built over five or more political cycles.

“Can you draft a long-term commitment to nuclear energy on to a currently unconfirmed national energy policy? The answer to that is no, in my opinion,” he said…….

Analysis from the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) released in 2018 found the capital costs for a small modular reactor would be $16,000 per kilowatt hour, one-and-a-half times more than previous estimates for large-scale nuclear.

It’s almost twice as expensive as solar thermal and storage, which is $7000 per kilowatt hour and is also expected to halve by 2050. Nuclear is not expected to get any cheaper. 

AEMO chief system design and engineering officer Dr Alex Wonhas told the inquiry that building wind or solar firmed by pumped hydro was roughly about the same price as building a new gas or coal-fired power plant.

“Our expectation is that renewables will further decrease in their cost, and therefore firmed renewables will well and truly become the lowest cost of generation for the National Energy Market,” he said.

It’s likely taxpayers will also have to foot the bill for at least some part of the cost of a nuclear option.

Dr Switkowski said he couldn’t think of any countries that had funded investments in nuclear without government assistance, including through military programs.

“There was no known example that I could see where a country introduced nuclear power on the back of investments from people who were familiar with the infrastructure and were seeking to make an economic return,” he said.

The power produced by a small modular reactor will also be more expensive than one produced by a large reactor or by wind and solar backed up by storage.

Dr Switkowski acknowledged the rise of renewables made the case against nuclear power stronger.

Australia will also have to consider the security issues around who they buy the reactors from, as the leading manufacturers are now China, South Korea, Russia and probably France.

“Would Australia order a nuclear reactor from China?” Dr Switkowski asked.

However, Dr Switkowski supported the lifting of the moratorium on nuclear power to encourage businesses and experts to consider the potential of the technology.

“No one’s put money on the table to fund it because they’re not allowed to fund nuclear power in Australia,” he said.

WE NEED FLEXIBILITY

While discussion about nuclear often focuses on the need for reliable, dispatchable “baseload” power, Dr Wonhas said Australia didn’t need many more plants with a “very stable output profile”.

The AEMO chief system design officer said there were now periods during the day when electricity effectively costs “zero dollars” and the focus was now on new plants that could start up quickly to provide extra energy during peak periods instead.

“I think what we are really looking for is a plant that can increase and decrease capacity relatively quickly and respond to the needs of the market,” he said.

This includes gas, which is a “very effective firming option” because it can respond quite quickly.

“Frankly, there’s a whole range of other technologies out there that can provide similar services. There is, for example, solar thermal with molten salt storage. That’s another technology that is quite dispatchable,” Dr Wonhas said.

While molten salt storage is at a less mature stage than some of the other technologies, Dr Wonhas believes there are many different technology options.

“For nuclear investment to be the optimal choice for Australia it will have to demonstrate, among many other things, that it is more cost-effective compared to alternative technologies and that it is sufficiently flexible so it can be integrated in what we expect to be a highly dynamic future energy market,” he said.

NOT IN MY BACKYARD

One of the major barriers to getting nuclear off the ground is that no one in Australia wants to live next to it or next to a nuclear waste dump.

Labor has tapped into this, highlighting nearly 140 places around Australia that have been mooted as potential locations for nuclear reactors and radioactive waste dumps over the past half century.

The vast majority are around the country’s coastlines, and almost all are near residential communities.

Some sites, like Townsville, Toowoomba and Wagga Wagga, have been proposed multiple times, a map collated by the Parliamentary Library shows.

“Instead of indulging the policy fantasies of his restive backbench, (Prime Minister Scott) Morrison should reject the nuclear option or be upfront with Australians about exactly where he wants to build nuclear reactors,” Labor energy spokesman Mark Butler last week.

Storing nuclear waste is even more of an issue, with Australia struggling to gain support for even a small, low-level waste facility in Central Australia.

RISK OF ‘CATASTROPHIC FAILURE’

If there’s one overarching concern then it has to be the risk of something going wrong.

“After Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, the possibility of catastrophic failing within a nuclear system is non-negligible,” Dr Switkowski said.

No matter how safe a system is designed to be from a technical point of view, there will always be a risk of human error……https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/is-building-small-nuclear-reactors-as-loopy-as-it-sounds/news-story/9e35d409fdc142907190c1a5b89337d3?fbclid=IwAR2m_pty2W9BBf8oBMF3P3zaEO3V93VmQCenhwFJvEXPkbYjzCcRZMKV6e0#.0f155|5hb17

September 16, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Push for nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from real action on climate change

Environmental groups warn against push for nuclear power in Australia  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/16/environmental-groups-warn-against-push-for-nuclear-power-in-australia  

Joint submission calls nuclear ‘a dangerous distraction’ from real action on climate as Zali Steggall backs 2050 zero-emissions target , Paul Karp @Paul_Karp  16 Sep 2019 Environmental and civil society groups have warned the government nuclear power has “no role” in Australia as crossbench independents urge it to recognise climate change as a health issue.

On Monday submissions to the inquiry on nuclear power will close. A diverse group of stakeholders has called on the government to rule-out changing the law to allow nuclear energy in Australia.

Signatories to the statement include union peak bodies, the Public Health Association of Australia, Uniting and Catholic church organisations, the Smart Energy Council, the Aboriginal-led Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, climate action groups, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The anti-nuclear group warned it is “a dangerous distraction from real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need”.

“If Australia’s energy future was solely a choice between coal and nuclear then a nuclear debate would be needed. But it is not,” they said in a statement.

“Our nation has extensive renewable energy options and resources and Australians have shown clear support for increased use of renewable and genuinely clean energy sources.”

Ziggy Switkowski, who headed a 2006 review of nuclear power for the Howard government, has told the inquiry that the technology had no chance of being introduced unless Australia had a coherent energy policy but nevertheless agreed the prohibition should be lifted.

September 16, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Minerals Council of Australia again pushing pro nuclear propaganda

Mining industry renews push for nuclear option,  https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/mining-industry-renews-push-for-nuclear-option-20190913-p52r2r.html, By Nick Toscano

September 16, 2019 Australia’s mining sector has launched a fresh push to lift the prohibition on nuclear energy arguing new-look compact nuclear reactors could provide the “cheapest, zero-emissions” baseload power to replace retiring coal-fired power stations.

As the resources industry prepares for a transition away from fossil fuels in coming decades, the Minerals Council of Australia has told a federal government inquiry that nuclear power must be explored as part of the future energy mix to address the worsening problem of rising power prices and deteriorating energy grid reliability.

“Only a commitment to restore energy affordability and reliability will reverse this drift, and nuclear power – especially innovative small modular reactors – will go a long way to providing clean, reliable and lower-cost power for Australian homes and businesses,” said Tania Constable, chief executive of the lobby group which represents mining giants including BHP and Rio Tinto.

Touted by some as the next generation of nuclear power, small modular reactors (SMRs) can be built in factories and assembled on location.

Their deployment is under consideration in a number of countries including the United States and Canada although their cost is not yet known as none are yet commercially available.

Apart from existing run-of-water-hydro, the Minerals Council said, nuclear was the only energy source capable of providing affordable, continuous and zero-emissions power at industrial scale.

“It is a mature, proven and safe power generation … yet Australia’s ban on nuclear power means that our communities and businesses are denied its many benefits,” Ms Constable said.

Australia has a third of the world’s economically recoverable uranium, which is mined and exported for use around the world, but domestic nuclear energy is banned under federal legislation.

The mining group’s calls for nuclear are contained in a submission to a federal parliamentary inquiry launched by Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor to investigate the potential for nuclear as a future power source for Australia.

At the inquiry’s first public hearing, prominent business leader and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski, who headed a 2006 review of nuclear power for the Howard government, said while the window for large, gigawatt-scale nuclear power plants had closed,  SMRs could provide opportunities in regional towns and mining sites for generation of “clean, safe baseload power”.

But, he added, it would likely be more than a decade until it was known whether small modular reactors were suitable for Australia and about 15 years to bring such a plant online.

Dr Switkowski said nuclear power was comparable to renewable energy in its low level of greenhouse gas emissions but was not weather-dependent in the same way as wind and solar generation.

The challenges to supporting a nuclear energy strategy, he said, included that the lack of political and public support and the fact that the risk of a catastrophic nuclear failure such as Chernobyl in Ukraine or Fukushima in Japan was not “negligible”.

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull last week voiced the opinion of many critics, saying it was obvious that nuclear power was more expensive than renewables and battery storage and describing the push for nuclear power as “loopy” and a “distraction” for politicians.

September 16, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Climate crisis confronts Morrison

Climate crisis confronts Morrison https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/16/environmental-groups-warn-against-push-for-nuclear-power-in-australia–  Paul Karp @Paul_Karp16 Sep 2019

When parliament resumes on Monday Scott Morrison will play host to Fijian prime minister Frank Bainimarama.

Defence, labour mobility, trade, investment, illegal fishing and climate change are all on the agenda for the bilateral meeting. Bainimarama was heavily critical of Morrison at the Pacific Islands forum, saying the Australian PM had insulted and alienated Pacific leaders over his failure to back stronger emissions targets.

The climate crisis will also be forced back onto the agenda by the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, who will bring a motion, seconded by independent MP Helen Haines, calling on the government to decarbonise the economy by 2050 to reduce the health impact and linking it to extreme weather events.

Earlier in September the Australian Medical Association formally declared climate change a health emergency; Steggall’s call will be backed by peak health bodies pointing to heat related illnesses, respiratory diseases and hypoallergenic conditions caused by global heating.

Australia is in the grip of early-spring fires in New South Wales and Queensland and a drought that could see parts of NSW run out of water as early as November.

Steggall said the “unprecedented fires” and the “shocking drought” are “events causing terrible health impacts which are going to get more severe as the world continues to warm”.   https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/16/environmental-groups-warn-against-push-for-nuclear-power-in-australia

September 16, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | Leave a comment

Australia/s government , servant of the coal industry, has no plan for UN Climate Summit

Australia to attend climate summit empty-handed despite UN pleas to ‘come with a plan’ The Conversation, Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
September 16, 2019  This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate story.Climate action will be on the world stage again at a meeting of world leaders in New York on September 23. The United Nations has convened the event and urged countries to “come with a plan” for ambitious emissions reduction.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the meeting because he says global efforts to tackle climate change are running off-track. He wants leaders to present concrete, realistic pathways to strengthen their existing national emissions pledges and move towards net zero emissions by 2050.

Australia is not expected to propose any significant new actions or goals. Prime Minister Scott Morrison – in the US at the time to visit President Donald Trump – will not attend the summit. Foreign Minister Marise Payne will attend, and is likely to have to fend off heavy criticism over Australia’s slow progress on climate action.

Australia has gained an international reputation as a climate action laggard – plagued by political acrimony over climate change, offering few policies to reduce emissions and embroiled in diplomatic rifts with our Pacific neighbours over, among other things, support for coal.

For many afar, it is difficult to understand the policy vacuum in a country so vulnerable to climate change……..

Come with a plan, and make it good

The landmark Paris agreement includes a global goal to hold average temperature increase to well below 2°C and pursue efforts to keep warming below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Countries set so-called “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) outlining an emissions reduction target and how they will get there.

…… Australia’s emissions are rising

Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions are about 12% lower than in 2005, the base year for the Paris target. But since 2013 they have steadily risen, and are continuing to rise…….

We could do so much better

With meaningful policy effort, Australia could meet the Paris target without resorting to Kyoto credits, and possibly meet a much more ambitious target………

2050: defining a strategy

Limiting the risk of catastrophic climate change demands that global emissions fall rapidly in coming decades. Keeping temperature rise to 2°C or less means reducing emissions to net-zero.

Australia will be expected to table strategies to get to net-zero by 2050 next year, at the UN’s climate COP, or “conference of the parties”.. That process should be a chance for Australian governments, industry and civil society to put heads together about how this could work.

The year 2050 is beyond the horizon of most corporate interests vested in existing assets, and it allows greater emphasis on long term opportunities than on short term adjustments. This should encourage a more open discussion than the often acrimonious debates about 2030 emissions targets and short-term policies.

Australia should show the world it can imagine a zero-emissions future, and hatch the beginnings of a plan for it. It would help position the nation’s resources industries for the future and help with our international reputation. https://theconversation.com/australia-to-attend-climate-summit-empty-handed-despite-un-pleas-to-come-with-a-plan-123187

September 16, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics | 1 Comment

Arnaud Coquillard’s submission to Federal Nuclear Inquiry rejects nuclear power, calls for care for the planet

 

Coquillard, Arnaud (59) Says that the government is considering Generation IV nuclear reactors, but they don’t even exist yet. Their safety over time is uncertain. They still produce toxic wastes. Uranium mining is also environmentally harmful. Australia should deveop non nuclear clean energy technologies. 

“Please think of the people that you represent, the responsibility you have towards humanity, the plant and animal kingdom  and the planet as a whole. Compare that responsibility to the minority of corporate, businessman that pressure you to have nuclear power plant.”

September 14, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Eric Gribble’s submission to the Federal Nuclear Inquiry in favour of nuclear power

Gribble , Eric (38) addresses the question of ionising radiation – nuclear power development is safe, but held back by  “a widespread paranoid concern due to a lack of understanding of what radiation is.”

Goes on to explain that radiation can be beneficial – quotes some dubious science from 2002 and 1992…. “It appears that slightly elevated levels of radiation are beneficial but levels above 100 mSv the risk appears to increase. .. “ Quotes some study showing that radiation decreases incidence of lung cancer. Claims that Fukushima nuclear accident caused only one death due to material falling upon a man. No evidence of cancer caused.

Uses Hiroshima studies to dismiss concerns about radiation dangers…

Says nuclear power “is safe and the only option “

“Renewables do not stack up on a cost basis.”

Raves on about hydroponics and space “… If space travel is to become a reality using existing technology mankind will need a massive amount of energy. Energy to make rocket fuel. ….. Nuclear energy will open up the future. “”

. “Nuclear energy is the energy source of the future, Australia cannot afford to continue to let opportunities slide.”

“It is easy to be a green. You simply oppose everything, dams, nuclear, fossil fuels, the free enterprise system, whatever. Yet there are many people (probably most people) out there who are as concerned about the environment as the most rabid green but do not support the green movement.”

September 14, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

The politics of ANSTO’s nuclear isotopes – mainly for export, not for home use

Kazzi Jai No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 14  Sept 19 So…..according to ABC’s radio AM and then PM reports yesterday – different reports by different reporters…. the whole situation appears as follows…..The BRAND SPANKING NEW, JUST RECENTLY LICENSED $200 million NEW FACILITY at ANSTO which was built to deal with the aim of increasing our output of 10 million doses per year up from the 500,000 doses per year of Molybdenum 99 , which is used to produce Technetium-99m which is used for IMAGING PURPOSES TO DIAGNOSE various conditions, is down. Keep in mind that this increased production is AIMED AT BEING A MAJOR EXPORT PLAYER ON THE WORLD’S EXPORT MARKET – NOTHING TO DO WITH SERVICING AUSTRALIANS.

Anyway, now there seem to be a FAULTY VALVE and the facility has to be closed down to fix it.

Sooooo……we are required now to source our Molybdenum from overseas. No big deal actually – we have done it many times in the past before – in fact that was one of the reasons why people didn’t want OPAL built as we had sourced our supplies from overseas without problems, and our domestic requirements quite small and remains so today.

But our usual – and yes it is “usual” – overseas source is from South Africa – surprise surprise (home country to Adi btw), and they are down for scheduled maintenance for the next week or so. Sooooo….we are only in possession of 31% of what we normally produce before the facility was on line.

Now here comes the interesting bit. In the Senate Estimates committee hearing 2017 Adi Paterson stated that only 28% of production goes to Australian hospitals, and the rest, 72% goes to overseas export. This figure really hasn’t changed since OPAL came on line back in 2006. Sooo…we in Australia aren’t in any hardship at all given what Adi stated then!

But wait…there’s more! Part of the PM report by the ABC was an interview with a Kalgoorlie doctor saying that he will have to ration and decide which patients need to have this now “short in supply” imaging isotope. Remember it is not a medicine – it is an imaging isotope to detect disease and for organ structure diagnosis. He said that the major cities would not be affected as they can use 3 – 4 alternative ways to diagnose these conditions using CT’s etc but he had no access to that equipment in Kalgoorlie. Given that Kalgoorlie only has a population of 29,000 wouldn’t you think that you would then send these patients TO A CITY CENTRE IN THIS CASE PERTH TO DO THE DIAGNOSIS AND THE FOLLOWUP IF REQUIRED????? I mean – yes it is 600 kms from Perth, but those conditions often need more expert care than is often funded to the smaller centres such as Kalgoorlie…….

September 14, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, health | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »