Despite Australia’s laws prohibiting nuclear activities, ANSTO’s already chosen nuclear reactor types for Australia
How many know that, on behalf of us all, ANSTO is already preparing the groundwork for the deployment of Gen VI reactors in the 2030s?
ANSTO stooge Prof Edwards speaking to the Prerequisites Standing Committee “…….. Australia …. has chosen, ….. supporting two reactors: the very high temperature reactor and the molten salt reactor.”
in terms of the reactors Australia has chosen, we’re supporting two reactors: the very high temperature reactor and the molten salt reactor. The very high temperature reactor is probably the highest technology readiness level, or TRL, in that there are a couple being constructed in China at the moment. As part of the generation forum, I will be visiting those in October. They’ve actually started co-commissioning those plans. …. Those two reactors are particularly suitable for Australia
Aaron Patrick of Australian Financial Review misrepresents economist John Quiggin on nuclear power
Sep 2, 2019
Left-wing economist John Quiggin has urged the NSW Parliament to legalise nuclear power, making the University of Queensland academic the most prominent environmentalist to support the controversial energy source.
Economist John Quiggin supports nuclear power. [?]
Professor Quiggin told a NSW parliamentary inquiry into uranium mining and nuclear power that the ban should be lifted simultaneously with the introduction of a price charged for emitting Greenhouse gases.
“The Parliament should pass a motion … removing the existing ban on nuclear power,” he said in a written submission. “Nuclear power is not viable in the absence of a carbon price.”
The inquiry, one of three similar under way, is seen by some Coalition MPs as the start of a long process of convincing voters to support nuclear reactors to replace the state’s ageing coal power stations, including Liddell in the Hunter Valley, which is due to close after the summer of 2023……..
The Minerals Council of Australia, a lobby group, successfully pushed for a federal parliamentary inquiry into nuclear, which is examining the feasibility of a new generation of compact power plants that are meant to be safer and much cheaper than the huge stations that supply about 11 per cent of the world’s electricity……..
The NSW inquiry is the result of a private members bill introduced by state One Nation leader Mark Latham that would allow uranium mining. Nuclear power is banned in NSW under federal and state regulations…….
The biggest impediment to development of the industry is opposition from the Labor and Greens parties, environmental groups and left-wing think tanks such as The Australia Institute.
The conditional support of left-wing academics such as Professor Quiggin could, over time, lessen opposition to nuclear power, which supporters say could be used as a back up for wind and solar power.
In Victoria a parliamentary inquiry began two weeks ago at the request of a Liberal Democrat MP, David Limbrick.
The 12-month inquiry will explore if nuclear energy would be feasible and suitable for Victoria in the future, and consider waste management, health and safety and industrial and medical applications, AAP reported.
Aaron Patrick is The Australian Financial Review’s Senior Correspondent. He writes about politics and business. Connect with Aaron on Twitter. Email Aaron at apatrick@afr.com.au
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/left-support-for-nsw-nuclear-power-industry-20190830-p52mji(Reposting this important one) Nuclear lobby launches its “grassroots” push for nuclear power in Australia
Before the nuclear lobby has even got the Australian Parliament to overturn Australia’s legislation prohibiting nuclear power, they are launching their “win hearts and minds”action.
With this catchy title “Stand Up For Nuclear”- they are holding a rally on Sunday October 20, 2019 at 3 PM – 6 PM at an undisclosed location in Collins St Melbourne.
Their lying propaganda claims that:
“”Only nuclear can lift all humans out of poverty while protecting the natural environment.
anti-nuclear activists are funded by natural gas and renewable energy interests.” – (that’s news to me – 12 years of running this site I have received zero funding)
Queensland extinguishes native title over Indigenous land to make way for Adani coalmine
Queensland extinguishes native title over Indigenous land to make way for Adani coalmine
Palaszczuk government did not announce decision Wangan and Jagalingou people say makes them trespassers on their own land, Guardian, Ben Doherty@bendohertycorro, Sat 31 Aug 2019 The Queensland government has extinguished native title over 1,385 hectares of Wangan and Jagalingou country for the proposed Adani coalmine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin – without any public announcement of the decision.
The decision could see Wangan and Jagalingou protesters forcibly removed by police from their traditional lands, including lands used for ceremonies.
W&J Council leader Adrian Burragubba, and a group of Wangan and Jagalingou representatives, had been calling on the government to rule out transferring their land, arguing they had never given their consent for Adani to occupy their country.
In a meeting with government officials Friday, seeking a halt on leases being issued for mine infrastructure, they learned the state government had instead granted Adani exclusive possession freehold title over large swathes of their lands on Thursday, including the area currently occupied for ceremonial purposes.
“We have been made trespassers on our own country,” Burragubba said. “Our ceremonial grounds, in place for a time of mourning for our lands as Adani begins its destructive processes, are now controlled by billionaire miner Adani.
“With insider knowledge that the deal was already done, Adani had engaged Queensland police and threatened us with trespass.”
To mine any land under a native title claim, a miner needs an Indigenous land use agreement, essentially a contract that allows the state to extinguish native title.
Adani has a ILUA over the land: five of the 12 native claimants have opposed it, but have lost successive legal challenges in court to prevent it. Seven, a majority, of the native title claimants support the Adani mine.
Burragubba and a group of supporters set up camp on the land ahead of its legal transfer to Adani. He said they will refuse to leave.
He said a notice received by the council said their country “is to be handed over to Adani on 3 August 2019”. The notice also says “Adani will request the assistance of police to remove Mr Burragubba and his supporters from the camp”.
Burragubba, whom Adani has bankrupted over costs from legal challenges, said his group would not abandon their protest nor quit their lands.
“We will never consent to these decisions and will maintain our defence of country,” he said. “We will be on our homelands to care for our lands and waters, hold ceremonies and uphold the ancient, abiding law of the land.” ……..
Australian governments will give $4.4bn in effective subsidies to Adani’s Carmichael coal project, which would otherwise be “unbankable and unviable”, new analysis reported this week has found.
The Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis concluded that the project would benefit from several Australian taxpayer-funded arrangements – including subsidies, favourable deals and tax concessions – over its 30-year project life.
It said the project would be further supported by public handouts, tax breaks and special treatment provided to Adani Power, the proposed end-user of the thermal coal in India.
“If these subsidies were not being provided, Adani’s Carmichael thermal coalmine would be unbankable and unviable,” the IEEFA report said……..https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/31/queensland-extinguishes-native-title-over-indigenous-land-to-make-way-for-adani-coalmine
Nuclear power in Australia not realistic for at least a decade, Ziggy Switkowski says
|
Nuclear power in Australia not realistic for at least a decade, Ziggy Switkowski says
Expert who led 2006 review says ban on nuclear should be lifted, but much more overseas evidence is needed on small modular reactors, Guardian, Adam Morton Environment editor@adamlmorton, 29 Aug 2019 It will be about a decade before it is clear whether small nuclear reactors are suitable for Australia and would take about 15 years to bring a plant online if a decision was made to build one, one of the country’s leading experts has said. |
|
Risk of ‘catastrophic failure’ if Australia adopts nuclear energy: Switkowski
|
Risk of ‘catastrophic failure’ if Australia adopts nuclear energy: Switkowski, The Age, By Rebecca Gredley August 29, 2019, There is a risk of “catastrophic failure” if Australia adopts nuclear energy, a federal parliamentary inquiry has heard.Ziggy Switkowski, who led a Howard government review into the power source, drew attention to the nuclear disasters of Chernobyl in Ukraine, Fukushima in Japan and Three Mile Island in the US.
After those events, the possibility of catastrophic failure within the nuclear system is non-negligible“, he told the committee in Sydney on Thursday. Issues also arose around managing nuclear waste and the cost burden on future generations, Dr Switkowski said……. The committee heard from several government agencies on Thursday, including the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Energy Regulator. It will consider waste management, health and safety, environmental impacts, affordability and reliability, economic feasibility and workforce capability. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/risk-of-catastrophic-failure-if-australia-adopts-nuclear-energy-20190829-p52m2h.html |
|
|
Australia’s nuclear research reactor was always intended as the first step towards the nuclear bomb
The push for an Aussie bomb It took former PM John Gorton almost three decades to finally come clean on his ambitions for Australia to have a nuclear bomb. THE AUSTRALIAN, By TOM GILLING 30 Aug 19,
In December 9, 1966, the Australian Government signed a public agreement with the US to build what both countries described as a “Joint Defence Space Research Facility” at Pine Gap, just outside Alice Springs. The carefully misleading agreement expressed the two countries’ mutual desire “to co-operate further in effective defence and for the preservation of peace and security”.
Officially, Pine Gap was a collaboration between the Australian Department of Defence and the Pentagon’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, but the latter was a red herring meant to conceal the real power at Pine Gap: the Central Intelligence Agency….the truth was that the Joint Defence Space Research Facility was joint in name only and its purpose was not (and never would be) “research”. It was a spy station designed to collect signals from US surveillance satellites in geosynchronous orbit over the equator. ……
The building of an experimental reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney’s south was supposed to be the first step in a nuclear program that within a decade would see the development of full-scale nuclear power reactors. ……
During the 1950s Australian defence chiefs lobbied vigorously for an Australian bomb. When it became clear that the prime minister, Robert Menzies, had reservations, they went behind his back. Menzies did agree, however, to let Britain test its nuclear weapons in Australia — a decision, according to historian Jacques Hymans, taken “almost single-handedly… without consulting his Cabinet and without requesting any quid pro quo, not even access to technical data necessary for the Australian government to assess the effects of the tests on humans and the environment”……….
Gorton’s political reservations about the non-proliferation treaty masked a deeper fear: that signing the treaty might cause Australia’s nascent atomic energy industry to be “frozen in a primitive state”. Gorton and the head of Australia’s Atomic Energy Commission, Philip Baxter, were both committed to pursuing the development of an Australian bomb. Scientists at the AEC worked with government officials to draw up cost and time estimates for atomic and hydrogen bomb programs. According to the historian Hymans, they outlined two possible programs: a power reactor program capable of producing enough weapons- grade plutonium for 30 fission weapons (A-bombs) per year; and a uranium enrichment program capable of producing enough uranium-235 for at least 10 thermonuclear weapons (H-bombs) per year. The A-bomb plan was costed at what was considered to be an “affordable” $144 million and was thought to be feasible in no more than seven to 10 years. The H-bomb plan was costed at $184 million over a similar period.
Aware of opposition to any talk of an “Aussie bomb”, Gorton carefully played down the military aspect and argued instead for the economic benefits of a nuclear power program. ………
a US mission did visit Canberra at the end of April 1968. Officials from the AEC had impressed the US visitors with “the confidence of their ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon and desire to be in a position to do so on very short notice”.
The Australian officials, they said, had “studied the draft NPT [non-proliferation treaty] most thoroughly… the political rationalisation of these officials was that Australia needed to be in a position to manufacture nuclear weapons rapidly if India and Japan were to go nuclear… the Australian officials indicated they could not even contemplate signing the NPT if it were not for an interpretation which would enable the deployment of nuclear weapons belonging to an ally on Australian soil.”
Eighteen months after Rusk’s fractious visit to Canberra, Gorton called a general election. He declared his commitment to a nuclear-powered (if not a nuclear-armed) Australia, announcing that “the time for this nation to enter the atomic age has now arrived” and laying out his scheme for a 500-megawatt nuclear power plant to be built at Jervis Bay, on NSW’s south coast. While the defence benefits of such a reactor were unspoken, there was no mistaking the military potential of the plutonium it would be producing.
The Jervis Bay reactor never got off the drawing board, although planning reached an advanced stage. Detailed specifications were put out to tender and there was broad agreement over a British bid to build a heavy-water reactor. A Cabinet submission was in the pipeline when Gorton lost the confidence of the party room and was replaced by William McMahon, a nuclear sceptic who moved quickly to defer the project.
It would be another 28 years before Gorton finally came clean on the link between the reactor and his ambition for Australia to have nuclear weapons. . In 1999 he told a Sydney newspaper that “we were interested in this thing because it could provide electricity to everybody and… if you decided later on, it could make an atomic bomb”. Gorton did not identify who he meant by “we” (although Philip Baxter was almost certainly among them) but Gorton and those who shared his nuclear ambitions were unable to win over the doubters in his own government.
Australia signed the non-proliferation treaty in 1970 but even as it did so it was clear that Gorton had no intention of ratifying the treaty. Australia would not ratify it until 1973, and then only after McMahon’s Coalition government had lost power to Gough Whitlam’s Labor Party. As well as ratifying the treaty, the Whitlam government cancelled the Jervis Bay project that had been in limbo since McMahon became prime minister. And with that, Whitlam effectively ended Australia’s quixotic bid to become a nuclear power.
Australia never got its own bomb, although as late as 1984 the foreign minister, Bill Hayden, could still speak about Australian nuclear research providing the country with the potential for nuclear weapons. The Morrison Government is unlikely to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, with a spokesperson from the Department of Defence telling The Weekend Australian Magazine that “Australia stands by its Non-Proliferation Treaty pledge, as a non-nuclear weapon state, not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons”. ….. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/weekend-australian-magazine/gorton-and-the-bomb-australias-nuclear-ambitions/news-story/00787e322a41d2ff37a146c86a739f02
Is Australian govt’s plan for “temporary” nuclear waste dump really part of drive to IMPORT NUCLEAR WASTES?
The Australian government is not being up front with the public. The plan to set up a supposedly “temporary” nuclear waste dump in South Australia must be involved with some idea of what to do with these wastes permanently.
Is this plan in fact the precursor to a secret plan to set up a dump for the importation of nuclear wastes?
Australian Government Nuclear Inquiry told that renewables, not nuclear, are the best option
Nuclear inquiry told “firmed renewables” cheapest and best option for future https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-inquiry-told-firmed-renewables-cheapest-and-best-option-for-future-58109/ , 29 August 2019 A mix of distributed renewable energy generation and firming technologies including battery storage and pumped hydro remains the best path forward for Australia’s future grid, experts have told the federal government’s inquiry into nuclear power.A panel including representatives from Australia’s energy market regulator (AER), rule maker (AEMC) and operator (AEMO) faced questions on Thursday from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. Established by the federal Coalition and chaired by Queensland LNP MP Ted O’Brien, the Committee aims – according to O’Brien – to answer the three main questions of whether nuclear is “feasible, suitable and palatable” in the Australian context.
They are trying to break Assange “physically and psychologically”
Johnson explained to the WSWS that she “writes about the psychology of politics and social issues.” She has a background in media studies and sociology, and a PhD in the psychology of manipulating reality-perception.
Earlier this year, Johnson wrote an extensive five–partinvestigative series titled “The Psychology of Getting Julian Assange,” published on the New Matilda website. Johnson provided the following responses to a series of questions from the World Socialist Web Site earlier this week.
WSWS: John Shipton and John Pilger have recently detailed the punitive conditions of Assange’s detention in Belmarsh Prison. Could you speak about the way in which his isolation, and the denial of his right to access computers/legal documents is aimed at stymieing his defence against the US extradition request and increasing the psychological pressures upon him?
Lissa Johnson: If anyone takes a moment to imagine what it must be like to face the prospect of 175 years in a US prison, having already been subjected to nearly a decade of arbitrary detention and judicial harassment, knowing that you have no chance of a fair trial in the US, having been smeared in the media and branded a “terrorist” and enemy of the state, then that gives you an inkling of what Julian Assange was dealing with even before being placed under lockdown in Belmarsh prison. If you add to that having read hundreds of documents from Guantanamo Bay and knowing, in intimate detail, what the United States does to those it brands terrorists and enemies of the state, then Julian Assange’s reality becomes even clearer.
Now, with the full force of the US national security state bearing down on him, Julian Assange has been stripped of his most basic abilities to protect himself. Continue reading
Dr Jim Green explodes the Australian Financial Review ‘s propaganda promoting Small Modular Nuclear Reactorsll
|
|
|
Injustices to Julian Assange in British prison
Julian Assange: Deprivation of Justice and Double Standards in Belmarsh Prison, 21st Century Wire , AUGUST 28, 2019 BY
Alfred de Zayas, former UN Rapporteur, has described the actions of the British authorities in pursuit of Assange as “… contrary to the rule of law and contrary to the spirit of the law.” What we see on the surface is an illusion of British justice, masking a political agenda behind it.
Britain’s notorious Belmarsh Prison is now being presented as beacon of good governance, indicative of a fair and just society which equitable but firm with perpetrators. After carefully reviewing the case of Julian Assange though, there can be little doubt that placing the award-winning journalist in such a facility is nothing but the latest vehicle for his rendition to the US.
So far, Belmarsh has been fulfilling that state agenda.
Belmarsh as the state’s next weapon of choice
Judge Deborah Taylor sent Assange to category A Belmarsh prison for a bail-skipping offense, even though he’d demonstrated that he had good reason to skip bail. It is difficult not to conclude that the category A assignment was done so that he would be weak and vulnerable. In essence, Assange was sent to Belmarsh for 50 weeks for failing to turn up at a police station. There was no ongoing court case; he had no prior offenses; there were no charges; the Swedish investigation had been dropped. So skipping police bail was all the British government had. It should also be pointed out that Judge Taylor made a series of mistakes during the sentencing on 1st May, referring to rape charges in Sweden, which Assange corrected and which she then acknowledged were wrong. This indicates that Judge Taylor went into court at least uninformed, set in her mind that Assange had somewhere, somehow been charged with rape. This would seem to explain some of the reasoning behind Judge Taylor’s cruel sentencing, described by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention as ‘disproportionate’ but also as furthering the arbitrary deprivation of Assange’s liberty. What’s more, it has been pointed out how several thousand people in the UK skip bail each year and are in now way subject to such harsh punishment.
Clearly, Judge Taylor had used narratives provided by the state in order to send Assange to a category A penitentiary, even though these narratives have been thoroughly debunked. …….
Following his assessment of Assange in May inside Belmarsh prison, Nils Melzer issued a statement detailing the conditions of dentention. Melzer was accompanied by two medical experts who specialize in the examination of possible victims of torture as well as the documentation of symptoms, both physical and psychological. On examining Assange Melzer observed the following:
“Most importantly, in addition to physical ailments, Mr. Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.“
In addition to these concerns, reports also indicate Assange is being medicated. Continue reading
Western Australian Labor joins Queensland Labor in clearly rejecting nuclear power
Dave Sweeney, 27 Aug 19, It was a big weekend of Labor politics with state conferences in both WA and Queensland.
In WA the following motions were adopted on Sunday 25/8:
WA Labor is committed to implementing a best process and practise approach to uranium assessment and regulation. We urge federal Labor – and the federal government – to reflect this on a national level and retain the long standing and prudent nuclear action trigger for uranium mining and the clear prohibition on nuclear power in the federal EPBC Act (1999) during the current EPBC review process.
WA Labor commits to rigorous scrutiny of any further approvals or applications by any of the four WA uranium mine proposals approved under the previous government. WA Labor will apply the highest regulatory standards to any project and will work with affected communities and key stakeholders including trade unions and workers in order to reduce risks.
WA Labor welcomes the resolution passed unanimously by the 2018 National Labor Conference committing Labor in government to sign and ratify the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and calls on the Australian Government to sign and ratify the Treaty as an urgent humanitarian imperative.
Queensland Labor reaffirmed their clear policy opposition to uranium mining and also adopted a wider nuclear free position on Sunday:
In order to protect human health and Queensland’s unique natural values, Queensland Labor affirms its commitment to ensuring that Queensland remains nuclear free.
There was a good presence and profile (WA) and support at both events – see attached pic from WA with Leader of the Opposition Albanese and Yeelirrie defender Vicky Abdullah – a massive shout out to KA, Vicki, Mia, along with Piers and the wider crew from CCWA. The WA nuke free team did a superb job of putting the issue strongly on the radar at Conference. Thanks also to our comrades and champions in Labor and the progressive trade unions.
Renewable energy booming in Australia: nuclear power irrelevant
Nuclear power not the answer as renewables continue to boom in Australia, report finds, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-27/energy-audit-finds-nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer-for-australia/11450850Australia’s continuing renewable energy boom means the development of nuclear power is not a viable option, a new report from public policy think-tank the Australia Institute has concluded.
Key points:
- The Australia Institute’s energy emissions audit for the month July was released today
- It found SA’s renewable energy generation is setting a “real example” for other states
- It also found nuclear energy would not complement a high renewables sector
With the potential for nuclear power set to be examined by a federal parliamentary inquiry, the institute said the rapid development of wind and solar resources, particularly in South Australia, would render new “baseload” power resources like nuclear uneconomic.
The think-tank’s latest National Energy Emissions Audit found that for 44 hours during the month of July, South Australia generated enough wind and solar energy to power 100 per cent of its own demand, with some left over for export to eastern states.
The Institute’s climate and energy director, Richie Merzian, said the power grid in SA is effectively eliminating the need for so-called “baseload” supply, the type typically supplied by coal or nuclear.
What high renewables don’t need is a baseload type of energy, so a consistent supply of energy that doesn’t ramp up or ramp down to meet peak demand,” he said.
“That usually happens when you have those extremely hot days in summer that are becoming more common.
“What our audit shows is the windows where you need that peak demand are few, but that’s really where the additional support needs to come and that won’t be provided by a baseload support like nuclear.”
He said the other issue with nuclear energy was the cost and timeframe needed to build a nuclear power station.
“It takes a long time to build and it doesn’t complement high levels of renewables which is what we’re seeing in South Australia and the direction we’re going in in other states,” he said.
Earlier this month, Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor announced the potential for nuclear energy would be examined by a parliamentary inquiry, but insisted Australia’s moratorium on nuclear energy would remain in place.
The parliamentary inquiry is expected to be finalised by the end of the year.
The Australia Institute’s audit acknowledged that South Australia’s high renewable energy output had forced the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to regularly intervene in that state’s market to maintain system security of the grid.
AEMO does so by directing gas generators to run or directing windfarms to curtail their output, or both, when the level of wind energy is deemed a risk to the stable operation of the grid.
But, according to the institute, AEMO has been gradually reducing such interventions as it gains more experience dealing with the high renewable energy mix.
SA is setting a ‘real example’
Mr Merzian said the latest audit had looked at South Australia in particular and had shown it was setting a great example for other states in terms of renewable energy.
“What we found is that for nine of the last 18 months, half of all the energy supplied in South Australia has been from renewable generation, including rooftop solar,” he said.
“That means that South Australia has been able to operate for a good chunk of the last year and a half with at least 50 per cent of its energy coming from wind and solar.
“That’s impressive and that’s the highest in the country and is a real example for where most of the states are going to go.”
He said Victoria and Queensland both had ambitious renewable energy targets and while New South Wales did not have a renewable energy target at state level, it would soon be the largest generator of renewable energy.
Renewable supply meeting demand
Mr Merzian said one prime example from the audit was that for almost 50 hours, the supply of wind and solar power in South Australia was equal with the amount of energy demand.
“Over the last month there were 44 hours in total where the state was generating enough wind and solar that is equal to what it actually required as an energy demand,” he said.
“Not only is South Australia a great example for the rest of the country, it’s also a great example globally.”
He said South Australia did not have the same energy security from coal and gas as other states and had become a “champion” for renewable energy because of it.
“South Australia has really had to charge on its own to build that internal reliability from its own energy sources and that’s really helped it champion its current make up of energy,” he said.
“It also puts a lot of pressure on that transmission link between South Australia and Victoria.
“If South Australia is going to continue to evolve, it’s important that we continue to build on these transmission links and infrastructure.”
A 2006 report on nuclear power led by Ziggy Switkowski suggested Australia could have up to 25 reactors providing over a third of the country’s electricity by 2050.
As forests disappear in the Amazon, Australia’s rainforests are being destroyed, too
|
Calls to preserve Australia’s rainforests as fires rage in the Amazon, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/calls-to-preserve-australia-s-rainforests-as-fires-rage-in-the-amazon People must fight to save the Amazon rainforest from deforestation – but it is important efforts to preserve Australia’s rainforests are also made, local environmental groups say. BY EVAN YOUNG 25 Aug 19, Environmental groups are urging people to channel raised awareness about deforestation in the Amazon into renewed efforts to preserve Australia’s own forests.
|
|
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 