SA Royal Commission Draft Terms of Reference Ignore Health Impacts of Nuclear Industry
11 Mar 15 The Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) and the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) are deeply concerned that the Royal Commission’s draft terms of reference are too narrow and do not protect the health of South Australians.
“The draft terms of reference do not address health impacts at all, for either industry workers or the general public,” said Dr Margaret Beavis, President of MAPW. “Nuclear reactors are associated with increased rates of childhood leukemia in surrounding areas, and there are already legacy health issues in South Australia resulting from previous nuclear activities and uranium mining,” she added.
“In addition, the large government subsidies reactors require may reduce funds available for public institutions like hospitals and health services in South Australia,” Dr Beavis added.
The MAPW and PHAA are calling for a comprehensive examination of the entire nuclear industry, including uranium mining and security risks.
“There are health threats associated with every step of the nuclear fuel cycle and ample scientific evidence regarding the hazards of low dose radiation exposure,” said PHAA spokesperson Dr Michael Fonda. “There needs to be a genuine and scientific assessment of the health impacts of the nuclear industry both from the past and for the future,” he added.
This Royal Commission provides an opportunity to explore energy solutions for South Australia. “Uranium is a non-renewable resource and Australia needs a 21st century Energy Policy that hastens the transition of our economy toward one powered by renewables, not one that ties us down in outmoded and potentially dangerous technologies,” Dr Beavis said.
Both organisations have offered to assist the Royal Commission in its inquiry.
Government in no hurry to reach agreement on Renewable Energy Target?
Renewable energy target compromise deal within reach but no time frame set, Greg Hunt says ABC News PM By David Mark 6 Mar 15 Environment Minister Greg Hunt says an agreement with Labor and the renewable energy industry on the renewable energy target (RET) is “within reach”, but it seems there are still sticking points and different views from within Government. Continue reading
South Australian Federal Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey wants nuclear waste dump in Grey electorate.
Lib MP happy to store nuclear waste 9 News 6 Mar 15 Federal Liberal backbencher Rowan Ramsey says he’d happily store nuclear waste on his South Australian farm.
The federal government has called for landholders to nominate sites for a national dump to store nuclear waste generated by medical, research and industrial processes.
Mr Ramsey, whose massive electorate of Grey covers almost 92 per cent of SA, says there’s nothing to fear about nuclear waste.
“I am very relaxed about the idea that they might find a good site in my electorate again,” he told ABC radio on Thursday……
The state Labor government’s royal commission into the nuclear industry is looking at the prospects of nuclear waste facilities in SA.
But with the inquiry set to stretch into 2016, it’s unlikely SA will endorse a site before the federal government’s nomination process closes on May 5. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/03/05/12/37/lib-mp-happy-to-store-nuclear-waste#IEXPPdGpfI11lEs0.99
Shoddy Intergenerational Report ignores climate change
Climate Change? What Climate Change! And Other Tales From The Intergenerational Report New Matilda, 5 Mar 15 By Ben Eltham A report that predicts the future and ignores climate change is a farce, writes Ben Eltham “……a government report that looks forward to 2055 is ambitious. But that’s the premise of today’s 2015 Intergenerational Report.
Can we really take seriously a government document that attempts to see 40 years into the future?
No, we can’t. Of course we can’t.
We know this because the report ignores climate change.
Climate is mentioned only 12 times in a 175-page report. You could argue that for this government, the less said on climate the better. Even so, this is cloud-cuckoo stuff.
There is no discussion of the potential costs of climate change to government spending, for instance in the cost of more frequent extreme weather events and natural disasters. There is no discussion of the potential for taxing carbon emissions to meet Australia’s future budgetary challenges. And there is no discussion of the potential future impacts of global carbon deals on a resource-intensive Australian economy.
With a kind of Orwellian satire, the report even spruiks for the Abbott government’s risible Direct Action carbon subsidies. On page 40, the IGR argues that the government’s $2.55 billion emissions reduction fund will somehow get us to our 5 per cent 2020 emissions reduction target.
It’s at the point where the IGR lists the federal government’s “strong decisions in managing the Great Barrier Reef” that the whole thing descends into farce…….
Climate change is the dominant geopolitical fact of the future. It will bend the future more surely than tax takes or pension liabilities. It will reshape the global economy, threaten food yields, increase natural disasters, lay waste to Australia’s region and generate hundreds of millions of refugees. ….
You don’t have to take such shoddy work seriously, and as a busy citizen, you shouldn’t. The Intergenerational Report is not a serious attempt to make projections about government policy. It is an ornament, a prop in a policy theatre, a bell-and-whistle for the next Treasury lockup.
Like most such reports, the IGR will be quickly forgotten. https://newmatilda.com/2015/03/05/climate-change-what-climate-change-and-other-tales-intergenerational-report
Western Australian government approves Cameco’s Kintyre uranium mine , (with weak conditions)
Cameco’s Kintyre uranium mine in Pilbara conditionally approved by WA Government ABC News By Ebonnie Spriggs and Lucie Bell, 5 Mar 15 A proposed uranium mine in Western Australia’s Pilbara region has been granted conditional environmental approval by the State Government……Cameco Australia, is proposing to construct and operate the Kintyre open-cut uranium mine 270 kilometres north east of Newman.
The joint venture project with Mitsubishi Development would include an airstrip, processing plant, waste rock dump, tailings storage facility, offices, accommodation and a haul road.
The company plans to truck uranium oxide concentrate from the site, at the western edge of the Great Sandy Desert in the east Pilbara, to the Port of Adelaide.
WA Environment Minister Albert Jacob has now conditionally approved the project.
It is understood Kintyre will be subject to conditions including those relating to mandatory reporting, the protection of fauna, public availability of data and radiation risks……
It is understood the project will now be subject to approval by the Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt, who is expected to respond within 30 days. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-05/kintyre-uranium-mine-in-wa-pilbara-gains-conditional-approval/6284264
Terms of reference for South Australia’s Nuclear Royal Commission are inadequate
Given that it will be navigating contested waters with significant and long lasting costs and consequences for this and all future generations of South Australians it is essential that the Premier heeds community concerns and revisits the terms of reference to ensure the Commission does not become a taxpayer funded nuclear industry promotional platform.4 MAR 2015 THE CURRENT TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE ROYAL COMMISSION INTO SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S NUCLEAR INDUSTRY SADLY APPEAR TO PUT A HIGHER WEIGHTING ON INDUSTRY PROMOTION THAN PUBLIC INTEREST.
There is to be no review of SA’s atomic test legacy or flawed clean up attempts from earlier uranium mines. Disappointingly, the impacts and experience of current uranium mining is ignored lest it reflect poorly on industry expansion plans and key areas of very real public concern including health impacts, emergency capacity, implications for SA’s precious water resources and the potential for severe reputational and market damage to the important food, wine, fishing and tourism industries are missing.
Given that any credible assessment of the nuclear industry in South Australia also needs to fully explore the unique safety, security, legal, liability and transparency impacts and the full inter-generational economic, environmental and social costs and extent of direct or indirect public subsidies it appears that Premier Weatherill’s Royal Commission has failed to pass the most basic test of independence. Continue reading
Moving beyond Muckaty: next step in Australia’s radioactive waste story
4 Mar 15 Environment groups have urged the federal government to deliver on its commitment not to impose radioactive waste storage on unwilling communities, as announced by Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane today.
The latest process to identify a site for a national nuclear waste facility follows more than 20 years of flawed and failed federal attempts to impose a dump on communities in South Australia and the Northern Territory, most recently at Muckaty, north of Tennant Creek.
“That this process is happening at all is a tribute to the tenacity of the Muckaty Traditional Owners who took sustained action to protect their country and culture,” said Beyond Nuclear Initiative convenor Natalie Wasley.
“It took more than eight years for the government to admit the Muckaty nomination was a ‘disaster’. This must not be allowed to happen to other communities.
“Environment and civil society groups will closely monitor – and engage where possible – with the revised site nomination and selection process,” she said.
The process outlined today includes federal commitments of increased transparency and a stated preparedness to consider a number of alternative siting models.
Environment, public health, Indigenous and trade union groups have called for an expert and independent Inquiry into the full range of waste management options, including decentralised nuclear waste storage instead of a centralised facility. This approach has not been adopted by Minister Macfarlane, who has opted for a limited, fast-tracked process.
“There are no compelling social or technical reasons to rush a decision on an issue that demands the highest quality decision making,” said ACF’s Dave Sweeney.
“We have time to get this issue right. The Minister’s revised process is significantly better than the previous one, but we are still a long way short of where we should be,” he said.
Most of Australia’s existing radioactive waste is securely stored at two dedicated federal sites. Reprocessed spent nuclear fuel set to return to Australia from Europe later this year will be sent to the Lucas Heights facility for interim storage. Context and comment: Dave Sweeney (ACF) 0408 317 812, Nat Wasley (BNI) 0429 900 774
Federal Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey keen for nuclear waste dump in South Australia
ROWAN RAMSEY MP Federal Member for Grey 4 Mar 15 CALL FOR VOLUNTARY LAND NOMINATIONS FOR A NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
Federal Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey welcomes the Australian Government’s decision to open the process for voluntary site nominations for a national radioactive waste management facility. ……
Mr Ramsey said an Independent Advisory Panel had been established by the Department of Industry and Science to assist with assessing nominations and advising the Government on which sites may be suitable for a facility.
“It is interesting that this call for volunteers has occurred when Premier Jay Weatherill has just launched a Royal Commission into the possibility of South Australia raising its participation in the nuclear industry past the simple supply of yellowcake,” Mr Ramsey said…….
Coalition offer weakening Renewable Energy Target is rejected by Labor
- Labor rejects fresh renewable energy target offer, SMH March 2, 2015 Lisa Cox National political reporter Talks between the government and Labor toward a compromise on the renewable energy target appear to have again broken down, with the Opposition rejecting a new offer on Monday.
Government sources said a proposal to set the target at 31,000 gigawatt hours of baseline power by 2020 was put to Labor on Monday afternoon in a bid to break a deadlock that has existed for more than 12 months.
Labor is understood to have rejected the offer but could not be reached for comment.
The Opposition and the clean energy industry had been pushing for a figure in the mid- to high-thirties, but government sources said 31,000 was in line with demands from some quarters of the renewables sector.
Kane Thornton, chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, said on Monday that 31,000 gigawatt hours was too large a cut from the existing target of 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020.
“We’ve been quite transparent about our position on this,” Mr Thornton said.
“There’s a strong consensus in the renewable energy sector on a desire to resolve this.
“But there’s also a strong consensus on what reduction in the target the industry is willing to accept.
“We’ve made this quite clear and explicit – 31,000 is quite clearly a number we’re not prepared to accept.”
The failed offer continues the uncertainty that has plagued the renewables sector since the government launched a review of the target more than 12 months ago……..
Oliver Yates, the chief executive of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, told a Senate estimates hearing last week that uncertainty over the target had set the industry back 12 years.
Pro nuclear spin hides the real motive behind South Australia’s Royal Commission – a nuclear waste import industry
When announcing the commission last month, SA Premier Jay Weatherill said it would “explore the opportunities and risks of South Australia’s involvement in the mining, enrichment, energy and storage phases for the peaceful use of nuclear energy”.
The move caught many by surprise, not least federal opposition leader Bill Shorten, who – unlike his Labor colleague Weatherill – remains opposed to nuclear.
The announcement also generated huge amounts of free PR for the nuclear industry, as shown in the avalanche of media coverage that ensued – some deliberately balanced, some sceptical of the commission and its value, but much of it highly favourable, especially in the business press.
It is not hard to see why. As Naomi Klein contends, nuclear power is an industrial technology, organised in a corporate manner. And as psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton points out, no technology does more to underline humanity’s dominion over nature than our ability to split the atom.
The positive spin Continue reading
Highly respected South Australian Aboriginal, Yami Lester, speaks out on nuclear waste dump plan
I’m hoping you will support us with this very important issue which has arisen from SA Goverenment regarding a Royal Commission into Nuclear Energy and proposal to store high-level nuclear waste at Maralinga, South Australia
Please read. With thanks, Yami Lester, Yankunytjatjara Walatinna Station, South Australia (08) 8670 5077
Statement on Royal Commission into Nuclear Energy and proposal to store high-level nuclear waste at Maralinga, South Australia:
In 1953 I was just ten years old when the bombs went off at Emu and Maralinga, I
didn’t know anything about nuclear issues back then, none of us knew what was happening. I got sick, and went blind from the fallout from those tests, and lot of our people got sick and died also.
Now I’m 73 years old and I know about nuclear issues, and I have some friends who know about nuclear waste, and they will fight the South Australian Government on their plans to put high-level nuclear waste at Maralinga and to develop nuclear energy in South Australia.
Why does the government keep bringing back nuclear issues when we know the problems last forever?
The Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia (1984-85) revealed
what happened at Maralinga but it never told what happened to Aboriginal people; the findings were left open.Lawyers proved that there was radiation fallout over Walatinna, but because wenever had any doctors records to document what happened to us, (the closest clinic was Ernabella, 160km away as the crow flys and we didn’t have any transport to get there), we only had our stories and they were never written down.
A few years ago they cleaned up Maralinga from the waste that was leftover from the bomb tests; they spent $1 million, and now they’re going to put more waste back there?
That’s not fair because it’s Anangu land and they won’t be able to use that land.
Members from the APY, Maralinga-Tjarutja and Arabunna, Kokatha lands say we don’t want nuclear waste on our land.
The best thing the government can do is the leave the uranium in the ground, stop mining it.
We ask the South Australian Premier, Jay Weatherill, to talk to Aboriginal people on the lands, and to everyone who has been directly affected by the atomic tests and nuclear industry in Australia before he makes any decisions for South Australia.
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane speaks with forked tongue on the Renewable Energy Target
What Macfarlane is essentially saying here is, ‘take my offer or I’ll leave you with scheme that we will make clear to investors does not have Coalition Party support.
And in the event that it looks like the target will not be met, we will use that as a mechanism to overcome Senate obstruction to cut the scheme back by even more than what is currently on the table’
Macfarlane threatens: take my RET deal or else, Climate Spectator TRISTAN EDIS 27 FEB 15 , The confusing saga on the Renewable Energy Target continues with Environment Minister Greg Hunt sounding optimistic (as he seems to be about everything) that there will shortly be an agreement on the level of the target, and one that he said will “go significantly further” than 20% market share for renewable energy. Meanwhile Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane on the same day delivered a message of a rather more belligerent and less optimistic tone. Continue reading
Will South Australia’s Royal Commission be genuinely independent, or just excuse for importing radioactive trash?
If the Royal Commission brings a genuine spirit of independence and rigour, and is willing to take evidence on the nuclear sector’s performance in Australia and overseas, the report will provide a valuable contribution to domestic energy and industry policy.
An inquiry into how to get to zero emissions electricity as cheaply and rapidly as possible would have made a far more timely and valuable contribution to debates over energy policy and rebooting South Australia’s manufacturing sector than another rake through the slowly cooling ashes of the nuclear dream. Nonetheless, the lid has been lifted once again, and we can only hope that the Royal Commissioner is willing to take an unblinking look at the evidence, so that the failed hopes and broken promises of the atomic age can be set to rest once and for all
the probability that this whole exercise is designed to build the case for a national or international radioactive waste dump.
Nuclear Industry On Trial? Scott Ludlam Hopes So, New Matilda, 26 Feb 15 The debate about nuclear power in South Australia needs to be had, if only to put the issue to bed once and for all, writes Scott Ludlam.
At first glance, the decision to call a Royal Commission into nuclear technology in South Australia seems like a curious aberration from the ‘Yes Minister’ rule of inquiries: never call one unless you know in advance what it will tell you.
At the outset of this most polarising of debates, I’d like to propose a truce; particularly with those whose pro-nuclear views are motivated by the overwhelming imperative of climate change. If we respect that not all nuclear advocates intend to contaminate the gene pool and plunge us into nuclear winter, I’d ask in return that you consider the possibility that the anti-nuclear case is based on rational assessment of risks and performance, rather than pure emotion as is sometimes asserted.
For those whose motivation is a safe climate, this is a disagreement over means, not ends. Continue reading
Renewable energy leader Port Augusta does not need nuclear power – Mayor
Local mayor unhappy with city counterpart’s nuclear comments, The Transcontinental, 27 Feb 15 Port Augusta has been suggested as a “convenient” site for a nuclear reactor, just weeks after the state government announced it will establish a Royal Commission into nuclear power in SA.
Port Augusta mayor Sam Johnson is not happy, saying the suggestion treats those living in regional areas like Port Augusta as second-rate citizens……
Port Augusta mayor Sam Johnson said he’s open to an informed debate on nuclear power, but hit fiercely back at the Port Adelaide mayor’s comments, labelling the idea a “cop out”. (picture from The Transcontinental )
He said there’s no reason to consider putting nuclear power in Port Augusta, given the city is already leading the way in renewable energy.
“Why in the hell would we want nuclear power in Port Augusta when we’ve done so much work on renewable energy, in particular the solar thermal plant?” Mr Johnson questioned.
“We’ve had international experts actually say to us, why isn’t the government in Australia exploring renewable energy such as solar thermal given we have the best geographical climate in the world to do it?
“If the government wants to talk about nuclear, fine, happy to talk about it – but we’re already heading down a successful path…they can go and build the nuclear power plant in Unley or Norwood for all I care.”
Repower Port Augusta chairperson Gary Rowbottom suggested nuclear power is a higher risk option than renewable energy, and doesn’t see why it’s worth exploring when there’s a better option on the table for the city.
“Our current belief is that it is simply not required to take the risks and overcome all the implementation difficulties involved in ‘going nuclear’,” Mr Rowbottom said.
“We can substitute a suite of proven and developing renewable technologies in place of any need to go down the nuclear path…the commercial, health and environmental risks of nuclear are too high to justify it.
“It can be taken as somewhat offensive that the Port Adelaide/Enfield areas (Mr Johanson) are clearly saying that they are not prepared to have a nuclear reactor in their area but it is ideal and more convenient for Port Augusta to have one.”……
What do you think about having a nuclear reactor in Port Augusta?
Send your thoughts to the editor at ryan.smith@fairfaxmedia.com.au http://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/2903676/local-mayor-unhappy-with-city-counterparts-nuclear-comments/
Federal and State funding removed from top Northern Territory Environment Groups
End is nigh for NT environmental advocacy groups as funding runs out, ABC News 26 Feb 15 By Elliana Lawford Two environmental advocacy groups in the Northern Territory are set to close as government funding cuts announced last year start to bite.
The Environment Centre NT (ECNT) has told the ABC a number of staff were laid off last week and the centre has limited their operating hours from five to three days a week.
The organisation has led campaigns against uranium mining, pollution, gas exploration and water extraction licences. ECNT chair Tony Young said he was worried there would be no-one to fight for environmental issues in the Northern Territory if the centre closed.
“If there is no independent voice to point these things out then the problems continue and they are exacerbated,” he said. “The range and complexity of the environmental problems the Northern Territory faces really deserves a properly funded, independent, science-based voice … that’s what is in danger.”
The ECNT lost $185,000 in last year’s Territory budget.
The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) is also struggling and has announced it will close on June 30, after it lost $450,000 in Federal Government funding. EDO chair Kirsty Howey said the office could not operate without financial help.
“With the cutting of federal funding at the EDO, we are looking at shutting the doors on June 30 this year,” she said.
“We just don’t have the money to survive any longer.”
NT Environment Minister Gary Higgins said he was unperturbed by the looming closures of the ECNT and the EDO……..
Labor spokeswoman Nicole Manison said both organisations were needed in the community.
“We need to have a full and independent voice for the government out there in the community,” she said.
“They bring up some pretty tough issues for governments and a good government would actually listen to them.”
Both organisations are still trying to secure independent funding that could delay their closures. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/environment-agencies-nt-for-the-chop/6262720
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 
