Let the Australian nuclear spin begin – in earnest
‘‘until we can have the nuclear [power] discussion then carbon farming will play an important role.’‘ Michael McCormack of the Nationals Party , The Age , 18/7/21
You can bet your boots that Michael Mc Cormack knows about as much about nuclear power as a kindergarten kid does.
He is supposed to be an enemy of Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce, but on nuclear opinion, and nuclear knowledge, they’re in lockstep.
I was meaning to leave until Ausgust, this very NOW story of the renewed nuclear spin in Australia. I just couldn’t let this one pass – as Mc Cormack just slipped this in to a story that purports to be all about supporting agriculture and carbon farming.
Australia’s weapons lobby drumming up fear of nuclear attack by China, against all logic
Those in Australia beating the “drums of war” point to Taiwan as the flashpoint for the next major global conflict. To what end does a first strike on Australia achieve China’s goals in relation to Taiwan?
War with China: zero logic yet the weapons lobby has 42% of Australians believing it Michael West Media, by Marcus Reubenstein | Jul 16, 2021 Incredibly, a survey finds 42% of Australians believe China will attack Australia, this despite exports to China surging 36% over in the last six months, and despite there being no logical rationale for war with China, or an attack by China. Marcus Reubenstein analyses the ludicrous position of Australia’s China hawks and the mainstream media pushing their agendas.
“Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war.”
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Act 3, Scene 1
China is a rapidly growing economic power, seeking to exert considerable influence in its region and beyond. And like every great power it is a bully which tries to entice, cajole or intimidate other nations into adopting its view of the world.
How is this such a difficult concept for Australians to embrace?
Since Federation we’ve tied our fortunes to two great powers, the declining British Empire then the rising, and rising even more, US global hegemony……….
Who is threatening whom?
A new report from the Australia Institute begins with the following words:
“In April this year, Australians were warned by no less an expert than the former Minister for Defence, Christopher Pyne, that they may need to engage in a ‘kinetic’ war with China in the next five to ten years.”
Perhaps, in the realm of China policy, ‘no lesser expert’ better describes his authority on the subject.
The same Pyne, famously discussed his role as a defence industry consultant with EY whilst he was a sitting member of the Federal Cabinet, a matter which prompted a Senate investigation.
He still works for EY, sits on the board of defence contractor XTEC, is Chair of the Advisory Board of another defence contractor NIOA, and in June last year Arawa Capital announced him as Chair of its Advisory Board and Investment Committee for a fund investing in weapons systems.
In heralding that appointment Arawa specifically referred to the, still unsubstantiated, Scott Morrison announcement of a malicious cyber attack by an unnamed “state-based” actor. Arawa trumpeted Pyne has “unrivalled knowledge of the cyber, intelligence and national security landscape.”
With Pyne on board, Arawa said it “anticipates closing out the initial $50mil capital raising swiftly.” It transpired there was a swift “closing out”, ASIC records show six months later Arawa Capital Pty Ltd was deregistered as a company.
According to research from Michael West Media’s “Revolving Doors” series, Pyne’s numerous board memberships and consultancies put him in direct, or indirect, contact with more than a dozen weapons makers and contractors.
Clearly, talking up a war with China is of no financial benefit to these companies.
Why would China attack Australia?
Should Australia go to war with China in defence of Taiwan? is the title of the Australia Institute report and 42% of its six hundred respondents think China is poised to attack Australia.
How and why?
Those in Australia beating the “drums of war” point to Taiwan as the flashpoint for the next major global conflict. To what end does a first strike on Australia achieve China’s goals in relation to Taiwan?
If Australia has something China wants, it is many times cheaper and easier to buy it than to send your army half way around the world to steal it.
China’s current leadership is presiding over a great deal more diplomatic disasters than triumphs but, if nothing else, the Chinese are pragmatic.
Australia’s rabid China hawks will no doubt dismiss such assessments, saying China doesn’t need to deploy military assets it would simply launch a nuclear strike on a target—which they ignore is home to 1.2 million ethnically Chinese people.
My counter argument?
The policy wonks in Washington, who made you their lapdogs, didn’t throw you a bone because they thought you were smart, they threw you the bone because they knew you were dumb enough to catch it!
This survey’s inconvenient truth
The same number of respondents were polled in Taiwan and only a few more (49 percent) expressed fears of an attack from the mainland. Bear in mind the Taiwanese are of the same Han ethnicity as the majority of Chinese, who moved over from the mainland in the 1680s; the PRC has never given up its claim to what was once part of China; and the island sits just 161 kilometres off the coast of China.
That four in ten Australians should think Beijing—a mere 9,000 kilometres from Canberra—is gearing up for invasion is staggering.
Report author Allan Behm noted, “Given Australia and Taiwan’s historical and geographical differences, it is astounding that Australians could be more fearful than Taiwan in anticipating an attack from China.”
This anticipation is undoubtedly fuelled by Australia’s China hawks, all with close ties to US-funded research groups and patronage from US weapons makers.
However, they should not be too smug in thinking their “drums of war” are resonating.
73 percent of Australians regard the United States as an aggressive nation, while only six in ten Australians believe the US would come to our aid in the event of war with China.
Given Australia has followed the United States into 100 percent of its wars, that Australians would only rate America a 60 percent chance of leaping to our defence is a sobering statistic.
Totally at odds with Prime Minister Morrison and Foreign Minister Maris Payne’s unquestioned support of the US antagonism towards China, 75 percent of Australians think it is in our interests that China and the US “work together towards world peace”. Of concern to the spin merchants inside the government an even higher number of coalition supporters, 79 percent, think peace with China is a good idea.
Despite the US, and Morrison’s, rhetoric of Taiwan being a like-minded democracy of shared values, 76 percent of Taiwanese rate America as an aggressor. Should the US come to Taiwan’s aid in a war with China, only 18 percent of Taiwanese people think they would win.
How reliable are drummers?
By any sensible strategic logic, the dogs of war should remain in their box. Let the drums of war continue to drum up business for the China threat industry and their death-merchant patrons. …..
THE AUSTRALIAN newspaper sinks to a new low in pro nuclear propaganda.
at left Zion Lights
Today’s THE AUSTRALIAN carries this article ”Savvy activists cast nuclear benefits in a fresh green light”. The article is by Claire Lehmann, who must be a real sucker to fall for such purile pro nuke spin, or , more likely, knows where the money is, in writing for News Corpse.
Claire Lehmann would appear to have swallowed the spin of Zion Lights. Zion Lights is certainly a talented self-propagandist, and is loved by the nuclear industry, because she pitches her pro nuke spin to young people, using popular media – Tok Tok and Instagram etc.
Below, on today’s Antinuclear, I’m republishing 2 articles which give some context to the background of Zion Lights.
Australia’s failed nuclear front group bites the dust.
Ben Heard’s lobby group is closing down, June 2021: Heard’s ‘Bright New World’ group — which received secret corporate donations from the Nuclear Industry — is closing down.
Concerted efforts to have state and federal laws banning nuclear power have failed in recent years. At a guess, the corporate donors have given up and will no longer fund Bright New World.
A stocktake on Heard’s 10 years of pro-nuclear, anti-renewables campaigning: renewable capacity grew by an incredible 1500+ gigawatts worldwide and renewables now account for 30% of global electricity generation. Nuclear generation was stagnant and nuclear’s contribution to global electricity generation fell to 10%.In Heard’s home state of South Australia, renewables have grown to 60% of electricity generation and the conservative state government is enthusiastically committed to 100% net renewables by 2030.Heard’s efforts to turn South Australia into the world’s nuclear waste dump were equally unsuccessful.Good riddance to Bright New World. https://nuclear.foe.org.au/ben-heard-secret-corporate-donations/
Portrait of a pro nuclear shill – Ben Heard
Ben Heard and the nuclear lobby group ‘Bright New World’ that accepts secret corporate donations
For factual rebuttals of the misinformation promulgated by other nuclear advocates, please visit: https://nuclear.foe.org.au/propaganda/
Ben Heard founded the South Australia-based ‘Bright New World’ nuclear advocacy group that accepts secret corporate donations from the nuclear industry.
Like so many other nuclear advocates, Heard very rarely or never says or does anything about the problems of the nuclear industry such as its systemic racism (abundantly evident in his home state, South Australia) or the inadequate nuclear safeguards system and the associated WMD proliferation risks.
A big part of Heard’s schtik is his conversion from a nuclear critic to a supporter. It is a back-story built on slender foundations. A mining industry magazine article said Heard was “once a fervent anti-nuclear campaigner” but in fact he never had any involvement whatsoever in anti-nuclear campaigning. Heard made no effort to correct the error in the magazine article — indeed he put the article, uncorrected, on his own website and only corrected it after the falsehood was publicly exposed. Likewise, Heard made no effort to correct an ABC article which described him as a “former anti-nuclear advocate”.
Heard has a recurring disclosure problem. He rarely disclosed his consulting work for uranium company Heathgate when spruiking for the nuclear industry. He said the reason he rarely disclosed his consulting work with Heathgate was that it was mentioned on his website. So any time you hear anyone speaking about anything in the media, it’s your responsibility to do a web-search to see if they have a financial interest! More recently, he rarely discloses corporate funding — indeed his lobby group has a policy of accepting secret corporate donations. Moreover, Heard rarely if ever discloses his connection to nuclear power company Energy. https://nuclear.foe.org.au/ben-heard-secret-corporate-donations/rrestrial Energy.
Samantha Chard, General Manager, Australian Radioactive Waste Management Agency – doubletalk about nuclear waste transport.
Kazzi Jai No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia ,11 June 21.
“Ms Chard also noted that aside from the TN81, other intermediate level waste will not look substantially different to the low level waste packages.
It is likely that transportation of intermediate level waste will be discrete to avoid someone potentially doing something they should not; however all trucks need to note if they are transporting a hazardous substance.”
Short post today – but something I have been meaning to address….
…..”to avoid someone potentially doing something they should not”…..WTF is that???? Are they only NOW ADMITTING how SERIOUS the TRANSPORT of this waste is SECURITY WISE???????
Then….”however all trucks need to note if they are transporting a hazardous substance”….Again – WTF – or are they trying to REWRITE THE AUSTRALIAN DANGEROUS TRANSPORT CODE????
“Mickey Mouse Operation” are the words which spring to mind
Predictably transport of intermediate waste will be done under the cover of darkness, just like the whole process has been. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929
ANSTO’s desperate and dishonest spin to promote the nuclear industry
Kazzi Jai No radioactive waste dump anywhere in South Australia 10 June 21 “Desperate times call for desperate measures”….seems to be the apt phrase used to describe the Nuclear Industry more and more these months!
Seems Australian taxpayers are yet again footing the bill for the Nuclear Industry and its associated waste yet again – and our Environment and Future generations will suffer for it!
“It is likely that every Australian will need nuclear medicine in their lifetime for diagnosis of a variety of heart, lung and muscular-skeletal conditions, or treatment of specific types of cancers,” Mr Griffiths said.“
Where is the reference for this claim? It was NEVER ADDRESSED when it was first claimed that 1 in 2 Australians will need nuclear medicine a number of years ago…..then last year 1 in 3…..then suddenly now EVERY Australian will need nuclear medicine!! Or do we just TRUST Mr Griffiths on his word??
Is this “nuclear medicine” as a generic term…including LINAC Radiotherapy treatment which does not use radioactive isotopes? – Or is this addressing only “nuclear derived isotopes”? Is it only “isotopes” sourced from ANSTO….or cyclotron derived isotopes from private practises using cyclotrons/imaging partnership centres??
Too many questions, not enough answers…..A case of Blurred Lines much!!
Ah, but there’s more!
“….”To support this, ANSTO’s new nuclear medicine facility delivers thousands of doses of nuclear medicine to more than 220 hospitals and nuclear medicine centres each week.”
He said the new facility, which was announced in 2012 and commenced production in 2019, had already become a “critical part of the nuclear medicine supply chain“.
So….ANM is the ANSTO Nuclear Medicine Facility which comprises of an export scale Mo-99 Manufacturing Facility and Synroc Waste Treatment plant for the liquid component of Mo-99 manufacture waste product. Why do they insist on dropping the “Molydenum-99” term in the name for the facility – when that is what was applied for in 2012 to ARPANSA for licencing……Australian Nuclear Medicine Molydenum-99 Facility (ANM Mo99) ??
.And notice NO MENTION of becoming one of the MAJOR EXPORTERS FOR Mo-99 GLOBALLY – ramping up to 10 million doses per annum…..those paltry POSSIBLE doses of 10,000 available doses for Australian Hospitals per week pales in significance!
“….A by-product of that is the 30 litres of intermediate-level radioactive waste produced at the site each week.
The waste is being held in tanks while the new SyMo facility is constructed, but once it is complete, the waste will be solidified using ANSTO’s Synroc technology.
Mr Griffiths said Synroc was an innovative, cost-effective, low-risk way to reduce waste volume by taking it from liquid form and solidifying it into a synthetic rock so it is suitable for permanent storage.“
Now, a “by-product” is a product that is produced as a secondary product of a product in my books. How EXACTLY is this nuclear waste classified in any realm as a “by-product”?? It is nuclear waste!
Again – slippery terms to cover what the reality is!
And finally – Synroc is NOT a cost-effective way to reduce volume – OTHERWISE OTHER COUNTRIES WOULD HAVE ALREADY EMBRACED IT – WHICH THEY HAVEN’T!!
Seems Australian taxpayers are yet again footing the bill for the Nuclear Industry and its associated waste yet again – and our Environment and Future generations will suffer for it! https://www.theleader.com.au/…/radioactive-waste…/…
The fake charity AMDA Foundation is exposed by Michael West Media’s Michelle Fahy
Landforces’ brothers in arms: how a weapons peddler qualified for charitable status . https://www.michaelwest.com.au/landforces-brothers-in-arms-how-a-weapons-peddler-qualified-for-charitable-status/
by Michelle Fahy | Jun 4, 2021 The Coalition is cracking down on charitable organisations. However, the Australian charity promoting arms deals on behalf of weapons makers that profit from humanitarian catastrophes is unlikely to be in the government’s sights. With the weapons expo LandForces wrapping up in Brisbane this week, Michelle Fahy delves into the charity behind LandForces.
The Morrison government has charitable organisations in its sights. It proposes to amend the legislation covering charities so that minor legal misdemeanours by staff or supporters of a charity could be used as a prompt by the regulator for a review of a charity’s privileged status.
St Vincent de Paul told The Saturday Paper that if an activist wearing a Vinnies T-shirt refused to move along when asked by police, Vinnies could risk having its charitable status removed.
Hands Off Our Charities, an alliance of Australian charities, said in a submission to government: “The proposal is a major overreach and the need for further regulation has not been (and in our view cannot be) properly explained.”
Yet consider the activities of a not-for-profit organisation that many Australians will be astounded to discover has gained privileged charitable status – AMDA Foundation Limited (AMDA).
AMDA is the organiser of Land Forces, a biennial military and weapons exhibition running in Brisbane this week showcasing organisations “operating across the full spectrum of land warfare”.
The 600 exhibitors at Land Forces include local and multinational weapons manufacturers and other suppliers to military forces. Event sponsors include global arms corporations such as Boeing, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Rheinmetall, General Dynamics, Saab and Hanwha, along with local companies Electro Optic Systems (EOS), CEA, and NIOA. Representatives from foreign governments and militaries are among the attendees.
Several of AMDA’s arms-maker sponsors have supplied their weaponry to the two countries leading the coalition fighting the war in Yemen – Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The UN has been pleading for years for countries to cease supplying weaponry to these countries.
In late 2018, the New York Times published distressing photographs of emaciated children in Yemen dying as a result of aid blockades during the war. The mass starvation continues. UNICEF has said more than 400,000 Yemeni children under five could die preventable deaths this year.
Promoting arms deals on behalf of corporations that have profited from this unspeakable humanitarian catastrophe is the antithesis of what an Australian registered charity should be doing.
But the political posturing evident in the government’s proposed changes is unlikely to result in any repercussions for the AMDA Foundation. Instead, it is ‘activist’ environmental charities that are being targeted by the changes. Which is precisely the problem with such sweeping broad powers. They can be implemented selectively to silence voices the government does not want heard.
“It is the principle that underpins the change that is wrong, regardless of who it is used to target,” said Matt Rose, Economy & Democracy Program Manager at the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Arms trade promotion a “charitable activity”?
AMDA runs numerous major military and weapons-related trade exhibitions around Australia. Its roster of events includes Avalon, a biennial aerospace military and weapons expo in Victoria, next slated for early December 2021. The Indo Pacific Expo, a maritime warfare exhibition, is scheduled for May 2022 in Sydney.
These and other industry trade shows bring together sellers and buyers of weaponry and other military and security-related equipment. “Doing business is easy at Land Forces,” says its website, noting that Land Forces serves as a “powerful promotional and industry engagement forum”.
AMDA says it exists to help the “general community in Australia”. But the general community is not permitted to attend Land Forces nor AMDA’s other arms exhibitions. (The public can attend the Avalon Air Show, a separate public event run at the same time as the Avalon arms expo.)
AMDA is part of a group of companies registered with ACNC which operates around the country. It had 24 full-time-equivalent employees and a gross income in 2020 of $11.7 million – 32% of which came from government grants and 61% from operating revenue. Its income in 2019 was $26.2 million, mostly from operating revenue.
Revolving doors and conflicted interests
The AMDA board is an all-male affair. Its chair is former chief of the Royal Australian Navy, Christopher Ritchie, who joined the board in May 2017 while concurrently sitting on the boards of Lockheed Martin Australia (until 2020) and German naval shipbuilder Luerssen Australia, both multibillion dollar contractors to the Defence Department.
Former chief of army Kenneth Gillespie sits on the AMDA board while also sitting on the board of Naval Group, the French multinational building Australia’s controversial new submarines. Gillespie is also chair of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) Council, the highly influential and supposedly “independent” think tank tasked with providing strategic advice to the government.
ASPI is sponsored by Naval Group as well as other global arms manufacturers including Lockheed Martin, Thales, Saab and Northrop Grumman. ASPI has been vocal in its anti-China ‘war drums’ rhetoric, stoking regional tensions, along with the Asia Pacific arms race.
Australia represented (by Ben Heard) in Moscow in launch of Rosatom’s pro nuclear propaganda campaign.
Thousands Join Launch Of Rosatom’s Atoms For Humanity Nuclear Awareness Campaign, By India Education Diary Bureau Admin May 3, 2021 Moscow: On April 30, over 3200 people from some 40 countries watched Rosatom’s Atoms for Humanity new nuclear awareness campaign launch event. The project is aimed at demonstrating the importance of nuclear technologies in achieving the UN Sustainable Goals through human-centered stories.
The project launch event Why Humanity Needs Nuclear brought together Polina Lion, Chief Sustainability Officer at Rosatom, Sama Bilbao y León, Director General of the World Nuclear Association, Dr. Maher Aziz, member of the World Energy Council, Ben Heard, founder of the Bright New World and Sergio Orlandi and Head of Central Engineering and Plant Directorate at ITER. Heroes of Atoms for Humanity joined the event to share their experiences participating in the campaign.
The [?] esteemed speakers discussed social, economic and environmental benefits of nuclear technologies and their invaluable contribution to solving the most urgent challenges of today and tomorrow.
Scott Morrison’s $billion missile spend, a gift to foreign war companies and their sponsor, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, (ASPI)
Foreign war lobby gets a $billion for missiles – media fawns
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/foreign-war-lobby-gets-a-billion-for-missiles-media-fawns/ 4 Apr 21,
Scott Morrison’s latest billion-dollar missile spend was deftly leaked to the media then talked up by ASPI whose sponsors have raked in $51 billion in Defence Department contracts while doling cash to the conflicted “think-tank”. Marcus Rubenstein investigates.
No sooner had Scott Morrison’s new cabinet been sworn in than it was back to business, feeding out distractions to the Canberra press gallery.
Nearly 14 hours before the prime minister announced to the nation that Australia was going to spend a billion dollars on building “our own missiles” Greg Sheridan from The Australian had the scoop—along with The Age/SMH, Nine Newspapers stablemate Australian Financial Review and the ABC. Along with the ranks of metropolitan mainstream media dailies who all fell in line behind the announcement.
And with military precision they all fired off their online reports at 10:30pm… or, to be more precise, 22:30 hrs.
The Age and Sydney Morning Herald both quoted ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) in their coverage as did The Conversation, along with others they listed potential weapons maker partners for this home grown missile mission.
Apart from the glaring fact that none of these companies are actually Australian, most were listed by ASPI in a report it published last year. Of the five potential partner companies being touted by mainstream media— Raytheon (USA), Lockheed Martin (USA), Kongsberg (Norway), Rafeal (Israel) and BAE Systems (UK)—all but one is a long-term financial backer of ASPI.
As is de rigueur there was no mention that ASPI’s enthusiasm for substantial new military expenditure was directed towards spending on weapons made by their sponsors.
A number of media reports included PR handout images from US missile maker Raytheon, which for years was a loyal ASPI sponsor and also the former employer of, recently demoted, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds.
The actual announcement was made by the prime minister, not at Parliament House, but at the South Australian facility of Raytheon.
Government access for weapons makers
Since ASPI’s foundation in 2001, when it was created to challenge the policy direction of Defence, it has become more and more commercialised.
This fact was highlighted by ASPI’s founding Executive Director Hugh White, who wrote on the 15th anniversary of its foundation, “The quality of defence policy slumped… [and] ASPI’s focus inevitably swung round to contributing to public debates not government policy-making.”
Under Hugh White’s leadership, ASPI preserved a great deal of independence and only took an average of $28,000 per year in commercial revenue.
In the last financial year, under the leadership of (former Howard Government adviser) Peter Jennings, ASPI raked in $6,953,000 in commercial revenue. Yet it maintains its façade of independence of outside influence.
ASPI sponsor, French-owned Naval Group was awarded the contract for Australia’s controversial $80 billion future submarine project. It has been in the headlines recently after an independent report released in March found the project was “dangerously off track”.
In 2016, when the contract was awarded Jennings, wrote a glowing opinion piece, about his sponsor, under the headline “Vive Australia’s choice of a French submarine”.
The release of the Future Submarines Report was very critical of the entire project and there were suggestions from highly credentialed defence strategists that Australia should walk away from the deal.
In response, ASPI wrote that not only should Naval Group keeps its contract but the Royal Australian Navy should commission un-maned Orca submarines whilst waiting decades for the French submarines order to be fulfilled.
And who makes the Orca? Another ASPI sponsor, Boeing Defense.
This comes after revelations in March that ASPI had been commissioned to write a report critical of the federal government’s awarding of cloud computing contracts to Australian company Canberra Data Centres (CDC).
As it transpires, ASPI had been commissioned to write the report by lobbying firm Australian Public Affairs (APA); the Commonwealth Lobbyists Register reveals APA represent CDC’s three main commercial rivals.
Last October, ASPI’s Peter Jennings told the ABC, “ASPI’s work as a think tank is genuinely independent” and suggestions it was controlled by sponsors were “frankly nonsense”.
The massive ASPI payoff
ASPI is not an independent think tank, it is in fact a Commonwealth Company which reports to the parliament through the Defence Ministry. In its latest annual report ASPI singled out the then Defence Minister for her “continuing close personal engagement and support”.
In her first speech as Defence Minister, Linda Reynolds boasted of her close friendship with ASPI’s Peter Jennings.
Clearly ASPI’s boss and his board, which is chaired by former Chief of the Army, Lt Gen (Ret’d) Kenneth Gillespie and includes former Liberal Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, has access to the highest levels of government and the Defence Department.
Since ASPI’s inception it has received sponsorship from 12 manufacturers of weapons and weapons systems. Over that period, they have been awarded 9,423 Defence Department contracts with a total value of $51.2 billion.
This does not include another 49 ASPI sponsors who do not manufacture weapons, yet Department of Finance data, reveals have benefitted from more than $30 billion in defence contracts since 2001.
ASPI’s most recent annual report revealed that in the year before the COVID-19 pandemic, it hosted 142 separate events and meetings, many of them bringing together defence policy makers and defence suppliers.
At one such event in 2019, sponsored by Thales, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, then Defence Minister Linda Reynolds was keynote speaker. Presumably executives from these foreign weapons makers had some level of access to the minister.
Department of Finance figures later revealed that ministerial and department staff were charged $30,723 by ASPI in order to attend that speech.
The Bluff and the Bribing continue as Minister Keith Pitt spruiks on radio about Kimb nuclear waste dump plan
Kazzi Jai, No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia, 15 Mar 21, Refuting Senator Matt Canavan’s inaccurate hype about small nuclear reactors
|
Canavan Keeping The Nuclear SMR Vaporware Dream Alive , Solar Quotes ,March 12, 2021 by Michael Bloch ”…… Senator Matt Canavan: ”Keep Nuclear Energy On The Table” It’s probably been a disappointing week for pro-coal Senator Matt Canavan with the news Yallourn Power Station will retire in mid-2028 instead of 2032. But as well as a passion for coal, Senator Canavan is a nuclear power supporter.In an interview with Sky News yesterday, Senator Canavan commented:
A year ago he referred to renewables as the “dole bludgers” of energy, using the same logic. With regard to the Fukushima incident, he stated: “The latest nuclear technology is much safer; more self-contained. Small modular reactors are effectively the size of shipping containers that are much more suited to our country and size and don’t have the same safety issues.” He also managed to squeeze in a mention about instances of fatalities associated with installing solar panels on rooftops just for good measure. But back to the small modular reactors (SMRs). Where are these SMRs he speaks of? The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2020 released in September last year states:
|
|
Australian Strategic Policy Institute – a stooge for weapons industries and China-haters
|
Independent” think-tank ASPI behind push for more defence spending rakes in advisory fees, Michael West Media, 1 Mar 21, by Marcus Reubenstein | Jul 1, 2020 Funded by the Department of Defence, the Australia Strategic Policy Institute collects millions more as it drives the “China threat” narrative. As Marcus Reubenstein reports, while ASPI is the media’s go-to experts for public comment, ASPI is remarkably coy about revealing all its funding sources.
On the day the Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a $270 billion defence spending plan, the Department of Defence paid the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) a $214,500 contract for “management advisory services”. Exactly one year ago today, it was awarded a similar “management advisory services” contract for the considerably larger amount of $614,536. ASPI has pushed hard for boosts to defence spending, in particular an upgrade of Australia’s missile capabilities. The Government says it will spend $800 million on the US-made AGM-158C Long Range Anti Ship Missile, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, which gave ASPI $135,909 in sponsorship funds in 2018-19. Go-to think tank on ChinaThe Australian Strategic Policy Institute is the “go to” think tank for the mainstream media seeking an “independent voice” to make sense of troubled times with China. Its analysts are knowledgeable and articulate, always forthcoming with research pointing to the strategic threat of China. However, it is less forthcoming about the funders of its research, although it is an open secret that foreign governments and multi-billion-dollar weapons makers are generous supporters. What is not widely known is the extent to which taxpayers are propping it up, through dozens of small contracts not listed in its annual reports. Last year, these contracts amounted to more than $2 million and were signed by the chiefs of a small group of government departments which, say ASPI’s critics, have vested interests in promoting China as Australia’s No. 1 strategic threat. On China’s radarTwo weeks ago, ASPI was again thrust into the international limelight after China’s foreign ministry directly named it as the source of claims by Prime Minister Scott Morrison that Australia was the victim of a sustained cyber security attack. Morrison did not name China but, ASPI’s executive director, Peter Jennings did. He told journalists it was a “95%” likelihood that China was behind the alleged attacks. Critics, including former foreign ministers, ambassadors and senior figures within the defence establishment, contend that ASPI is an anti-China lobby that has hoodwinked the media into believing it is independent. Labor Senator Kim Carr, who is pursuing ASPI through a Senate committee, argues it’s a conflicted government-funded body that lacks transparency, particularly in the way it reports who funds its research. It is an Australian government organisation, a Commonwealth company, and they’ve been at the centre of Sinophobia. This is what happened in the Cold War, you set up a front and create a world view that’s unchallengeable. Then you de-legitimize anyone who argues for engagement with China. Ironically, engagement with China remains official government policy”. Disguised defence largesseThe Howard Government set up ASPI in 2001 as an independent think tank that would challenge a supposed culture of stagnated thinking, weighed down by the defence bureaucracy. Its main funding was an annual grant from the Defence Department but over the past decade it has developed more and more revenue streams — and no obligation to reveal exactly who pays it what. Defence remains its biggest benefactor. Before the federal election, the Morrison Government not only increased this funding by more than 13%, it locked in a guaranteed $20 million until 2023. This largesse does not include one-off payments for sponsorship and commissioned reports. In its annual reports, ASPI declares the $4 million annual Defence grant but opaquely refers to this as “core funding”. According to Department of Finance figures, in 2018-19 it received an additional $1,363,002.84 in funding from Defence, which was not publicly declared. According to answers it provided to a Senate Estimates committee in February, ASPI collected $1,158,581.63 (pre-GST) in funding from Defence without clearly declaring the source of those funds. ASPI didn’t explain the discrepancy between its two reported figures. Shrinking support?In its annual report, ASPI splits income into two sources: “Defence funding” and “Sale of goods and rendering of services”. It also produced a gloomy graph [on original] showing how “core” funding had withered away from 100% of its income to a moderate 43%. However, the graph doesn’t take into account its numerous government tenders and contracts that have delivered a financial windfall. In the past five years the value of its government contracts has increased by more than 300%. (second graph on original] Figures from the Department of Finance’s procurement website AusTender show ASPI was awarded $2,133,716.62 in contracts between July 2019 and June 2020. ASPI records all these government payments in its annual reports but muddies the waters by consolidating them with sponsorships and other commercial revenue. ASPI has received 37 government contracts in the past two years. See below [on original] or click here for easier viewing………. Major backersASPI has received funding from the governments of Britain, Japan and Taiwan as well as NATO. Among its corporate supporters are global weapons makers Thales, BAE Systems, Raytheon, SAAB, Northrop Grumman, MDBA Missile Systems and Naval Group. Yet their contribution of over $330,000 last year is dwarfed by that of a handful of government departments and agencies. Disclosures to the Senate revealed that ASPI had at least 56 sources of income in 2018-19 which it categorised as either sponsorships or commissioned income. Critics might accuse ASPI of having a narrow world view, but its views are financially supported by a very broad base of benefactors. Michael West Editor’s Note: This is a special investigation by APAC News, Michael West Media and Pearls & Irritations https://www.michaelwest.com.au/independent-think-tank-aspi-behind-push-for-more-defence-spending-rakes-in-advisory-fees/ |
|
Australia’s environmental scientists intimidated, silenced by threats of job loss
 Australia’s environmental scientists intimidated, silenced by threats of job loss, Michael West Media, by Elizabeth Minter | Jan 17, 2021 The silencing of environmental scientists, as revealed in a study late last year, profoundly damages our democracy, wastes taxpayers’ money, takes a huge personal toll, allows fake news to proliferate and short-changes the public. Elizabeth Minter reports.
“I declared the (action) unsafe. I was overruled and … was told to be silent or never have a job again.” “We are often forbidden (from) talking about the true impacts of, say, a threatening process […] especially if the government is doing little to mitigate the threat.” “I was directly intimidated by phone and Twitter by (a senior public servant).” “… governments allow (industry) to treat data collected as commercial in confidence. This means experts most able to comment on the details of big mining and construction projects are hopelessly conflicted and legally gagged from discussing these projects in public.” “(Government) staff are rewarded or penalized on the basis of complying with opinions of senior staff regardless of evidence.” “I proposed an article in The Conversation about the impacts of mining […] The uni I worked at didn’t like the idea as they received funding from (the mining company).” All in a day’s workAll these comments, straight from the mouths of some of Australia’s most esteemed scientists, highlight the threats faced by ecologists, conservation scientists, conservation policy makers and environmental consultants, whether they are working in government, industry or universities. The scientists were responding to an online survey as part of a study conducted by academics Don Driscoll, Georgia Garrard, Alexander Kusmanoff, Stephen Dovers, Martine Maron, Noel Preece, Robert Pressey and Euan Ritchie. In an ironic twist, one of the research team’s initial members declined to contribute to the project for fear of losing funding and therefore their job. As the study’s authors note, scientists self-censor information for fear of damaging their careers, losing funding or being misrepresented in the media. In others, senior managers or ministers’ officers prevented researchers from speaking truthfully on scientific matters. This means important scientific information about environmental threats often does not reach the public or decision-makers, including government ministers. This information blackout, termed “science suppression”, can hide environmentally damaging practices and policies from public scrutiny. Survey methodology……….Ministers not receiving full informationSome 75% of the scientists surveyed reported having refrained from contributing to public discussion when given the opportunity – most commonly in traditional or social media. A small number self-censored conference presentations (9%) and peer-reviewed papers (7%). For scientists working in government, the main reasons they didn’t comment was because of attitudes of senior management (82%), workplace policy (72%), a minister’s office (63%) and middle management (62%). Fear of what would happen to their career prospects (49%) and concern about media misrepresentation (49%) also discouraged those working in government from speaking publicly. Almost 60% of scientists working in government and 36% of scientists in industry reported that internal communications were modified………… Critical conservation issues suppressedThe most common issue on which information was suppressed was threatened species. About half of industry and government scientists, and 28% of academics, said their commentary was constrained. Scientists working in government also reported not being able to comment on logging and climate change………….. The system is brokenOf those scientists who had spoken publicly about their research, 42% had been harassed or criticised for doing so. Of those, 83% believed the harassers were motivated by political or economic interests……. Change is neededAs witnessed by the past four years of Donald Trump’s presidency, it has never been more important to ensure that the public are exposed to facts and information from trusted sources……. The study was published late last year in Conservation Letters, a journal of the Society for Conversation Biology. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/australias-environmental-scientists-intimidated-silenced-by-threats-of-job-loss/ |
|
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.”1.This month
For updates: see Adelaide group Don’t Dump on SA https://www.facebook.com/dontdumponsa
No Radioactive Waste Facility for Kimba District https://www.facebook.com/noradwastekimba
And https://www.facebook.com/nodumpalliance
Please Sign: the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) sign on letter to federal Minister Pitt
Support the Barngarla People:
“Barngarla: Help us Have a Say on Kimba” to fund a legal challenge (judicial review)
Fundraiser by Barngarla People : Barngarla: Help us Have a Say on Kimba (gofundme.com)
Barngarla need as much support as we can to say NO to the Nuclear Waste Facility for KIMBA
Mahalia Bilney started this petition to Ken Wyatt (Minister for Indigenous Australians) and 1 other
Our Barngarla Mob need as much support as we can to say NO to the Nuclear Waste Facility proposed for Kimba! Help us fight to be heard and included in the importance of such a decision �� We won our native title to then be told we have no say and to go through this process all over again.
We don’t want the nuclear waste facility as they can’t guarantee it’s going to be safe and it will be a huge risk to the wildlife and environment. Not to mention the proposed areas are sacred and hold significance to my people and we don’t want more major damage to be caused, we want to try and preserve what we have left.
Research into this for yourselves, they say it’s low level but it’s technically high level! but our country marks it as low as our standards aren’t the same as the countries we’ll receive the waste from. It’s appalling and not wanted! So help us fight for our right to vote and hopefully stop it from happening
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.net
Appeal for Australian Government’s Actions on Japan’s Dumping Nuclear Wastewater into Sea
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
—
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
