IAEA and University of Tasmania Sign Practical Arrangements Agreement to Enhance Cooperation in Human Health, Agriculture, Environment and Marine Sciences Omar Yusuf, IAEA Department of Technical Cooperation On 12 December, the IAEA and the University of Tasmania (UTAS) signed a Practical Arrangement which provides a framework for closer collaboration in the areas of health, agriculture and the marine environment. The agreement – the first signed between the two organizations – covers the period of 2018 to 2021.
Under the new agreement, UTAS will support the IAEA’s technical cooperation efforts by providing both short- and long-term training programmes in the peaceful application of nuclear science, especially in the fields of human health and nutrition, nuclear medicine, agriculture, environment and marine sciences. Both parties will disseminate and exchange relevant educational material and evidence-based practices, and will work together to promote the application of nuclear technologies in human, social and scientific development.
The Practical Arrangement was signed by Rob Atkinson, Deputy Vice Chancellor Global of UTAS, on 11 December 2018 and countersigned on behalf of the IAEA by Dazhu Yang, Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Technical Cooperation, in the presence of Professor Andrew Hills and Professor Nuala Byrne of the UTAS College of Health and Medicine. …..https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-and-university-of-tasmania-sign-practical-arrangements-agreement-to-enhance-cooperation-in-human-health-agriculture-environment-and-marine-sciences
January 8, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Education |
Leave a comment
Christina’s note: “Burden of Proof”comes from a very small, but very vocal, Australian pro nuclear shill.
Response to ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 
100% renewable-electricity systems’ Science Direct Volume 92, September 2018, Pages 834-847 lT.W.BrownabT.Bischof-NiemzcK.BlokdC.BreyereH.LundfB.V.Mathieseng 847 lT.W.BrownabT.Bischof-NiemzcK.BlokdC.BreyereH.LundfB.V.Mathieseng https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.113
Highlights
- •We respond to a recent article that is critical of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems.
- •Based on a literature review we show that none of the issues raised in the article are critical for feasibility or viability.
- •Each issue can be addressed at low economic cost, while not affecting the main conclusions of the reviewed studies.
- •We highlight methodological problems with the choice and evaluation of the feasibility criteria.
- •We provide further evidence for the feasibility and viability of renewables-based systems.
-
Abstract
A recent article ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems’ claims that many studies of 100% renewable electricity systems do not demonstrate sufficient technical feasibility, according to the criteria of the article’s authors (henceforth ‘the authors’). Here we analyse the authors’ methodology and find it problematic. The feasibility criteria chosen by the authors are important, but are also easily addressed at low economic cost, while not affecting the main conclusions of the reviewed studies and certainly not affecting their technical feasibility. A more thorough review reveals that all of the issues have already been addressed in the engineering and modelling literature. Nuclear power, which the authors have evaluated positively elsewhere, faces other, genuine feasibility problems, such as the finiteness of uranium resources and a reliance on unproven technologies in the medium- to long-term. Energy systems based on renewables, on the other hand, are not only feasible, but already economically viable and decreasing in cost every year…………..
-
5. Conclusions
In ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems’ [73] the authors called into question the feasibility of highly renewable scenarios. To assess a selection of relevant studies, they chose feasibility criteria that are important, but not critical for either the feasibility or viability of the studies. We have shown here that all the issues can be addressed at low economic cost. Worst-case, conservative technology choices (such as dispatchable capacity for the peak load, grid expansion and synchronous compensators for ancillary services) are not only technically feasible, but also have costs which are a magnitude smaller than the total system costs. More cost-effective solutions that use variable renewable generators intelligently are also available. The viability of these solutions justifies the focus of many studies on reducing the main costs of bulk energy generation.
As a result, we conclude that the 100% renewable energy scenarios proposed in the literature are not just feasible, but also viable. As we demonstrated in Section 4.4, 100% renewable systems that meet the energy needs of all citizens at all times are cost-competitive with fossil-fuel-based systems, even before externalities such as global warming, water usage and environmental pollution are taken into account.
The authors claim that a 100% renewable world will require a ‘re-invention’ of the power system; we have shown here that this claim is exaggerated: only a directed evolution of the current system is required to guarantee affordability, reliability and sustainability. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307
December 30, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Frazer-Nash Consultant, Ben Heard, will be speaking at The International Mining and Resources
Conference (IMARC) in Melbourne on Wednesday 31 October. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia.
“Ben will be giving the keynote address, “Nuclear power in Australia: an ongoing debate”, which discusses the changing nature of the Australian power industry.”
It is only an ongoing debate because lobbyists and unknown sourced lobbying money have such a corrupting influence on our politics. The nuclear push is reaching fever pitch because a lot pro-nuclear pollies will probably be gone after the next election – and the cross bench may get their wish of a Federal ICAC – which could shine a spotlight on the corrupting influence of Nuclear cack lobbying. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/permalink/2171512056213773/?comment_id=2173512052680440¬if_id=1540684271625148¬if_t=group_comment
October 29, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
1 Comment
New industry white paper for Australia from published for the coming mining conference: ‘Identifying the role for nuclear power in Australia’s energy transition’. “Free download” from International Mining and Resources Conference – but ya gotta fill in dirty great forms to read it. The nuke lobby doesn’t want outsiders in on this
October 29, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
 The 60 Minutes Fukushima nuclear infomercial, Independent AustraliaNoel Wauchope 23 October 2018 A FEW YEARS AGO, Channel 9’s 60 Minutes did an excellent investigation of the Fukushima nuclear accident.
This Fukushima investigation was compered by Liz Hayes. I recall that, at the time, the program was a much more thorough, serious and well-resourced presentation than anything put forward by even the ABC or SBS.
However, I was pretty appalled at the latest 60 Minutes coverage of the Fukushima issue, which screened on Sunday (21 October) titled, Is nuclear power the solution to our energy crisis?
The main message of this program is a call to scrap Australia’s legislation against establishing the nuclear industry. The argument given is that we need nuclear power because it is supposedly cheap and dependable. We also need it because it is supposedly essential to combat climate change.
This time, the reporter is not Liz Hayes. It’s Tom Steinfort, who is described as a “seasoned Channel 9 star”. Does a seasoned Channel 9 star just accept without question the claims made in this episode?
Among claims made:
If Mr Steinfort really is a star reporter, I would expect him to have done his homework before swallowing these claims hook line and sinker. ………
So, what do we make of this latest offering about Fukushima, from 60 Minutes? It must have taken a lot of money and a lot of negotiation to get a 60 Minutes camera team inside the Fukushima nuclear station. I assume that the negotiations were largely arranged by Ben Heard, who has influential nuclear contacts overseas — particularly in Russia and South Africa, where he has been a prominent nuclear spokesperson. In Russia, Heard launched Rosatom National Geographic — a nuclear soft sell environmental program.
I think that we can be sure of one thing. As Japan plans for the 2020 Olympics – some sections of which are to take place in Fukushima Prefecture – the Japanese Government is not likely to permit a team with any anti-nuclear perspective access to the crippled nuclear power plant.
The 60 Minutes media team would have had to have the Japanese authorities on side. I would bet, some companies keen to set up the nuclear industry in Australia would also be on side and keen to assist.
There have been rumblings, too, of yet another resurgence for nuclear energy in Australia, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison declaring that he is ‘open to the idea of nuclear power’ and that ‘the source of Australia’s energy doesn’t bother him and he isn’t interested in an ideological debate’.
Is it too much to hope that Channel 9 might do something to correct this nuclear infomercial and give us a different, more comprehensive view, rather than one blessed by Japanese authorities and the nuclear power lobby? https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/the-60-minutes-fukushima-nuclear-infomercial,12023
|
|
|
October 25, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, media, spinbuster |
2 Comments
Nuclear industry responds by calling those who disagree with the ICRP and IAEA in these matters “radiophobes”. The Japanese government responds to the disagreement coming from its people with more and more imposed secrecy, and greater compliance with international nuclear bodies. Looked at in another way, the Japanese government obeys the IAEA and ICRP.
It is little wonder theJapanese world nuclear industry via its local mouthpieces and puppets in every land continues to claim the effects of the nuclear disaster have no consequence. Nor is it any surprise that the nuclear industry continues to illegally diagnose opponents to its dictates and insults as being “radiophobic”.
Earthquake Damage At Fukushima – is Industry’s Narrative Truthful or Certain? Nuclear History, 16 Oct 18 “……..As I have pointed out previously, the declared extent of decontamination in Japan has enable some evacuees to return to their homes. The residual contamination remaining in those cleanup areas being about the same, roughly, as the Maralinga lands in South Australia after cleanup there. The risk of radiogenic cancer in the Maralinga Lands in 1 in 50,000 over 50 years. The owners of the Maralinga lands had been suffering forced removal from their lands from the 1950s until the 1990s, with full return of lands completed in the 21st century. Many people died waiting to return.
In Japan many people are concerned that they have been economically forced to return to places prior to a proper cleanup. In Australia, many people are concerned that the Maralinga cleanup was a dud, cheap, and insufficient. As usual vitrification in nuclear residues resulted in explosions and so elements including plutonium were simply buried in trenches.
In Japan, great piles of contaminated material, so active the piles have to be shielded with sand bag shielding in order to protected nuclear garbage workers, remain in the open air. A minority of the material is under cover in interim storage.
But all of this is claimed to be of no consequence according to the nuclear industry.
Since the 1990s, when the Maralinga cleanup was designed around the new intervention level proposed by the ICRP planned for the 21 century, many Australians have stated that the new levels allowed are too high. And that the risk at Maralinga is too high. The ICRP intervention level is 10 mSv. The actual level aimed at Maralinga was 5 mSv. Japan complies with the guidelines. And that fact is in actual reality no comfort for many many affected Japanese people. No comfort at all. Because those people do not trust either nuclear authorities or their own government. Continue reading →
October 16, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
The status of “Station Blackout” is a serious one.
“it will be many years before the Japanese people know exactly what happened at Fukushima Daiichi on 11 March 2011. One of the key mysteries was role, if any, the magnitude 9 earthquake played in damaging the plant’s reactor cooling systems. Until lethal levels of radiation inside the reactors fall and workers can carry out comprehensive investigations, the truth about the tremor’s impact will remain a subject of conjecture and contention”
Mr. Takamatsu states with expert authority that the pipes of cooling system ware not designed for the 50 second vibration of the magnitude quake. Barry Brook, kangaroo expert, disagrees and tells the world the quake caused no damage at Fukushima. Yet Mr. Brook must surely know the earthquake caused grid blackout. For reactors are all shut down by earthquakes. A solar plant would have kept generating until the last panel shattered. No one would have been evacuated from such a solar plant.
I submit that Prof. Barry Brook’s description of the effects of earthquake upon the Fukushima Diiachi on 11
March 2011 is totally ignorant of the facts as presented by many qualified experts and fly in the face of the independent commission set up by the Japanese Parliament (Diet). It is confirmed that expert investigators concern aspects of TEPCO’s explanations regarding the quake are “irrational”.
Thus any narrative based upon the nuclear industry view, in line with TEPCO’s may fairly be said to be “irrational”. For the industry view is that there is no possibility of quake damage to any structure or sub structure, such as coolant pipes and valves.
Earthquake Damage At Fukushima – is Industry’s Narrative Truthful or Certain? Nuclear History, 16 Oct 18 I am again going to contrast the statements made by Barry Brook in regard to the events and outcomes at Fukushima Daiichi in 2011 with the facts as presented by Mark Willacy. These facts are published in Willacy’s book, “Fukushima – Japan’s tsunami and the inside story of the nuclear meltdowns”, Willacy, M., Pan Macmillan, copyright 2013, Mark Willacy.
However, I will also include information related to the events which were first published and discussed in 2011. ………..
The earthquake generated the tsunami. What else did the earthquake cause?
In this blog I have included posts which give the IAEA considerations for the electrical grids which are connected to nuclear power plants. The IAEA states that the level of engineering and resilience built into such grids may be a significant additional cost for any nation considering generation to nuclear power.
It comes as no surprise then the electrical grid connected to the Fukushima Daiichi NPP failed for two reasons. 1. The earthquake caused all the nuclear reactors connected to the same grid to rapidly shut down. Thus the earthquake caused a blackout due to cessation of electrical generation. 2. The physical grid infrastructure – poles and wires – were damaged by the earthquake. At Fukushima this meant that more than one of the reactors was physically separated from the grid by the earthquake.
It can therefore be seen that the earthquake meant A. Fukushima Diiachi could not generate nuclear electricity as the quake had shut the reactors down. B. The Fukushima Diiachi Nuclear Power Plant was in Station Blackout for one reason: earth quake damage to nuclear infrastructure – the electrical grid. Continue reading →
October 16, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Prof. Brook is probably, in my opinion, clearly very inadequate when he researches things such as nuclear industry. He claims academic privilege when he communicates his mere opinions related to a field he possesses no training or little training or qualifications in. He can’t have it both ways. The privilege which springs from his actual qualifications may give him status in other things on campus. Away from the lecture theatre though, his opinions of the nature of nuclear industry have zero academic weight….“I’m an academic and therefore I am right” does not wash with me
2003 saw Prof. Shimazaki speak at the first meeting of the government’s Disaster Management Council. This council formed government disaster policy. He urged the council to study the Jogan earthquake of 869 and warned the Japanese Trench could generate earthquakes anywhere along Japan’s Pacific coast.
since 2008 TEPCO management had been busy suppressing THE SAME CONCLUSION of grave risk of 15 metre tsunamis hitting the Fukushima coast, made by TEPCO’s own engineers using simulations and mathematics.
Expert fore warning of the 2011 Tsunami Ignored and Suppressed by Nuclear Authorities. Nuclear Exhaust 12 Oct 18
this post is in progress. Not finished.
I am again going to contrast the statements made by Barry Brook in regard to the tsunami defences at Fukushima Daiichi with the facts as presented by Mark Willacy. These facts are published in Willacy’s book, “Fukushima – Japan’s tsunami and the inside story of the nuclear meltdowns”, Willacy, M., Pan Macmillan, copyright 2013, Mark Willacy.
An interesting aspect of the work of Barry Brook is this: The views expressed by Barry are very frequently attributed by Barry to people who are, according to Barry, experts in nuclear industry. I have heard Barry’s public broadcasts in which Barry makes this attribution. I have not heard Barry give the names of his advisors and friends in the nuclear industry. However it is extremely likely Barry is correct in his attributions. Barry’s statements of opinions and claimed facts can reasonably be assumed to have been provided to Barry by unnamed – as far as I am aware – experts in the nuclear industry. The credibility of Barry statements ride therefore upon the credibility of the nuclear industry.
Of course it is no surprise to hear Barry Brook mirror the statements of nuclear experts from around the world in 2011. The narrative of the global nuclear industry as broadcast by the mass media and the narrative provided by Barry Brook were, as I recall, mutually re-affirming.
Here again is a selected, partial transcript of Barry Brook’s Australian ABC TV interview (please watch the complete interview at the youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFs_-8DtZvo
“Prof. Brook: “I think they (events) show the vulnerability of any human infrastructure to the forces of nature. Especially when they are unleashed with such fury as they were with that massive earthquake, the largest one to hit Japan in recorded times, and a 10 metre tsunami. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect any infrastructure along a coastline like that to survive an event like that. But what it does highlight is that decisions were made back in the ‘60s, when that nuclear power plant was planned and built, they did not anticipate the scale of the natural disaster that occurred here.”
Prof. Brook: “They predicted up to a 6.5 metres tsunami and protected against that. But of course, as events turned out, the tsunami was even bigger than that………
In a previous post I pointed out that Willacy had found that Dr.Yukinobu Okamura, the director of Japan’s Active Fault and Earthquake Research Centre, had, in 2007, found evidence in the geologic record that the Fukushima coast had been hit by massive tsunamis in its past. (Fukushima, page 26)
I also pointed out that in 2008 TEPCO engineers using simulations and calculations discovered that tsunamis as high as 15.7 metres were possible at the site of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. (Fukushima, page 29)
This discovery by TEPCO engineers was suppressed by TEPCO management from the Japanese people and Japanese government until 7 March 2011, or 4 days before the 3/11 quake and tsunami disaster. (Fukushima, page 29) Continue reading →
October 15, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, reference, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
‘ Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 12 Oct 18 “Of course none of this has any impact on plants built at coastal locations…” Robert Parker, speaking about release of nuclear reactor’s hot water into sea.
Dismissing this saying no impact is simply, false.
Nonetheless, that fact, is subjective to whether an individual or corporate group values the earth environment in saying: ‘there is no impact’.
Because it is a matter of record there are three major outcomes.
1. The temperature increase in the bodies of water can have serious adverse effects on aquatic life.
2. Warm water holds less oxygen than cold water, thus discharge from once-through cooling systems can create a “temperature squeeze” that elevates the metabolic rate for fish.
3. Additionally, suction pipes that are used to intake water can draw plankton, eggs and larvae into the plant’s machinery, while larger organisms can be trapped against the protective screens of the pipes.
Furthermore, before anyone comes back with a smart comment just be aware these nuclear reactor cooling systems run 24/7, 356 days per year.
Pushing out up to 3.745 gigalitres of water, taking excess heat out of the nuclear reactor system.
3.745 gigalitres = 3,785,411,784 litres per day of heated water is dumped into a coastal ecosystem.
* Based on whose value system, is there ‘no impact’, on the ocean environment from the hot water out of a nuclear reactor? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/permalink/2148091265222519/?comment_id=2149661798398799&reply_comment_id=2149928731705439¬if_id=1539243606787050¬if_t=group_comment
October 13, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
1 Comment
This is an extract of an email being sent out to encourage YES submissions for the waste dump from Bright New World. It is misleading, as the email states the THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE in KAWKER AND KIMBA support the dump. The email makes the process simple by writing the submission and asking the recipient of the email to fill in their name only. Here’s the email in total. Please send an email to Bright New World if you believe that the majority of people do not want the dump and ask for a recall of the email as it is not factual.
Call for Submissions!
The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science is calling for submissions on the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. The two volunteered sites, Kimba and Hawker, are progressing through the second consultation stage of this process. Submissions along with community feedback and voting will inform the Minister of their decision to progress to the next stage.
Submissions are due 24th September 2018
Bright New World has provided an easy to use letter below to email the Department supporting the process to the next stage. Continue reading →
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Claim we’re on track to meet emissions targets is false, New Daily, James Fernyhough, Money Editor @JamesFernyhough 20 Sept 18 Australia’s new energy minister Angus Taylor made a claim about carbon emissions this week that looked on the surface to be fantastic news, but on closer inspection is false.
Here is what he wrote in the Australian Financial Review on Tuesday:
“[E]missions reductions are the least of our problems, with every prospect we will reach the 26 per cent reduction below 2005 levels ahead of schedule and without interventions.”
This, he implied, justified the Morrison government’s decision to do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, and focus instead exclusively on price and reliability.
But The New Daily looked into Mr Taylor’s claim, and the evidence suggests it is in one sense downright false, and in another seriously misleading.
Let’s address the seriously misleading aspect first.
Under the Paris Agreement, Australia has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.
According to Mr Taylor’s department, Australia is on track to woefully miss the 2030 target.
On page 11 of this document from December last year, the Department of Environment and Energy projects that if no new emissions-reduction policies are implemented (as none have been), our greenhouse emissions will be just 5 per cent below 2005 levels – not 26 per cent, as Mr Taylor seems to claim.
Mr Taylor’s figures appear at a glance to be off by a massive 21 percentage points……….
The Morrison government has scrapped the NEG – the policy that triggered Malcolm Turnbull’s downfall – and has made it clear it will not replace it with anything.
So we are once more back to where we were – on track to miss all our emissions reductions targets.
Minister Taylor’s office did not respond when presented with the evidence that his statement was false. https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2018/09/18/energy-ministers-claim-carbon-emissions-false/
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming, politics, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Australian pro nuclear propagandist Ben Heard has moved from chief of the fake environmental group Bright New World, to engineering consultancy firm Frazer-Nash. We wondered why? Well, here are some clues.
World Nuclear News 14th Sept 2018 Consultants Frazer-Nash, in collaboration with Rolls-Royce, the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), EDF Energy, Jacobsen Analytics, Lancaster University, University of Bristol and University of York are set to deliver a nuclear safety and security research contract. Frazer-Nash said yesterday that, working on behalf of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), the GBP3.6 million (USD4.7 million), two-year project, aims to deliver a “step change in the UK’s capability as the country moves toward an era of new nuclear build and new technologies.”
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-companies-to-deliver-safety-and-security-resear
Nuclear lobby aims to change public view from acceptance of nuclear power to demand for nuclear power Mikhail Chudakov , deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told delegates at the World Nuclear Association Symposium 2018 held in London last week, said the industry needs to change public acceptance of nuclear power to public demand . WNN 14 Sept 18
“…… Radioactive waste management practice must provide public reassurance that the industry has managed programmes for the whole lifecycle, he said.
Demand for nuclear
Public acceptance remains a key factor for the future of nuclear power, he said, and largely depends on public perception of the benefits and risks associated with this form of power generation, but also of the benefits and risks of non-nuclear alternatives.
All stakeholders ought to reinforce the social and economic benefits of nuclear power.
“We need to explain and to start education at all levels, from kindergarten, school and university, to parliament and ministers. We should not be ashamed to talk about nuclear energy; we are always defending ourselves, but it’s time to start attacking – to actively explain and promote nuclear power,” he said………We will greatly improve our chances for success if our efforts can shift the paradigm from gaining public acceptance of nuclear power to generating well-informed public demand for nuclear power. We must reinforce the benefits of nuclear power. This is a big, but a vitally important task and it will require enhanced international cooperation.………..http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-industry-faces-wake-up-call,-says-IAEAs-Ch?feed=feed
September 16, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
Steve Dale shared a link. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, September 8 Ben Heard’s Linked-in profile has Frazer-Nash Consultancy as one of his present employers. I’m sure this company do many things, but the following two items from the UK site got my attention –
“Excellence in submarine design, nuclear propulsion and weapon systems”
………..”With over three decades of industry experience, Frazer-Nash successfully helps clients meet the strict nuclear industry regulatory requirements throughout the life of their nuclear projects; including the full lifecycle management of nuclear material and waste.”
From Maralinga, Pangea, to NFCRC – there always seems to be a UK connection.
September 10, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
South Australia, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
South Australia has this organisation Engage 2 Act. I know little about it. Perhaps it is a genuine organisation. Perhaps you just have to offer yourself as a speaker for their functions, and no checking is done?
Anyway good old nuclear propagandist Ben Heard is right into it., and will be speaking at their function Escape 2 The Country South Australia, on November 16.
August 22, 2018
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
South Australia, spinbuster |
Leave a comment
