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.”Australian govt has quiet nuclear deal with China, but condemns Victoria-China medical research
Double standards on research cooperation with China, Independent Australia 4 January 2021, The Government is hypocritical in its approval of Australia’s nuclear research body to work with China on the development of nuclear reactors, writes Noel Wauchope.
PRIME MINISTER Scott Morrison’s Liberal Coalition Government seems to remain in silent approval of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s (ANSTO) partnership with a Chinese company to develop Generation IV nuclear technologies such as small nuclear reactors.
But it’s a different story when it comes to the Morrison Government’s concern to put a stop to the Victorian Labor Government’s cooperation with China in developing agricultural, communications and medical research.
We hear very little about the Australian Government’s research connections with China, managed under the Australia-China Science and Research Fund (ACSRF), which has the aim of ‘supporting strategic science, technology and innovation collaboration of mutual benefit to Australia and China’.
One remarkable collaboration between Australia and China is in the strategic partnership between ANSTO and the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP) to develop the Thorium Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor (TMSR) and other Generation IV nuclear reactor designs.
In March 2019, Dr Adi Paterson, then CEO of ANSTO, welcomed renewal of this agreement and was reported as stating that it was “consistent with ANSTO and Australia’s interest in and support of Generation IV reactor systems”. This statement was made at a time when Australia’s federal and state laws clearly prohibited the development of nuclear reactors.
The Age quoted anonymous senior Federal Government sources who reveal that the Australian Government may use its powers to tear up a research agreement between the Victorian Government and China’s Jiangsu province. This agreement was signed in 2012 and renewed in 2019……….
The USA partly funds the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which strongly advises against cooperative research with China. And, of course, Victorian Liberal Opposition leader Michael O’Brien was quick to join in the chorus, condemning the Labor Government for having the deal with China.
All this makes it all the more inexplicable as to why the Australian Government should have an agreement with China to develop nuclear reactors. Under federal law, Australia prohibits establishing nuclear installations. ……..
There has been virtually no media coverage of Dr Adi Paterson’s deal with China, which goes back to 2015. I have previously written about this and the secrecy under which it was conducted.
Indeed, ANSTO’s operations and its funding have been conducted in secrecy, under the comfortable shroud of national security.
Right now, there is a move to corporatise the nuclear medicine facility at Lucas Heights as a separate entity to ANSTO. At the same time, the Government is in an unseemly rush to set up a nuclear waste dump near Kimba in South Australia. In the midst of all this came the sudden unexplained resignation of the CEO, Dr Adi Paterson.
The silence on all this is disturbing. It must be especially so for the small rural community of Kimba and for the Indigenous Title Holders as they wait in limbo for the vexed question of the nuclear waste dump to be solved. For the rest of South Australia, that is a concern, too. Victorians may well wonder why their medical research cooperation with China is seen as so dangerous. Meanwhile, is it okay for Australia’s nuclear research body, ANSTO, to work with China on the development of small nuclear reactors? https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/double-standards-on-research-cooperation-with-china,14664
Assange hearing outcome could set an “alarming precedent” for free speech
 Assange hearing outcome could set an “alarming precedent” for free speech https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2020/12/assange-hearing-outcome-could-set-an-alarming-precedent-for-free-speech/ Benjamin Lynch
People need to “forget what they think they know” about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and recognise that if he is extradited to the USA, it would set a worrying precedent for media freedom. We speak to his partner about the case. Assange’s partner, Stella Moris, is remaining resolute despite his extradition hearing decision being less than a month away and him being held in a prison that has recently had a Covid-19 outbreak.
Speaking over the phone to Index, Moris discusses the hearing’s details and what it could mean for the future of freedom of expression. And she talks about the deep implications it has had for her and her young family. “Obviously it is very difficult. I speak to Julian on a daily basis unless there is a problem. [But] he is in prison. Soon to be for two years. He has been there for longer than many violent prisoners who are serving sentences. All in all, he has been deprived of his liberty for ten years now,” she told Index. She adds: “The kids speak to their father every day; we try to normalise it as much as we can for them. But of course, this is not a normal situation and our lives are on hold. It is inhumane and shouldn’t be happening in the UK.” The current hearing – which will decide whether there are grounds for Assange to stand trial in the USA – should reach a conclusion on 4 January. A trial in the USA (should the decision go against Assange) will have major ramifications for free speech and whistleblower journalism. The WikiLeaks founder is charged with conspiring with US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning and hackers from groups such as Anonymous and LulzSec to obtain and publish classified information. Each of the 18 charges laid by US authorities, if Assange is extradited and convicted, carry a maximum penalty of 10 years. The allegations brought forward under the 1917 Espionage Act, alongside one other under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, mean Assange could face up to 175 years in prison – effectively a life sentence. Manning was initially sentenced to 35 years, but under the Obama administration her sentence was commuted to less than seven years. It is easy to get sidetracked about the current extradition hearing and get into arguments about whether Assange is a journalist, whether he is guilty of other crimes or whether the publication of the documents brought harm to anyone involved. Instead people’s attentions should focus on the precedent that will be set should the case go to trial in the USA. As it stands the case is unprecedented. No publisher has ever been tried under the Espionage Act, which itself was essentially created for spies imparting official secrets either for profit or otherwise. This is perhaps a direct contradiction of rulings of the courts in the UK. In December 2017, the UK’s information tribunal recognised WikiLeaks as a media organisation, in direct contradiction to the view of the US State Department. Australia’s media union, the Media, Arts and Entertainment Alliance, also presented an honorary member card to Assange’s Melbourne-based lawyer. Amidst the noise of the separate matters around the case, Moris insists people need to “forget what they think they know” and assess the issues involved. “There are a lot of assumptions being made over what this case is really about. There are all these sideshows. It is not about people being harmed because the US has admitted it has no evidence to make this argument. It comes down to the fact that the material published was classified. People who care about free speech and press freedom need to forget what they think they know about this case and look at it afresh and understand Julian is in prison for publishing. This is not something that democracies do.” “Are they saying what he published was not in the public interest? They say that is irrelevant. They can’t deny [what he published] wasn’t in the public interest because he was publishing information and evidence of state crimes, of state abuse, torture, of rendition, blacksites and of illegal killings. What they are arguing is that Julian published information that was secret and therefore he can be prosecuted over it.” ournalists publishing secret information is not new (nor is pressure for them not to publish) and can often be key to upholding democracy and ensuring states act properly. The Watergate revelations relied heavily on news organisations pressing on with publication despite attempts by the USA to stop them, including the threat of jail time. It proved a significant victory for free speech. If Assange is extradited and tried the case will impact journalists and the media “for years to come”, says Rebecca Vincent, director of international campaigns at Reporters Without Borders (RSF). “It feels like many in the media do not see the implications of this case as something that will possibly affect them,” she told Index. “This case will have ramifications on the climates for journalism and press freedom internationally for years to come.” “This is the first time we have seen the US government prosecute anybody for publishing leaked information. If they are successful, they will not stop with Assange and WikiLeaks. This could be applied, in theory, to any media outlet.” It’s common for journalists and publishers to cite a public interest defence for disputed documents. It is a centrepiece of a defence case against libel, for instance. “The information published was certainly in the public interest; it served to inform extensive public interest reporting that exposed war crimes and other illegal actions by states,” said Vincent. “The Espionage Act lacks a public interest defence. He cannot use it if he is sent to the United States and tried.” Essentially, what this means is that Assange is being treated as a spy not a publisher. If Assange is extradited and loses his case against the US government, any time classified information is published by a journalist there will be a precedent set that they can be charged and tried as a spy in the same way. “These sorts of cases are really highlighting the need for more robust legislation that cannot be manipulated to be used against journalists, whistleblowers and other sources. Ultimately, it is the public’s right to access information that is being impacted,” Vincent added. “You can see this for what it is; this very much feels like a political prosecution by states that are not meant to engage in this behaviour. The reason our states can get away with this is because of a lack of public pressure. A lack of public sympathy has resulted in a lack of widespread public pressure to hold our governments to account.” |
|
Busting the spin on Kimba’s “wonderful” new industry – nuclear waste dumping
Kazzi Jai No nuclear waste dump anywhere in South Australia , 31 Dec 2020,
particularly when they can’t even get the timeline right about how long Kimba has been “in the process”…..Hint – Kimba was taken COMPLETELY off the list in April 2016 and only through one (greedy) person’s perseverance – how much money are we getting for that “very low value farmland” again????….Kimba was back on the short list the following year 2017
would be CROWING about how FORTUNATE these towns are to have PARTICIPATED and gotten up to $2 million for their respective communities again. And it WAS communities we were talking about…NOT individuals getting an individual commercial advantage…..BECAUSE that’s right AGAINST the rules isn’t it?
HAPPY NEW YEAR!—
Reality bats last-Small Nuclear Reactors just not economic for Australia (or anywhere else)
Small modular reactor rhetoric hits a hurdle https://reneweconomy.com.au/small-modular-reactor-rhetoric-hits-a-hurdle-62196/ Jim Green, 23 June 2020, The promotion of ‘small modular reactors’ (SMRs) in Australia has been disrupted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO).
The latest GenCost report produced by the two agencies estimates a hopelessly uneconomic construction cost of A$16,304 per kilowatt (kW) for SMRs. Continue reading
“Ecomodernists” – Ben Heard, Oscar Archer, Barry Brook, Geoff Russell, – Australia’s pro-nuclear fake environmentalists
|
Aboriginal First Nations and Australia’s ‘pro-nuclear environmentalists’ Jim Green – Nuclear Monitor | 10th July 2018 Australia’s Aboriginal people have long been mistreated by governments and industry in the pursuit of nuclear projects. The attitudes of ‘pro-nuclear environmentalists’ or ‘ecomodernists’ towards Aboriginal people is as disrespectful as those of governments and industry, argues JIM GREEN. The plan to turn South Australia (SA) into the world’s nuclear waste dump has lost momentum since 2016 though it continues to be promoted by some politicians, the Business SA lobby group, and an assortment of individuals and lobbyists including self-styled ‘pro-nuclear environmentalists’ or ‘ecomodernists‘. In its 2016 report, the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission established by the state government promoted a plan to import 138,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste (about one-third of the world’s total) and 390,000 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste. The state Labor government then spent millions on a state-wide promotional campaign under the guide of consultation. …….. The Royal Commission Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce ‒ a retired Navy officer ‒ didn’t appoint a single Aboriginal person to the staff of the Royal Commission or to his Expert Advisory Committee. Aboriginal people repeatedly expressed frustration with the Royal Commission process…… No analysis but favourable conclusions Despite its acknowledgement that it had not systematically analysed the matter, the Royal Commission nevertheless arrived at unequivocal, favourable conclusions, asserting that there “are frameworks for securing long-term agreements with rights holders in South Australia, including Aboriginal communities” and these “provide a sophisticated foundation for securing agreements with rights holders and host communities regarding the siting and establishment of facilities for the management of used fuel.” Such statements were conspicuously absent in submissions from Aboriginal people and organisations. There is in fact an abundance of evidence that land rights and heritage protection frameworks in SA are anything but “sophisticated.”……. Enter the ecomodernists
Ben Heard from the ‘Bright New World’ pro-nuclear lobby group said the Royal Commission’s findings were “robust”. Seriously? Failing to conduct an analysis and ignoring an abundance of contradictory evidence but nevertheless concluding that a “sophisticated foundation” exists for securing agreements with Aboriginal rights-holders … that’s “robust”?
In a November 2016 article about the nuclear waste import plan, Ben Heard and Oscar Archer wrote: “We also note and respect the clear message from nearly all traditional owner groups in South Australia that there is no consent to proceed on their lands. We have been active from the beginning to shine a light on pathways that make no such imposition on remote lands.” In Heard’s imagination, the imported spent nuclear fuel would not be dumped on the land of unwilling Aboriginal communities, it would be processed for use as fuel in non-existent Generation IV ‘integral fast reactors‘. Even the stridently pro-nuclear Royal Commission gave short shrift to Heard’s proposal, stating in its final report: “[A]dvanced fast reactors and other innovative reactor designs are unlikely to be feasible or viable in the foreseeable future. The development of such a first-of-a-kind project in South Australia would have high commercial and technical risk.” Heard claims his imaginary Generation IV reactor scenario “circumvents the substantial challenge of social consent for deep geological repositories, facilities that are likely to be best located, on a technical basis, on lands of importance to Aboriginal Australians”. But even in Heard’s scenario, only a tiny fraction of the imported spent fuel would be converted to fuel for imaginary Generation IV reactors (in one of his configurations, 60,000 tonnes would be imported but only 4,000 tonnes converted to fuel). Most of it would be stored indefinitely, or dumped on the land of unwilling Aboriginal communities. Honoured in the breach Heard says he “respects” the opposition of Traditional Owners to the waste import plan, but that respect appears to be honoured in the breach. Despite his acknowledgement that there was “no consent” to proceed from “nearly all traditional owner groups in South Australia”, Heard nevertheless wrote an ‘open letter‘ promoting the waste import plan which was endorsed by ‘prominent’ South Australians, i.e. rich, non-Aboriginal people. One of the reasons to pursue the waste import plan cited in Heard’s open letter is that it would provide an “opportunity to engage meaningfully and partner with Aboriginal communities in project planning and delivery”. There is no acknowledgement of the opposition of Aboriginal people to the waste import plan ‒ evidently Heard believes that their opposition should be ignored and overridden but Aboriginal people might be given a say in project planning and delivery. A second version of Heard’s open letter did not include the above wording but it cited the “successful community consultation program” with Aboriginal communities. However the report arising from the SA government’s community consultation program (successful or otherwise) stated: “There was a significant lack of support for the government to continue pursuing any form of nuclear storage and disposal facilities. Some Aboriginal people indicated that they are interested in learning more and continuing the conversation, but these were few in number.” Beyond offensive Geoff Russell, another self-styled pro-nuclear environmentalist, wrote in a November 2016 article in New Matilda: “Have Aboriginals given any reasons for opposing a waste repository that are other than religious? If so, then they belong with other objections. If not, then they deserve the same treatment as any other religious objections. Listen politely and move on. “Calling them spiritual rather than religious makes no difference. To give such objections standing in the debate over a repository is a fundamental violation of the separation of church and state, or as I prefer to put it, the separation of mumbo-jumbo and evidence based reasoning. “Aboriginals have native title over various parts of Australia and their right to determine what happens on that land is and should be quite different from rights with regard to other land. This isn’t about their rights on that land. “Suppose somebody wants to build a large intensive piggery. Should we consult Aboriginals in some other part of the country? Should those in the Kimberley perhaps be consulted? No. “They may object to it in the same way I would, but they have no special rights in the matter. They have no right to spiritual veto.” Where to begin? Russell’s description of Aboriginal spiritual beliefs as “mumbo-jumbo” is beyond offensive. His claim that Traditional Owners are speaking for other people’s country is a fabrication. Federal native title legislation provides limited rights and protections for some Traditional Owners ‒ and no rights and protections for many others (when the federal Coalition government was trying to impose a national nuclear waste dump on Aboriginal land in SA in 2003, it abolished all native title rights and interests over the site). National nuclear waste dump The attitudes of the ecomodernists also extend to the debate over the siting of a proposed national nuclear waste dump. Silence from the ecomodernists when the federal government was passing laws allowing the imposition of a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory without consent from Traditional Owners. Echoing comments from the Liberal Party, Brook and Heard said the site in the Northern Territory was in the “middle of nowhere”. From their perspective, perhaps, but for Muckaty Traditional Owners the site is in the middle of their homelands. Heard claims that one of the current proposed dump sites, in SA’s Flinders Ranges, is “excellent” in many respects and it “was volunteered by the landowner”. In fact, it was volunteered by absentee landlord and former Liberal Party politician Grant Chapman, who didn’t bother to consult Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners living on the neighbouring Indigenous Protected Area. The site is opposed by most Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners and by their representative body, the Adnyamathanha Traditional Lands Association (ATLA). Indigenous Protected Area Heard claims there are “no known cultural heritage issues” affecting the Flinders Ranges site. Try telling that to the Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners who live on Yappala Station, in the Indigenous Protected Area adjacent to the proposed dump site. The area has many archaeological and culturally-significant sites that Traditional Owners have registered with the SA government over the past decade. So where did Heard get this idea that there are “no known cultural heritage issues on the site”? Not from visiting the site, or speaking to Traditional Owners. He’s just repeating the federal government’s propaganda. Silence from the ecomodernists about the National Radioactive Waste Management Act (NRWMA), which dispossesses and disempowers Traditional Owners in every way imaginable:
Uranium mining Silence from the ecomodernists about the Olympic Dam mine’s exemptions from provisions of the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act. Silence from the ecomodernists about sub-section 40(6) of the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal Land Rights Act, which exempts the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory from the Act and thus removed the right of veto that Mirarr Traditional Owners would otherwise have enjoyed. Silence from the ecomodernists about the divide-and-rule tactics used by General Atomics’ subsidiary Heathgate Resources against Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners in relation to the Beverley and Four Mile uranium mines in SA. Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner Dr Jillian Marsh, who in 2010 completed a PhD thesis on the strongly contested approval of the Beverley mine, puts the nuclear debates in a broader context: “The First Nations people of Australia have been bullied and pushed around, forcibly removed from their families and their country, denied access and the right to care for their own land for over 200 years. Our health and wellbeing compares with third world countries, our people crowd the jails. “Nobody wants toxic waste in their back yard, this is true the world over. We stand in solidarity with people across this country and across the globe who want sustainable futures for communities, we will not be moved.” Now, Traditional Owners have to fight industry, government, and the ecomodernists as well. Silence from the ecomodernists about the divide-and-rule tactics used by General Atomics’ subsidiary Heathgate Resources against Adnyamathanha Traditional Owners in relation to the Beverley and Four Mile uranium mines in SA. Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner Dr Jillian Marsh, who in 2010 completed a PhD thesis on the strongly contested approval of the Beverley mine, puts the nuclear debates in a broader context: “The First Nations people of Australia have been bullied and pushed around, forcibly removed from their families and their country, denied access and the right to care for their own land for over 200 years. Our health and wellbeing compares with third world countries, our people crowd the jails. “Nobody wants toxic waste in their back yard, this is true the world over. We stand in solidarity with people across this country and across the globe who want sustainable futures for communities, we will not be moved.” Now, Traditional Owners have to fight industry, government, and the ecomodernists as well. |
|
Australia’s Industry Department is bluffing in employing staff for non existent nuclear waste project
|
Kazzi Jai, Fight to stop nuclear waste in South Australia, 19 Dec 20,
Have I missed something? Or two things actually?
Unless Minister Pitt has DECLARED the Napandee site right now as per current legislation….NOPE…or Senate passed the Amendments at last sitting ….NOPE….then is this a case of DIIS bluffing it yet again? If you ain’t got it bluff it?
And AWRA has employed ANSTO – who by the way is the MAIN CUSTOMER OF THIS DUMP – to tender for it for them! In their own words…
“ANSTO has been engaged by ARWA to provide a broad range of services to develop the NRWMF engineering design, and associated safety, security and operational framework. This tender is for the appointment of a lead engineering consultant (Consultant) to support ANSTO in progressing the project from the current concept design through to preliminary design”
BIZARRE!
Oh…and by the way Ms Chard –
THERE WAS NO BROAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT ACHIEVED!
Just because you say it and want it …. doesn’t actually make it so!
The FACTS speak for themselve
New engineering partner to assist with design on radioactive waste facility https://www.industry.gov.au/news/new-engineering-partner-to-assist-with-design-on-radioactive-waste-facility?fbclid=IwAR0RnDaKhcv6r07tmyQvhBRzRNDuyn4VfpLhf6KLyWb9bE7T8IFJ09EeCWI |
|
Analysing Christopher Pyne’s article enthusing about proposed Kimba nuclear waste dump
Examining Pyne’s article in The Advertiser – Outdated leftie ideas let nuclear option go to waste. G. Bannon 8 Dec 20
Pyne claimed to be in the thick of things with Nick Minchin in 1998 whenHoward was wanting to get a dump established. There are so many things wrong with his article, – (but if you try to address every single one no one would ever listen to you.
He knows how many jobs they were talking about in his day but says there will be 45 jobs during construction and 25 permanent jobs. When he was involved they were talking about 5 jobs – we’ve all heard that blow out to 15, then 45 and then more than 45. 25 permanent jobs are not part of the current script! Does that 25 including the Agency in Adelaide and does it include the 12/15? security guys as well as the nuclear physicists in white overalls driving all the forklifts?
* He doesn’t mention Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW)
* He wonders where in the world those opposing the dump think
Australia’s waste should go. I haven’t heard one person who opposes the
dump say Australia’s waste should go somewhere else.
* He thinks it’s a “no brainer” that the waste should go in “Outback
South Australia”. Kimba is remote, but it’s cleared, developed, settled and populated – it’s not “Outback”. Woomera might be getting closer to “Outback”. He doesn’t mention that.
* He reckons those opposing the dump have “outdated leftie ideology”
and Penny Wong “should be putting Kimba above kale” (Good, funny old Pyney -It’s such a clever line he says it twice)! I wonder how the kale harvest went at Kimba this year? I assume that big shed by the road, just before you get into Kimba, stores all the bales of kale to feed those leftie,
Greenie, tree-hugging, NIMBY activists!
* He, Pitty, Rowan and all their mates just want to get this done! Its
hung around too long. “It’s time” (sounds like a Labor slogan from the
past, doesn’t it?) to make the hard decisions. I say always be very wary of
people who want to push you into making quick decisions! What’s the saying?
– “Decide in haste, repent at leisure!”
* He says it is a $200 million project and says the community will
benefit by $31 million. We know the breakdown – $20 million for the
Community Benefit Programme, $8 million ($2 million/year for 4 years) to
assist businesses to take part in construction and $3 million for Indigenous training and engagement: 20 + 8 + 3 = $31 million – Who or what gets the remaining $169 million?
* He reckons that a dump in Kimba “would be preferable to the more
than 40 sites in the CBD”, then says that the Bill might be defeated by “not in my backyard NIMBYism”. He lives in Adelaide and wants the stuff to go to Kimba – Not In His Back Yard!
Corrupt spinning of Small Nuclear Reactors -Australia beware – theme for December 2020
With the financial collapse of the nuclear industry, and with the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty coming into force soon, the nuclear lobby is pitching a pack of lies, as it desperately promotes Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs.).
Australia is not immune to this corrupt spin. Indeed, Australia is a sitting duck
Australian children targetted for propaganda by the weapons industry
education https://www.michaelwest.com.au/reputation-laundering-weapons-companies-now-infiltrating-schools-to-promote-education/, by Michelle Fahy | Nov 27, 2020 A Lockheed missile blows up a bus full of Yemeni children; in Australia Lockheed Martin gains kudos by sponsoring the National Youth Science Forum. BAE Systems sponsors underprivileged kids in Australia while being complicit in the killing of thousands of needy children in Yemen. All you see in industry marketing pitches is euphemism, with nary a mention of the word “weapons”. Michelle Fahy reports.
The UK’s largest weapons-maker, BAE, is working inside Saudi Arabia supporting Saudi-United Arab Emirates military operations in Yemen, a war that has killed or injured tens of thousands of civilians, including thousands of children.
Meanwhile in Australia, BAE sponsors The Smith Family’s STEM education program for under-privileged children.
Flagrant hypocrisy? Welcome to the weapons business.
Then there’s Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest weapons-maker, also raking in billions from the Yemen war. A Lockheed missile blew up a bus full of Yemeni school children in 2018, killing at least 29 kids and injuring dozens more. Back in Australia, Lockheed was cultivating kudos with kids as major sponsor of the National Youth Science Forum, a registered charity.
US missile-making giant Raytheon also continues to supply the Saudi-UAE coalition, despite evidence of numerous attacks with Raytheon missiles that targeted and killed civilians, including children. No mention of that in Australia. Instead, Aussie school kids had fun hanging out with the young Australian snowboarding paralympian Raytheon hired to front the launch of its Maths Alive! STEM program.
The French company supplying Australia’s new submarines, Naval Group, is at the centre of multiple corruption scandals globally, some of which involved murder. That hasn’t stopped Naval promoting itself as a model future employer, with the help of Port Adelaide footy heroes, to 90,174 kids in 329 South Australian schools since 2017.
And let’s not forget the list of sponsors of the Australian War Memorial, Legacy, Invictus Games and Soldier On, which include numerous weapons-making corporations.
There’s a name for this cynical behaviour: reputation laundering. And nearly every weapons company is doing it.
Promoted as innovators
The world’s weapons producers have taken with gusto to promoting themselves as innovators in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). Military industry has adopted the STEM mantra to target children and young people as future employees, usually with the willing partnership of respected educational institutions. Many, if not most, Australian universities now have joint agreements, strategic partnerships or some other form of collaboration with the weapons industry.
The sales pitch is, join us for an exciting and challenging high-tech career in science. This enthusiastic support of STEM serves two purposes: reputation laundering is one, the other is as a recruitment drive. STEM provides a socially acceptable way to promote the weapons industry to children, and parents, as a potential employer.
There’s nothing wrong with promoting STEM education, or seeking new employees. The issue is the way these companies are now targeting children as young as primary school age, with the full support of government. (eg. The MD of weapons-maker Saab Technologies is on the South Australian education board.) The problem is the spin and glamour applied to increased militarism, with pertinent information omitted from the marketing. Warfare isn’t mentioned, for starters.
There’s nothing about how the kids will use their STEM education to enhance the ‘lethality’ of their employer’s products. Or about a future where employees have eliminated the need for human involvement in the ‘kill chain’ by creating autonomous robotic devices to make those decisions. (This is not science fiction, these research and development programs are already under way.) Working on nuclear weapons isn’t discussed, either.
You won’t find the underlying arms manufacturing realities in the STEM marketing by weapons giants. In fact, you’ll be hard pressed to find the word “weapons” at all.
A world of euphemism
Instead, you’ll enter a world of euphemism: “high end technology company”, “leading systems integrator”, “security and aerospace company”, “defence technology and innovation company”. It’s also a fair bet you’re reading weapons company marketing if you see the phrase “solving complex problems”. Especially if there’s mention of working to make the world safer and more secure.
The following are a few examples of many in which multinational weapons corporations are co-opting organisations of good purpose in Australia.
BAE and The Smith Family
BAE operates inside Saudi Arabia, training Saudi pilots, maintaining Saudi’s BAE-supplied fighter jets, and supervising Saudi soldiers as they load bombs onto the planes. Indiscriminate bombing, a well-known feature of the Yemen war, has killed or injured tens of thousands of civilians, including children.
BAE has earned £15 billion from sales to the Saudis since 2015 when the Yemen war started. A BAE maintenance employee was quoted last year saying, “If we weren’t there, in 7 to 14 days there wouldn’t be a jet in the sky.”
BAE’s role in helping the Saudis prolong the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen has been pointed out more than once to The Smith Family since news broke of its sponsorship by BAE. Understandably, The Smith Family has responded defensively along the lines that critics are trying to steal an education from needy Australian children.
But what about the tens of thousands of needy children starved, maimed, and killed on the other side of the world? BAE Systems has given The Smith Family a mere $100,000 – about 0.3% of The Smith Family’s $36.3 million in non-government fundraising income.
Cheap reputational PR for a company that has gained tens of billions of dollars in defence contracts in Australia, while facilitating war crimes elsewhere.
Raytheon and Maths Alive!
Raytheon has marketed this program to children across America, the Middle East and Australia. Raytheon’s intention? To reach children at an early age and create a “healthy pipeline” from primary education, through secondary, to tertiary studies, to secure its future workforce.
The then Assistant Minister for Defence David Fawcett lent his support to the 2018 Australian launch of Maths Alive!, telling media: “I welcome the ongoing commitment by Raytheon to engage young Australians by helping them visualise what a career in science or engineering might look like.”
Lockheed Martin and National Youth Science Forum
The National Youth Science Forum was created by Rotary, which remains involved. The forum, now run by a board chaired by former senator Kate Lundy, has several programs, the flagship program being for Year 12 students interested in science.
Each year about 600 students complete the program, which exposes students to various career pathways in science. Since Lockheed started as major sponsor in 2015, students visit Lockheed Martin laboratories and speak with Lockheed staff as part of the program. (Watch a short video here from Lockheed’s website with some students.)
The National Youth Science Forum’s website does not mention Lockheed’s dominant influence as the world’s No. 1 weapons manufacturer or its significant role in producing nuclear weapons. Lockheed’s role in civil sectors is covered, however this work constitutes a minor aspect of its business. The most recent information from Stockholm International Peace Research says 88% of Lockheed’s revenue comes from arms sales.
Lockheed Martin and the Gallipoli Sponsorship Fund
This year Lockheed Martin became the first corporate partner of the Gallipoli Scholarship Fund. This partnership includes the new $120,000 Lockheed Martin Australia Bursary for the educational benefit of descendants of Australian veterans.
One of the aims of the Gallipoli Scholarship Fund is to contribute “to the future security of our nation and our national values of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law”.
Nuclear weapons will become illegal under international law in January 2021 when the new UN treaty prohibiting them comes into force. The world’s nine nuclear-armed countries haven’t signed it – nor their hangers-on, including Australia – so it won’t apply to them. But two-thirds of the world’s countries (including New Zealand) did vote to bring the treaty into being, banning the world’s worst weapons of mass destruction, and setting a new global norm.
Professor Ramesh Thakur, Director of the Centre for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament at the Australian National University, has said, “The ban treaty embodies the collective moral revulsion of the international community.”
The awkward truth is that the Gallipoli Scholarship Fund’s new corporate partner, Lockheed Martin, is one of the largest nuclear-weapons-producing companies on the planet. Lockheed is all set to provide its 12 bursaries from now through to the end of 2023.
Such are the ethical dilemmas these weapons corporations create for organisations doing good work that are in need of funding.
Morally indefensible positions
Such sponsorships might appear less self-serving if weapons companies behaved consistently, and stopped supplying weapons to war criminals. Claiming they are just doing the bidding of the US or UK governments in supplying the Saudis, as these companies have, is not a morally defensible position, particularly in the face of evidence of ongoing war crimes in Yemen.
Similarly, claims that they are committed to serving the national interest might be more believable if they ceased bribing and scamming their way into the next arms deal, or concocting endless ways to extend and inflate government contracts and invoices for their own corporate financial benefit, blatantly siphoning funds from the public purse.
Exposing the deceptions of Keith Pitt, Minister for Resources, on the failed nuclear waste dump plan
Peter Remta, 23 Nov 20, With some reluctance and an apology I really must now enter the fray because of the misleading and disingenuous statements on behalf of the government regarding the choice of Kimba for the government’s nuclear waste facility
on Keith Pitt, Minister forResources
Pitt keeps claiming that Kimba is “marginal” and “low value” land and hence the ideal site for the nuclear waste facility yet it is regarded as one of the prime and best agricultural areas in this country with an international reputation as to the wheat crop from that region
He is arguing against strong opinion and advice from many agricultural experts and economists
His next claim is that Kimba is the ideal and most suitable location for the facility which is completely at odds from the knowledgeable opinions and advice by international experts in nuclear waste management
In justifying the storage of intermediate level waste at Kimba Pitt claims that it will take many years and huge expense to find and develop a suitable permanent disposal facility for that waste
This is completely false as the Leonora site for an underground nuclear waste repository has been described by one of the leading and largest nuclear waste engineering consultants asglobally an outstanding location for the proposed underground repository
This view is shared by many other overseas experts who cannot understand Australia’s proposals for the above program facility at Kimba
Added to this the Leonora site can be brought to operational standards in line with all international safety requirements and prescriptions for less than $50 million compared to the government estimate of up to $350 million for the inadequate facility at Kimba
This is shown by the concept planning and designs already undertaken for the repository at Leonora which are far more advanced than the government’s proposals for Kimba
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) – disingenuous and inept promotion of Kimba nuclear waste dump
If anyone has viewed the Senate estimates hearing on Thursday 29 October 2020 with regard to ANSTO then I am sure they will be concerned at the ill-prepared and unconvincing explanations by its management which at times verged on being completely disingenuous. If this is the major federal government entity on which there is so much reliance for the establishment of the planned nuclear waste facility at Kimba in South Australia then the whole nation and not just the local community should be seriously worried about the capability of ANSTO which contrary to its self serving promotion and publicity is not held in high regard internationally
This extends to the Department of Industry Science Energy and Resources and the other agencies involved with the proposed nuclear waste facility at Kimba and demonstrates the ineptness and lack of competence on the part of the government in its various capacities in trying to establish the facility
Because of this it is very likely that the facility will not obtain the necessary licence for its establishment and operations and in any case the enabling legislation will be rejected by the Senate
It therefore defies logic for the government’s continued persistence with the Kimba proposal including the ministerial visit to Napandee farm yesterday which apparently failed to achieve anything as to a resolution of the inherent communityproblems – perhaps a political photo opportunity or confirmation at last that Napandee is a farm and not a community?
http://www.aph.gov.au Watch parliament Senate, Economics Legislation Committee
(Senate Estimates) Thu, 29 Oct 2020 Part 1 at 9.00 am EST
Frazer Nash and The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) want nuclear power – “good for the environment”!!
SACOME pushes SA Government to back nuclear energy, Australian Mining
SACOME has also called for the state government to fund a nuclear energy forum, with South Australia holding 25 per cent of the world’s uranium resources and 80 per cent of Australia’s total uranium supply.
The chamber stated that the economic value of the nuclear fuel cycle needs to be re-examined due to the refinement and commercialisation of small modular reactors, which would be financially bolstered by South Australia’s renewable energy supply.
“SACOME supports the chief entrepreneur’s statements and calls upon the Marshall Government to establish a Nuclear Energy Forum to advance the conversation about development of a South Australian nuclear industry.”
According to Frazer Nash head of Australian business Jonathan Armstrong, the nuclear energy forum would reap positive results [??] for the environment………..https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/sacome-pushes-sa-government-to-back-nuclear-energy/
South Australia’s Jim Whalley provides nonsensical and misleading propaganda, spruiking small nuclear reactors
A military industry enterprise senior adviser to SA State gov is spruiking pro-International Nuclear Waste multi-decade–storage (not disposal), claiming ‘free’ nuclear energy in future, wanting to sell uranium processed into fuel rods with contracted high-level nuclear waste ‘return’ to SA, this is propaganda, non-sense and misleading.
And, by the way, The Advertiser, a pro nuclear right-wing paper, runs a poll on this – but only subscribers to this biased rag, are able to vote. Hardly suprsing that they get a pro nuclear result!
Chief entrepreneur Jim Whalley urges free nuclear power in South Australia, Nuclear energy would link up with renewable powerhouses and turn SA into a hi-tech Mecca, our chief entrepreneur says. Paul Starick, Chief Reporter, The Advertiser, Subscriber only, November 2, 2020
Chief entrepreneur, Jim Whalley, urges SA look at providing free energy through a combination of renewable and nuclear fuel, capitalising on technology advances to use small reactors to power towns across the state.
Premier Steven Marshall’s hand-picked chief entrepreneur is urging SA to consider providing free energy by coupling nuclear power with renewables to exploit a “real, natural advantage”.
Jim Whalley says hi-tech small modular nuclear reactors could be used to power places such as Adelaide, Whyalla, Port Lincoln and Mt Gambier.
Mr Whalley, who was appointed South Australia’s first chief entrepreneur in 2018 and is tasked with positioning the state as a destination for innovation, said embracing all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle was a great opportunity that should be re-examined.
Mr Whalley, the chairman of defence firm Nova Systems and a former fighter jet pilot, told an Advertiser virtual roundtable of business leaders his “big idea” to kickstart the state from a coronavirus-induced recession was to examine free energy.
“I think energy is a real natural advantage we should have. I’d like to see us looking at providing free energy,” he said.
“We should be able to do it with renewables. We can definitely do it if we get smart about nuclear. We’ve got 42 per cent of the world’s mineable uranium. Even if we don’t start using nuclear energy, we can at least start supplying fuel rods, bring them all back, so they’re not used in weapons and bits and pieces like that. I think that does need to be looked at again.
“On the renewable side, we’ve got wind, we’ve got solar, we’ve got batteries – we should be the petri dish for future energy, and I’d like to see us take a real step forward there.”
Mr Whalley said this would make SA extremely attractive for energy-intensive industries, such as aluminium production.
“With the technology the way it’s evolving now, that stuff that we bring back and store now in another 20 years will actually be able to be used again,” said Mr Whalley, whose chief entrepreneur role is unpaid.
In November 2016, Mr Marshall withdrew support for further study of the case for a high-level nuclear waste repository, with the Liberals citing serious risks on both revenue and cost sides of the business case produced for the royal commission.
Energy and Mining Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan said the 2016 royal commission made it clear large nuclear power generators were not economically viable.
“Small modular reactors have been proposed for several years now, but have not yet been proven up or available,” he said. “If small modular reactors become available in the future, we will assess whether they might be appropriate for our needs.”
He said SA was becoming a clean energy exporter, resulting in cheaper power. https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/chief-entrepreneur-jim-whalley-urges-free-nuclear-power-in-south-australia/news-story/f0030d70b8c61535e0c79b090831a5be
1.This month
For international nuclear news go to https://nuclear-news.ne
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
