Australian news, and some related international items

The truth about Lucas Heights and the supposed medical need for the nuclear reactor


Kazzi Jai shared a link. 18 Feb 19, Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges

X-rays and CAT scanners (which use x-rays) in hospitals do not use radioactive sources. The films from X-rays are very valuable due to their silver content, and can be recycled if they are no longer required. There are now hospitals which are using phosphor flat plate detectors on their X-ray machines, so that a digital image is obtained and kept on hospital computer files instead of generating a film.

The disposable items such as gloves, gowns, sheets etc used in hospitals for loved ones using nuclear medicine are withheld for a period of 10 or more days, then deemed, according to safety regulations, to be safe to be discarded in normal waste.

Of the isotopes which ANSTO – Lucas Heights reactor produces, only 28% are actually used in Australian Hospitals. The rest – 72% – are sent overseas. Which is interesting as the majority of Lucas Heights reactor use is for nuclear medical isotope production!
And of that 28% which is quoted as used in Australian hospitals, the majority of those isotopes are used for nuclear medical imaging – the rest is for treatment. So in fact actual nuclear medical treatment using isotopes is very small.

Also noteworthy is that now cyclotron/imaging partnership locations are found in all of the capital cities in Australia including Darwin – only Hobart does not. This means there will be less reliance on the isotope production from Lucas Heights, as cyclotrons allow generation of isotopes for imaging on site, and do not utilize radioactive sources such as a nuclear reactor to generate them! In other words they do not produce nuclear waste!

In Adelaide you will find the cyclotron and an imaging partnership in the SAHMRI building.

And ANSTO is heavily involved in the cyclotron sector as well. They have a cyclotron in Sydney and a similar piece of equipment called a synchrotron in Melbourne. But you rarely hear about those in South Australia……..

The solution to the waste generated at Lucas Heights – and they have the majority of the nuclear waste generated in Australia by the way, because they generate it there – is to keep it at Lucas Heights!

They claim it is safe there – then keep it there, until they have found a way to properly deal with the Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste, and the Low Level Nuclear Waste can follow that!

Double handling of Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste is NOT World’s Best Practice! Neither is transporting nuclear waste over 1500+kms away from where it is generated!

And Lucas Heights has plenty of space to deal with its waste – and we have been told by DIIS and ARPANSA that should a suitable site not be found, that production of isotopes would not be affected nor Lucas Heights licensing and regulations be affected, and they would simply build more buildings to accomodate it.

Oh….and here is a link on how X-rays in hospitals (both used in X-ray machines and CAT scanners) are generated, if you are interested –



February 19, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, reference, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Nuclear Engineering company Frazer Nash increasing its pro nuclear lobbying in Australia

Steve Dale, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 11 Feb 19 
First we had UCL here lobbying for nuclear. Now we have an increased presence of “Frazer-Nash Consultancy”. Is this just another way of influencing a government from within? Is the ultimate art of lobbying when you get the target of the lobbying to pay you as a consultant? The page below is a bit of a concern – it mentions Ben Heard several times as “latest news”; it also involves the Premier and talks about the Federal “low level” nuclear dump –

“Since opening its first Australian office in 2010 Frazer-Nash has supported high-profile South Australian projects including ……. the Federal Government’s initiative to develop a low level radioactive waste disposal facility, …..”…/south-australia-premier-o…

February 10, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Australian promoters of the coal industry also promote nuclear – as a delaying tactic

Steve Dale Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, January 29    I’ve put this up a few times as a comment, but the more I think about it, its significance grows for me. It is a statement by Barnaby Joyce in Parliament. I am not picking on Joyce, in fact I thank him for revealing the normally secretive workings of nuclear lobbying in Canberra. Here it is –

Hansard: Mr. Joyce, Parliament, on the 29/3/2017 “Even today we had one of our leading energy producers, ERM, in my office saying that, if the Victorians think they are going to fix it by gas, at $10 a gigajoule the gas power price would be $100 a kilowatt-hour. He said that at that price you should look at small modular nuclear reactors because they would probably be cheaper than the solution that is being suggested.”

Why would ERM suggest using Small Modular Nuclear reactors when they don’t actually exist?

The only answer I can think of is as a delaying tactic. Don’t go to “gas” (or renewables) because around the corner will be a magical nuclear reactor to solve all problems – in the mean time, we will keep supplying profitable coal fired power to you.

How much of this secretive, manipulative nuclear lobbying of poor gullible politicians has gone on in Canberra? At least Joyce gave us a glimpse.

January 31, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Tania Constable – a new spruiker for Australia’s coal-nuclear lobby

Australia’s coal and nuclear lobbies have just recruited a new puppet, Independent Australia,  25 January 2019, Newly-appointed Mining Council CEO Tania Constable has been championing nuclear power at a time when we should be discussing renewables, writes Noel Wauchope.WHAT BAD TIMING. Only in dictatorships – Russia and China – is nuclear power thriving. In the Western world, it’s problematic due to costs and waste issues. As for coal, even China is working to phase it out.

In Australia, renewable energy is going ahead in leaps and bounds. Our coal-loving Liberal Coalition Government is so on the nose, they’ll be forgotten men within a few months.

But never mind, Australia’s fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies are on the propaganda trail and they’ve just recruited a new puppet, Tania Constable. Appointed as CEO of the Mining Councilin July last year, Ms Constable’s first job is to mouth the standard pro-coal and nuclear platitudes. Here she goes.

A headline in the 22 January edition of The Daily Telegraph reads: ‘Heatwaves proof positive Australia needs nuclear’.

In the article, Constable says:

“Energy costs are rising and renewables can’t meet all our needs but a new generation of clean reactors could.”

‘Heatwaves proof positive Australia needs nuclear’?No, Tania, proof positive that Australia needs solar air conditioners. She seems unaware of the fact that nuclear power is highly water intensive, and subject to shutdowns due to hot weather.

Ms Constable mourns that:

“The influx of part-time power sources such as wind and solar which make it more difficult for older baseload power stations to operate will likely see the early closure of a number of them well before 2030.”

So, it’s renewable energy’s fault that coal is not doing well? She goes on to enthuse about “baseload” power — coal, of course. But that’s seen as a myth, nowdays, as reliable power is no longer synonymous with coal.

She has a bash at the AEMO and CSIRO:

[They] missed a golden opportunity of lowering power prices, ensuring reliability and lowering emissions through advanced coal technology.”

She doesn’t mention the high costs of this advanced coal technology, needing government subsidy and the fact that it’s not all that clean anyway.

Now she gets to her main point – changing the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 – which happens to be due for review this year.

“The removal of four words — ‘a nuclear power plant’ — in Section 140A(1) (b) would allow nuclear industries to be considered for development in Australia.”

Ms Constable writes approvingly of nuclear power in countries around the world – not a mention of the financial problems of nuclear power development in UK and USA, and Japan, too.  Not a mention of the nuclear waste problems…..

[She goes on to praise “new nukes’ – Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, singling out Terra Power and Transatomics, – But]

First of all, Bill Gates has just had the door slammed on his TerraPower project. He’s closed it down for now, but hopes to find a country that will back it.

Secondly, Transatomic has also had a big setback. Its nuclear start-up folded, in disarray. This company was spruiked by an enthusiastic young woman, Leslie Dewan. The nuclear lobby seems to pick them for the poisoned chalice of propaganda work.,12313

January 26, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Warren Mundine, new Liberal candidate, makes it clear that he is pro coal and nuclear, and anti environment

January 24, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Busting the nuclear lobby’s spin about Small Modular Reactors (SMRs

Steve Dale, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, 23 Jan 19

The nuclear lobby seems to have got a foothold with gullible miners. Ben Heard will be attending “Energy Mines and Money” in Brisbane (June). From the “About” section of the conference – “Energy Mines and Money Australia will showcase the east coast’s strategic mineral, coal and oil and gas opportunities, and match projects with global investment.”

He will be talking about “The role of small modular reactors”. From my observations, the role of small modular reactors is as fantasy bait for gullible politicians, miners, broadcasters – basically anyone silly enough to believe that these things are available, portable and small. A concept picture of a “small” reactor appears below (remember, the red arrow points to a tiny human figure for scale).

January 24, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster, technology | Leave a comment

The global nuclear lobby co-opts academia- now they’ve got University of Tasmania

IAEA and University of Tasmania Sign Practical Arrangements Agreement to Enhance Cooperation in Human Health, Agriculture, Environment and Marine Sciences 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. …..

January 8, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Education | Leave a comment

Scientists refute the nuclear lobby’s paper “Burden of Proof”


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  

December 30, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Nuclear lobby revs up its frenzied campaign in Australia. Ben Heard is their front man.

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.

Steve Dale “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.

October 29, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | 1 Comment

Ben Heard and pro nuclear company Frazer Nash pushing for nuclear Australia



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 | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Australia’s 60 Minutes – on Fukushima – a nuclear infomercial

October 25, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, media, spinbuster | 2 Comments

Nuclear lobby is targeting women with propaganda

ANSTO CEO Says There are Real, Lasting and Meaningful Careers for Women in Nuclear  Adi Paterson, CEO of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO), talks about his vision of the future of nuclear science and technology and what role women could play in it.Mr. Paterson will be a speaker at the upcoming IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Science and Technology: Addressing Current and Emerging Development Challenges, in Vienna, Austria, from 28 to 30 November 2018. The event will be livestreamed at

You can watch Mr Paterson’s presentation on 30 November 2018.

October 18, 2018 Posted by | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Japanese, Australian and other world governments toe the nuclear industry’s line on radiation

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 | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | Leave a comment

The truth about earthquake effects on Fukushima’s nuclear reactors

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 | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Busting Barry Brook’s uninformed propaganda about Fukushima nuclear disaster

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

“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 | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, reference, spinbuster | Leave a comment